The Confederate Flag: A Disturbing Trend?

reply to post by Erno86


Yessir, Gramps was there at Monocacy, Frederickburg, Chambersburg, Winchester, and the Valley Campaign in general, including the failed attempt to capture DC. I have my doubts about them corpsing civilian wells, although it's not beyond the realm of the possible. The only potential justification I would be able to muster is denial of the water to Union troops, but that would deny it to the Confederates as well as the civilians, which is why I have my doubts. Poisoning wells isn't a good idea, since you never know when you may have to backtrack that way, and will need the water yourself, but it's sometimes done - the Soviets did it in Afghanistan as well, with poison in yellow cans, not corpses.

Chambersburg and Fredericksburg I have no doubts about at all, and IMO it wasn't their finest hour. Chambersburg wasn't burned as a military objective, it was burned because they either refused or were unable to raise the ransom money. Fredericksburg was spared because they did raise it. I suppose the intent was to pull Union troops off as reinforcements from the Battle of the Pit just outside Richmond, a meatgrinder of it's own. You can see a re-enactment of it at the beginning of the movie "Cold Mountain".

It wasn't a pretty war, but none are.

This past spring I went to that area, including the Valley and a run through Fredericksburg. Beautiful town, seems to have a character all it's own, and something of a timeless quality, especially the downtown area.

Atrocities were committed, on both sides. Champ Ferguson, a guerrilla from Kentucky on the Confederate side, was eventually tried and hung for atrocities he committed. I suspect that he would have been tried and hung no matter which side had won. After the Battle of Saltville, VA (in my neck of the woods, not far from where I was raised), his outfit slaughtered wounded prisoners, mostly from the all-black 5th United States Colored Cavalry and their white officers. Killed a lot of 'em right in their hospital beds. Those atrocities were only stopped upon arrival of Thomas' Legion of Cherokee Indians and Highlanders. When the regulars arrived, Ferguson and his crew skied out of there before they could be apprehended.

Seems to me that had he been caught then, the Confederates would have likely hung him.

All of that is a matter of history, but not a matter of a flag. It's a matter of misconduct by very real men, who would likely have been hung if caught by their very own, also marching under the same banner. I could tell you a tale of a man shot by his own sergeant in a more recent war for rape, right in the middle of a battle in a village, or of Tecumseh killing one of his own men for abusing a prisoner, but I won't. The thing is that flags and other emblems don't fly over a monolithic block of automatons. They fly over individuals, some good, some bad, some just downright ugly and psychopathic. The same flag flies over corrupt hearts as flies over radiant hearts, and to ban it or redefine it's meaning on strength of the uglier sort does a disservice to the better men among them by tarring them with the same brush.

reply to post by femalepharoe

And to Mr.Redneck. I'm familiar with your kind. Unfortunately you saying that you had to train youself from saying "'n-word'" so frequently as thats what you were raised on (so sometimes does it just slip out?) - really disqualifies you from speaking on African American History , as it implicates that your sources and research are most likely overwhelmingly bias.... However, the fact that you are a white southern man who supports the rebel flag but still thinks of black people (in your mind) as 'n-word's , I guess proves my point......

You know my kind?



What if I told you that picture is a fake and I am really a black guy in his mid-30s? Oh, you just told a black man you "know his kind"!

No, the picture is not fake, but the point is that if I were to say that to someone of a different race, it would be interpreted as racist hate speech. Yet, here you say it to me and contend that I am still racist. Wow, what a double standard! Someone call Guinness! I think we have a winner for the most obvious double standard ever.

What everyone else seems to be overlooking in this thread, and what I have been trying to illustrate is that no matter how much we as a society try to remove racism from among ourselves, it grows instead of withering. Every time we try to stamp out racism, we tend to become racist in our own actions, and actually increase the problem. This thread is a perfect example; it started off with a comment about how racist a flag was. It has then gone through all the stages I have come to anticipate: argument over prior use of the flag by racist groups, then appeals to not offend others, then argument about how racist the creators were without considering chronological context, and now a resort to trying to show how the defenders of the flag are truly racist.

In every step, racism has reared its ugly head,

I am sure you expect me to defend myself. Not gonna do it, Not even gonna try. I learned a long time ago that any such attempt is useless. If I say I have black friends, you want to know why I categorize my friends by color. If I say I have no black friends, you want to know why I discriminate. If I say I don't care what color my friends are, you say it's obvious why, since someone as racist as I am obviously has only white friends.

