NationStates Jolt Archive

A girl who was kicked out of her school prom because of what she was wearing.
http://wkyt.static.worldnow.com/images/2716598_BG1.jpg
Jacqueline Duty personally designed and made this dress for last spring's prom at Russell High School in Boyd County. She says she designed it as a tribute to her southern heritage by incorporating elements from the Confederate flag.

According to her lawsuit, when she showed up wearing the dress the school principal, Sean Howard, had police force her to leave. She also claims the principal intimated her by striking her car.

Duty says students often wore clothes with Confederate flags to school, and that there was nothing in the dress code prohibiting it. School officials will not comment on the lawsuit.

The attorney for Duty says his client had high grades but was knocked out of potential scholarship money because she was portrayed as a racist.

http://fullsizebronco.com/forum/images/smilies/RebelSmilie.gif

So much for individual freedom

I really would not like to go to that school. Poor girl...

Anytime I read anything like this it always stirs the same feelings in me. On one hand, I am Irish and damn proud of it. I have a t-shirt and quite a few tattoos that state that, and if anyone ever tried to tell me I wasn’t allowed to embrace my heritage, they would know exactly what getting beaten by a 6’9” 235lbs Irish would feel like. In that respect I fully support the young girl and hope she wins her case.

On the other hand, for a great number of people the Confederate flag has become a symbol of evil much like the swastika, granted not to the same extent, but I think you get my point. When it comes right down to it, yes she does have the right to wear what ever she wants, and if it is part of her heritage I would stand up and fight for her ability to celebrate it how ever she wants, but at the same time…there has to be a little common sense that goes into planning. It is like my mother always used to tell me, “you have to pick your battles.” What I mean by this is, if she were just wearing the dress out to say the mal or a local eatery, no one would have probably said anything to her, but she was wearing it in to a high school were, at least in my high school experience, people are just looking for excuses to beat one another, and the administrators had to worry about safety.

In the end I do support the girl, and I do think she was robbed of her basic right to freedom of expression, but I guess things like this will always be like the question…”if there is freedom if speech, why can’t I yell fire in a movie theater?”

That school system sucks, she should be allowed to where that thing if she wants to.

*STEREOTYPE ALERT*

I am pretty sure that that girl has no class, however.

I wonder if her family drove the mobile home to the court house, or if they just walked.

Anytime I read anything like this it always stirs the same feelings in me. On one hand, I am Irish and damn proud of it. I have a t-shirt and quite a few tattoos that state that, and if anyone ever tried to tell me I wasn’t allowed to embrace my heritage, they would know exactly what getting beaten by a 6’9” 235lbs Irish would feel like. In that respect I fully support the young girl and hope she wins her case.

On the other hand, for a great number of people the Confederate flag has become a symbol of evil much like the swastika, granted not to the same extent, but I think you get my point. When it comes right down to it, yes she does have the right to wear what ever she wants, and if it is part of her heritage I would stand up and fight for her ability to celebrate it how ever she wants, but at the same time…there has to be a little common sense that goes into planning. It is like my mother always used to tell me, “you have to pick your battles.” What I mean by this is, if she were just wearing the dress out to say the mal or a local eatery, no one would have probably said anything to her, but she was wearing it in to a high school were, at least in my high school experience, people are just looking for excuses to beat one another, and the administrators had to worry about safety.

In the end I do support the girl, and I do think she was robbed of her basic right to freedom of expression, but I guess things like this will always be like the question…”if there is freedom if speech, why can’t I yell fire in a movie theater?”

Well put … not Irish myself but the same mix of feelings

But personally when it comes down to it I much prefer freedom of speech (though she really should had the freedom to think …) when something like prom is important to you don’t go jeopardizing it just because you should be able to. That’s relying on people to be consistent … and they almost never are.

She can be proud all she wants … but she should have picked her battles also. There are times where it is just not worth it and you end up getting your way at some later date

Sorry babbling here

Conclusion … freedom of speech trumps all … but you got to not go looking for a fight on purpose … life is tough and you cant always be saved from hurt

i think the principal was being a b&^^&%..
if he hit the s car adn told police to arrest her just because her dress, he has some real stuff to deal with himself... can we say high strung?

Presuming the Confederate Flag has anything to do with racism would also require the assumption that the primary conflict that led to the Civil War was slavery. I have noticed a trend where the same people critical of the Conf flag refuse to accept the fact that the Union fought to free the slaves.