You see, you claim to "know my kind"... but you know nothing. Anyone familiar with the South and the history thereof knows just how little knowledge you possess. Everyone else is talking about things they do not know.

I, on the other hand, have walked down this little road many times. I know you, as someone like you always seems to be directing traffic.

Bottom line is this: it does not matter how you see me. I am who I am, and I have no intention of changing who I am because someone with a gaping lack of information wants me to. If you think that makes me racist, oh well. Your thoughts do not control reality. I will still continue to deny racism toward anyone, and decry those who have changed the definition of racism in their mind from "denigration of someone based on skin color, nationality, or origin" to "being white in the southern US". And yes, I will continue to fly my flag, high and proud.

I know what it stands for. You know what you think it stands for.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by sonnny1

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Slavery was in common practice across the nation, not just in the South.

TheRedneck

That I do know Redneck,but......Its not written into the ORIGINAL constitution.

Those States wrote it into their Constitution,thus legitimizing it,to the point of using the word "Negro" . There is no doubt the intentions.

That being said. I do not think flying the flag,represents the want or the need to be racist,or wanting to own slaves. I believe it mean now,Southern Pride,and there is nothing wrong with that,as long as the belief to hold onto slavery,isnt there. Some may take offense to it,but I am of mixed decent,and I have no hostility's to have ANYONE flying that flag,as long as its not those who are flying it for nefarious reasons......

reply to post by sonnny1

I see it more as a knee-jerk reaction to just the latest in a long line of problems...

Back when I was driving a truck OTR, every time I left one company for another (a common practice in the industry), I would invariably ask about the latest issue I had problems with. If my company was refusing to fix safety violations, that was my focus when choosing another company, even though I had had problems with other issues, like home time, previously as well. Humans tend to focus on the immediate issues of the time.

Today we face multiple issues as well... TSA patdowns, remote cameras, increasing police brutality, unfunded mandates on individuals, lack of adequate employment... but ask someone on the street what the greatest issue is and you will hear what most recently confronted them. The guy who got a ticket in the mail yesterday will talk about hidden traffic cameras while the guy who got another stack of bills he cannot pay will talk about unemployment. That doesn't mean the other problems they face are not problems as well.

Now we look back onto that history in the context of modern society, and see slavery mentioned. Of course it was! Slavery was one of the issues of the day, an issue being pressed by the northern states; I have never disputed that. What I dispute is that slavery was the primary issue overall, or that slavery has anything to do with flying the Confederate Flag today.

Of everyone I know in the South, no one, with the possible exception of a few skinheads or KKK members, would consider slavery anything less than a crime against humanity. Those few exceptions are now irrelevant to society down here. No one is proposing a return to slavery in any way, despite what those ignorant of the culture would have us believe. As a matter of fact, that self-same flag is flown to protest slavery as it exists today: the slavery of forced poverty and governmental mandates on free people.

And all men are created with the inalienable right to liberty. That truth we hold to be self-evident.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


I hear ya Red. My problem was not with you,or your remarks,but with TankerPilot and what he said. I didnt want to hear revisionist thinking. There are many reasons why the South did what they did. When you get 90+ Stars for this comment though,and no one rebuts it with facts,well........I just had to.I stand by what I said,even though many dont want to hear it.

Nonsense. Do a little research willya? The Civil War was NOT about race. It was about states rights. It wasnt until after the emancipation proclaimation that the war became about race and slavery

Which by showing a an actual document,this whole pretense in saying that, was false.PERIOD. I did my research. If Slavery wasnt an issue,or at the forefront,the word NEGRO wouldnt have been in the damn document in the first place.

Redneck,

I'm from Lynchburg Va.

Again,

I know your kind.

And Actually on this computer I couldnt even see your picture. Even if I could, I didn't understand your spill on that.

You all shall soon see. I make statements, I'm not here to argue so when I referrenced you I wasn't expecting you to do anything.

However, I think this is the perfect example of how "Southerners" view this as a "me vs them" situation. I know I have stated several times in this thread that I was born and raised in the south yet all I keep hearing is "if you knew anything about the south" "this symbol is their symbol, you can't speak on it" ..blah blah blah.

It does not occur to confederate flag enthusiasts that you can be a southerner and not support the flag. Obviously then, the flag has nothing to do with the Civil War , but with a culture and mentality.

reply to post by Erno86


I am quite sure and the events you reference are not related but from 2 different campaigns.
The battle of South Mountain preceded Lee's first Invasion that ended with the battle of Antietam on 9/17/1862.
Bodies were thrown down a well by a local farmer who was paid by the Union to dispose of the bodies, neither Confederates nor Union troops would have condoned this method of burial. For several hundred dollars per body the farmer figured he could afford to buy himself a new home so something like 87 corpses were thrown down the well.

The battle of Monocacy (1864) came after the affair at Frederick Md, where Jubal Early did indeed extort $200,000 from the locals under threat of burning the town, something he did not do. This was in reprisal for the burnings of farms and mills in the Shenandoah valley done previously by Union forces in Virginia.

Chambersburg, PA was burned to the ground by Confederate cavalry under Mc Causland, I believe, an act committed under his authority alone, No orders were given by superiors to condone such an act.

reply to post by femalepharoe


Hi femalepharoe,

Greetings from Fort Hill!

What I and perhaps some others are arguing here is not that all Southerners should support flying the Confederate flag but that the thought that displaying the flag equates with support for slavery is an over-generalization and smear campaign against those who simply wish to claim it as part of their heritage.

My ancestors fought for the Confederacy, yet none of them owned slaves according to the census records my father has researched. I was very fortunate growing up to have Harold Howard (now of Howard publishing, the largest publisher of Civil war reference books) as my History teacher. I spent nearly 20 years doing work and research for the American Historical Foundation and have nearly 40 years of independent research on the subject.
The public educational system and most Colleges have been teaching a simplified, politically-correct version of Civil War history that assigns all blame for the war on the issue of slavery. Anything contradicting that view is simply ignored in their curriculum. Slavery was an important factor in the reasons for why it happened but it was far from being the only factor.
This is the view that I object to and am attempting to rectify in this thread.

And no, I have never cruised Wards road in a Chevelle with Stars and bars on it, I drive Toyotas.

I thank you for attempting to clear up your view point on what makes one who flys the confederate flag a terrorist. If I were to take every point in this posting that has me sitting here frankly scratching my head and refute it, it would end up being several posts long. So I've had to think on which points bother me the most and you'll find my response below:

Originally posted by Butterbone
The confederacy was a terrorist organization because it attempted to separate itself from the union of states.

That in no way defines a terrorist organization.

If you can prove that no confederate army troop ever brought arms to bear against a union civilian, I'll concede a significant difference between rebel and terrorist.

And if you can prove that no union army troop ever did the same, I'll eat my hat. To think that this type of behavior was limited to just one side of the war is naive at best. History tells us this kind of thing, no matter how disgusting it is, has happened on both sides of any war fought throughout history.

If you want to know why I feel that I can make these distinctions you can look at my profile. I've spent more than my share of time dealing with the subject of terrorism.

Being a graphic artist attached to several alphabet agencies hardly qualifies anyone as a terrorist/terrorism expert, no more than my degree in accouting qualifies me to be the next chair of the Federal Reserve.

So in the sense that terrorists are simply the losers in a conflict

Come again? I thought the definition involved trying to secede from the union....

If you feel that a single states rights go above the call of the whole union, then you are still a confederate, and a terrorist.

Then you may want to talk to representatives and residents of the great states of Vermont, Texas, Alaska and Hawaii. I'm sure they would be interested in hearing how you equate secession with terrorist activities and southern sympathizers. You may want to talk a little with Montana legislators as well since they seem to have a firm grasp of their rights as a state and recognize fully when the feds have overstepped their boundries. I guess one man's patriot is another man's terrorist, much like one mans trash is another's treasure.

And now for the main issue I have. This statement right here, lets break this down:

I have friends who reenact WWII skirmishes and they dress up as Nazis. They're families are german origin and they had relatives who died wearing nazi uniforms.