In the end I do support the girl, and I do think she was robbed of her basic right to freedom of expression, but I guess things like this will always be like the question…”if there is freedom if speech, why can’t I yell fire in a movie theater?”
Because you could potentially have someone killed in the resulting stampede. What she did harmed no one. And for those who say you have to pick your battles, I say fuck it. If you "pick your battles" you get a situation like the gun situation here in the US. It is a result of letting all the little battles go, and it's going to lead to a pretty nasty confrontation here pretty soon if something drastic isn't done.

Presuming the Confederate Flag has anything to do with racism would also require the assumption that the primary conflict that led to the Civil War was slavery. I have noticed a trend where the same people critical of the Conf flag refuse to accept the fact that the Union fought to free the slaves.

That is still what it represents. I am pretty sure that the German people didn't fight WW II just to murder 6 million Jews, but the Swastika has come to represent anti-semitism.

Because you could potentially have someone killed in the resulting stampede. What she did harmed no one. And for those who say you have to pick your battles, I say fuck it. If you "pick your battles" you get a situation like the gun situation here in the US. It is a result of letting all the little battles go, and it's going to lead to a pretty nasty confrontation here pretty soon if something drastic isn't done.
But on the individual(person) basis … not talking groups or ideals but rather fighting your way through life …

More power to you if you can do it … I choose to expend my energy and fight better when it counts. Don’t need to fight everyone ALL the time (and everyone really picks there battles … to different extents sometimes but still)

Anyways
:fliffle:

The issue isn't even freedom of speech. Claiming that the Confederate Flag promotes racism is about as smart as saying a short skirt promotes rape. I, without shame, personally admit I (being a yankee) generally consider most southern folk to be backwater uneducated hicks, until I get to know them and am proven wrong. Is that a failing? yep.

I still think the Confed Flag is a pretty badass design. It simply looks good. She wants to wrap herself in it and pose for playboy (or a prom dress, whatever), more power to her.

That someone would boot her out just reinforces that stereotype image I was raised with of southern intelligence.


NEXT UP: Government launches solar shield to block all sunlight, because rainbows promote homosexuality. We all know how much we dont need that imagery infecting our youth. :rolleyes:

I've noticed a lot of sensitivity to "ideas", and a lot of official intolerance of the same, under the guise of promoting tolerance.

It used to be in the US that if you wanted to be stupid and rant like a Nazi on a street corner, that right was defended.

Since the advent of the phrase "hate speech", that catch phrase has been used to stifle any speech not approved by the government.

If the Democrats are in power, it has a different spectrum of effect than when the Republicans are in power. In neither case is it "free speech" in the sense that the Founding Fathers intended.

Because some people don't like seeing a Confederate Flag, the official word is to throw that person out and stifle their First Amendment rights.

I'm waiting for the country to go really right-wing. <irony> Then I'm going to complain that I'm reminded of 9-11 because a girl wore a hijab to school, and that memory is harming my child </irony>

Don't think it could happen? They are way ahead of us in Europe - the French are already banning headscarves.

Free speech is Free speech. As long as it's not causing imminent risk of bodily harm, it's protected.

Because you could potentially have someone killed in the resulting stampede. What she did harmed no one. And for those who say you have to pick your battles, I say fuck it. If you "pick your battles" you get a situation like the gun situation here in the US. It is a result of letting all the little battles go, and it's going to lead to a pretty nasty confrontation here pretty soon if something drastic isn't done.

Can you discuss something without bringing up guns?

This could be a situation of safety over freedom of speech. We need to remember that we have no idea of the situation and that that particular dress could have triggered some violence.

Vittos, I remember being taught in high school civics class (ages ago) that free speech is free speech.

They had an example of an actor promoting Nazi ideals on a street corner. People were angry with what he had to say, but his speech was protected.

On another corner was a Communist, and people were angry with what he had to say, but his speech was protected.

Yes, people may be angry with what anyone has to say. But just because someone else will get stupid and be violent is not a reason to oppress anyone from saying what they have to say.

By that reasoning, if we had Keruvalia holding forth with some of the opinions he's had here on a street corner in Ames, Iowa, we would have to arrest Keru for speaking on the grounds that the local residents might kill him.

No, we have to protect Keru's right to speak his opinion. And if that means we have to give him a police escort to do it, we do it.

The issue isn't even freedom of speech. Claiming that the Confederate Flag promotes racism is about as smart as saying a short skirt promotes rape. I, without shame, personally admit I (being a yankee) generally consider most southern folk to be backwater uneducated hicks, until I get to know them and am proven wrong. Is that a failing? yep.

I still think the Confed Flag is a pretty badass design. It simply looks good. She wants to wrap herself in it and pose for playboy (or a prom dress, whatever), more power to her.

That someone would boot her out just reinforces that stereotype image I was raised with of southern intelligence.