I dare say they also had relatives that did their fair share of killing as well while wearing same uniform, you left that part out. That being aside, his wearing a Nazi uniform for reenactments no more makes him a Nazi lover or a supporter of their ideologies than a person who today flies the Confederate battle flag wanting to go back in time to own slaves or subscribe to any disgusting racist ideology... now does it? But because you contend to know his reasons it somehow makes it OK, knowing full well that to a casual observer this could also be seen as offensive and may make someone formulate an entirely wrong opinion of him based soley on this activity alone. Formulating that erroneous opinion without knowing his true intentions..without talking to him to find out his true intentions....kind of like.. I don't know...labeling someone who flies a Confederate flag a 'terrorist' without knowing their true intentions....get the point I am making here?

You made this statement in an earlier post:

Cause you just want "your" kind of freedom,,,,you know.....for you

Pot meet kettle...kettle meet pot......

reply to post by MyMindIsMyOwn


I was trying to be honest and frank. Playing a game of tit for tat with hand picked quotes is slovenly and not interesting.
In each of the references you make you are trying to refute a single sentence out of context and without addressing the idea expressed as a whole idea.
None of my posts are an attempt to change someones opinion, or to correct false information. Trying to educate people on an internet forum is a massive waste of time. they are simple declarations of my opinions.
We have not been "arguing". This was never a debate. And since those that support the flag do so unilaterally and absolutely, there was never any chance for actual discussion.
I can say that I am sorry if my opinion offends you.
But I still feel I'm being fair and accurate and that my opinion that supporters of the the confederate principles are in fact the same type of person as an Al-Qaeda terrorist is still intact and correct.
More over, I am perplexed as to how you can completely miss the point of any of the paragraphs I have written. I really go out of my way to try to illustrate in real terms exactly what I want to be understood.
Just one example.

And now for the main issue I have. This statement right here, lets break this down: I have friends who reenact WWII skirmishes and they dress up as Nazis. They're families are german origin and they had relatives who died wearing nazi uniforms. I dare say they also had relatives that did their fair share of killing as well while wearing same uniform, you left that part out. That being aside, his wearing a Nazi uniform for reenactments no more makes him a Nazi lover or a supporter of their ideologies than a person who today flies the Confederate battle flag wanting to go back in time to own slaves or subscribe to any disgusting racist ideology... now does it? But because you contend to know his reasons it somehow makes it OK, knowing full well that to a casual observer this could also be seen as offensive and may make someone formulate an entirely wrong opinion of him based solely on this activity alone. Formulating that erroneous opinion without knowing his true intentions..without talking to him to find out his true intentions....kind of like.. I don't know...labeling someone who flies a Confederate flag a 'terrorist' without knowing their true intentions....get the point I am making here?

Your statements are in BOLD while mine are Italicized.
You ignored the rest of my statement, which was in fact critical to expressing the whole idea.
Do you remember this part of the paragraph.
They don't spend all of their time trying to convince everyone else that the Nazis were really the heroes of WWII. They accept that their families were on the wrong side of history.
You see that part. Where the actual idea is expressed. Where the first part about the reenacters is a prelude analogy, to create a frame of reference. And then once we've established a baseline of comparison, I take that analogy and express the idea through it.
And then asking if I get the point you are trying to make? Yes. Yes I "get" your point. I can't imagine how that "point" was ever in question. How the point you wanted to make was in anyway NOT completely and implicitly already expressed in my own writing.
Please point to one sentence in any of the posts I wrote that made any reference to racism?
Or even a claim of racism in association with that flag?
It was never expressed by me.
Neither was it expressed that secession itself defines terrorism. Or that losing a conflict defines terrorism.
The direct statement I made that the more people go on about their heritage, the more it sounds racist is a direct relational reference of perception. Heritage, and Legacy, and several other phrases, have been corrupted by the nazis and the klan and other xenophobic groups for a hundred years. Most people can't separate the reality from the perception. I was actually making the point that the form of expressions used by "historical enthusiasts" needs to change to help facilitate new understanding. I was offering an opinion on how to move their interests forward by looking at it from a sociological standpoint.
And yes, I know that union soldiers terrorized civilians. Good lord, I'm not sure how you are getting these ideas. In conflict humanity is washed away in tides of blood. My point is that in the eyes of history the atrocities of the north will never be seen as harshly as those of the south because the north was driving the PR campaign AFTER the war.

I think that on the whole, you may not actually understand the point of view I'm expressing.

reply to post by MyMindIsMyOwn

Originally posted by MyMindIsMyOwn
You made this statement in an earlier post:

Cause you just want "your" kind of freedom,,,,you know.....for you


Pot meet kettle...kettle meet pot......

Yes, an earlier post. Not to you. Which is my fault for not hitting the "reply to" button, and instead just hitting the reply button.

So in context of the rest of my post, I have no idea what comparison you are making. Because even in that post, I stated in bold that freedom means freedom for everyone. I am implying that people who fly confederate flags are only concerned with their own freedoms and have no interest in the freedoms of others.
Freedom for them is just a word they get to throw around when they want something. When someone else wants something, tradition and values always seem determined to block that.

Exactly how is that a pot calling the kettle black?

reply to post by Butterbone

I think that on the whole, you may not actually understand the point of view I'm expressing.

On that point we see eye to eye.. I don't. Nor you mine, which is perfectly OK with me because I happen to enjoy trying to understand other's opinions that vary so vastly from my own, which is why I have engaged you so soundly on this topic... it's a way for me to try understand another's point of view.

reply to post by femalepharoe

Redneck,

I'm from Lynchburg Va.

Again,

I know your kind.

I am at somewhat of a loss as to how to reply to this. Your location is as relevant to my points as if you had said "The price of pinto beans in China has risen 5%".

Do you really think a person can be completely defined by where they live? You expressly contradict that idea by stating that you live in the South, yet seem adamant about applying it to me in Alabama.

I was referring to the fact that even though some have called me racist in this thread, by doing so they indicate their own prejudices. Your statement "I know your kind" shows that clearly; if directed at anyone else, it would be considered hate speech. Just because I may live in a rural southern setting, it does not follow that I am uneducated, bigoted, drive a pickup with gun racks in the rear window, or have chickens running loose in the yard. It does not follow that I like sweet tea, potato salad, or fried green tomatoes. Those are stereotypes.

I, like you, am an individual with my own individual beliefs, desires, and preferences. I have no "kind", and especially not one you can know so easily.

However, I think this is the perfect example of how "Southerners" view this as a "me vs them" situation. I know I have stated several times in this thread that I was born and raised in the south yet all I keep hearing is "if you knew anything about the south" "this symbol is their symbol, you can't speak on it" ..blah blah blah.

If you care nothing about the Confederate Flag, that is your prerogative. I have yet to see anyone in this thread state they expect everyone to honor it. Conversely, however, I see plenty of people stating that people should not honor it. That is the reason for this "me vs. them" mentality you mention: if someone tried to take away your ability to live your life as you saw fit, you would no doubt quickly adopt the same mentality.

How about a "live and let live" mentality, instead of a "do as I say" mentality?

It does not occur to confederate flag enthusiasts that you can be a southerner and not support the flag. Obviously then, the flag has nothing to do with the Civil War , but with a culture and mentality.

Obviously it does; it does not occur to those who denigrate our flag that it might mean something different than they think it does. You are partially correct, however. We are not continuing to fight the Civil War; those days are long past. But we are still standing for the core principles that underpinned it: self-reliance, independence, and self-determination. The cause stays the same, even though the issues have changed.

Slavery? No. States rights, smaller government, individual responsibility, freedom, pride in one's self? YES.

TheRedneck

reply to post by sonnny1


Sonny. I am offended that you are offended. YOUR revisionist attempts are transparent. THROW OUT your textbooks and do some real learning. You make little sense.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Slavery? No. States rights, smaller government, individual responsibility, freedom, pride in one's self? YES.

Ahhh, so you're cherry picking the things you like that it represented, by expecting people to understand that you dropped the bad ideals that it also carries? And you wonder why people have a problem with it. So you honor the forefathers that died for the flag, by also saying you're ashamed by some of the things they fought for?

Originally posted by tankerpilot
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Sonny. I am offended that you are offended. YOUR revisionist attempts are transparent. THROW OUT your textbooks and do some real learning. You make little sense.

Textbooks? I took that from the Confederate Constitution. Care to show me it DOESNT say that? Its point blank,in your face wording. Deny Ignorance indeed..................................

Its you Tanker that needs to do some real learning. I wont say you're making little sense,but I will say you have thrown out NO proof on the subject,just opinion,and oh yeah, "Throw out your textbooks" mantra. Surprisingly,that is why I dont use TEXTBOOKS,and went to the very document ALL Confederate States signed,as my PROOF. Its Damning,the Confederate Constitution.

Also......if the South won the war,Slavery would NEVER have been outlawed. That also is written into their Constitution.Again,FACT.Imagine that??

One more thing,it wasnt about race,but as I contend it was about slavery. There were white,black,immigrants,etc.....that were slaves.Although,I am still perplexed that they use the word "NEGRO" only, in their Constitution. That might be the reason you put race and slavery into your original rant.

So,I await PROOF,that it wasnt a MAIN reason to the war.Money,Power,Politics,and Slavery. Just give me some facts to base your opinion on.I gave you mine.

Again,for the flag,fly it high. Theres a different meaning to it now. I respect it,as long as its not for the reason of resurrecting a dead issue,as to slavery,or someone wanting it back.Now to seceding? Thats a whole other beast........................

Confederate States of America Constitution, as adopted on March 11, 1861
The Emancipation Proclamation,issued and ordered, January 1, 1863
The 13th amendment,effective December 18, 1865,abolished slavery.

This is by far revisionist history to say Slavery wasn't an issue,and the war was only about State Rights.As you can see, CSA Constitution was written 2 years prior,and adopted. I will also state it is well known that Lincoln used his Proclamation to garner support,even though Slaves were treated as "inferior" in the Northern States.The Proclamation fell short of making slavery illegal. Many questions still persist today,but in the end slavery was a big issue,and not to be upended with State rights,because it was written into the Constitution,and was the Law of the land in the South.They went HAND IN HAND.

More facts about Slavery,and the CSA Constitution

Section 9,and clauses

"The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same."

(This clause is an updated version of what was originally a time-sensitive article in the US constitution. The original US Section 9,in its euphemistic language, stated that Congress could only ban the slave trade after 1808 (and they did.)

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

(The most important clause in the entire CSA constitution- the right to own slaves.)

The Confederate clause 9 makes this ban on the slave trade permanent, though slave trading with the US is still permitted.

The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates [sic]; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

(Again,the will of the States to own Slaves,Negro Slaves.)

CSA Constitution

So in retrospect,History is by far quite telling. I also would like to add the Rebel Flag,and the Original Confederate Flag was and is totally different.There were many Flags used by the CSA,even a bright blue one.

reply to post by sonnny1


The root of slavery was DURING the war to attack the southern economy, it was more about the southern economy than slavery. The south wanted to become a sovereign "industrialized" nation.... Had the north did nothing about southern secession, the south could become a more powerful industrialized nation than the north.

It's all about control, and here we are today, still slaves to the feds.... Maybe one day the truth shall set us free

Do not believe their lies, they are still at war with us.............. the south shall rise again.

reply to post by Openeye


The articles of confederation stated a permanent union, later the Constitution replaced the articles and it states a more perfect union, but does not say if a state may withdraw from the union or not. However at least 3 states when ratifying the Constitution were assured the right of seceding was the right of the state and it's people, George Washington agreed.

Once the state seceded from the union, they would no longer be bound by the US Constitution, the South made there own Constitution, that was there law of the land. No Confederate officer was ever charged with treason, because the issue whether or not a state had the right to secede would have been brought up and decided on in the courts.

The presidency of Abraham Lincoln, was the first imperial presidency, he suspended the habeus corpus, due process, freedom of the press, assembly and speech and the posse comatus (that gwb destroyed) was enacted into law right after the war ended, to ensure citizens that the federal government could not attack the civilian population with the military ever again. Before this time there was never a US president with this kind of power.

So the imperial presidency and the huge central bank, and the notion that the federal government can and will and do trump state rights is all brought to you by the Jacobin Republican Party.

reply to post by TravisT

Maybe I am cherry-picking. Cherry-picking implies that I choose which attributes I believe in, which I definitely do. So do you. So does everyone. So what? Do you really expect me to feel some sort of obligation to condone slavery because I share other basic ideals of my ancestors?

It actually sounds at times like you would be happier if I did support slavery. Perhaps that would somehow justify your narrow view of humanity?

And yes, I expect others to accept the fact that I am defined by my beliefs, not by the flag I choose to fly or the beliefs of others who may have chosen to fly the same flag.

Anything less is prejudice.

TheRedneck