NEXT UP: Government launches solar shield to block all sunlight, because rainbows promote homosexuality. We all know how much we dont need that imagery infecting our youth. :rolleyes:
hell im from the south and if you are wearing a confederate dress i think your a backwater hick. though she gets some points for designing it herself but i guess dixie outfitters doesnt make a sequen dress

I'm willing to bet that there's a lot more to this story than is mentioned in the OP. There's got to be some kind of history behind this to result in such a drastic measure. I'd prefer to reserve judgement until there's more specifics.

You know, as much as I think that people are over-sensitive to PC issues sometimes, it's tough on the schools as to where exactly one draws the line. I mean - I'm sorry but does anyone believe the girl when she bats her eyes and says "gosh... it was just about a bit of southern pride"? I'm not saying that the girl is a racist, but if she is going to sit there and state that she didn't absolutely know that this flag is viewed in a controversial light then she is a liar.

Yes, there is more to this flag than just the racism angle, but clearly that angle does exist and matters very much to some people. It's not exactly news is it? And where are schools supposed to draw the line exactly? Could a guy show up in a white tux made of sheet linen with a matching hood? A black tux and an Iron Cross to celebrate his German history?

Now if, as she states, the school is inconsistent on this issue i.e.) has allowed students to wear the flag to school in the past and made no specific dress code rules for the dance, then I think she has a reason to be upset.


But don't let kid ourselves and believe that she wasn't knowingly pushing the bounds either and is just unhappy that she got slapped down for it.

Vittos, I remember being taught in high school civics class (ages ago) that free speech is free speech.

They had an example of an actor promoting Nazi ideals on a street corner. People were angry with what he had to say, but his speech was protected.

On another corner was a Communist, and people were angry with what he had to say, but his speech was protected.

Yes, people may be angry with what anyone has to say. But just because someone else will get stupid and be violent is not a reason to oppress anyone from saying what they have to say.

By that reasoning, if we had Keruvalia holding forth with some of the opinions he's had here on a street corner in Ames, Iowa, we would have to arrest Keru for speaking on the grounds that the local residents might kill him.

No, we have to protect Keru's right to speak his opinion. And if that means we have to give him a police escort to do it, we do it.

Yeah, I see your point, and I may or not be right, but I feel that the protection of the kids in that high school supercedes that girl's right to free speech.

First of all, like it our not, schools are not places where the Bill of Rights applies to the same degree it does in general society. The Supreme Court has upheld that principle time and time again.

Secondly, how would you fell if she made a dress out of Nazi flags? How about cloth silk screened with the photographs of concentration camp bodies or victims of southern lynching? When would you say the school has a right to say this statement is a disruption of a school event?

I live in the South and have many friends and students who feel otherwise, but for me when I see the Confederate flag it is, to a somewhat lesser degree, not unlike someone waving a Nazi flag.

I think some people may have misinterpreted the point I was trying to make. Yes freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are your basic human rights, and I don’t care if you are a Nazi or a Black Panther, if you are standing out in the street ranting away and someone threatens you for doing so, you better believe I will be right there standing in front of you to defend your right to say what ever the hell you want to say. The point I was trying to make before is that just because you have the right to say what ever the hell you want, doesn’t mean you should in every situation. A high school prom is supposed to be a place for people to gather and have a good time. If you are deliberately going to take away from that atmosphere, just stay home.

Was the principle right in his actions? No I don’t believe that he was, a simple request and explanation f why he was making the request for her to change would have probably done the job just fine, but that is an entirely different issue to address. Yes, the freedoms of speech and expression were violated in this case, and if I were a judge I would rule in the girls favor, but I believe this is more of a question of common sense.

'Heritage'?

Hah.

'Heritage' - it's hard for me to consider the politics of colonial ex-pat Brits in North America as any sort of 'Heritage'. If it's less than 300 years old, it's not 'heritage', it's 'stuff my great-great-grandparents got up to a while back'.

You want to talk about your heritage, move your timescales back significantly, to Europe. I think the principal called it correctly.

For all of my agreement that free spech is something to be protected, it must also be remembered that it is not absolute in that you have the right to say what you want - but not always where you want.

Yes you can shout out your support for Hitler on a streetcorner - it's a public place. You cannot, on the other hand, do so five feet away in the middle of the street blocking traffic, because that is a safety concern.

yuo can shout your hatred of blacks on a streetcorner, however you cannot force your way into a black man's house and do so there. That would be tresspassing.

Schools are not, by definition, public places. They are institutions of learning entitled by law to institute dress codes and behaviour codes condusive to providing a safe learning environment for their students.

And if there was a dress code regulation on the books that banned that flag, then the girl should have known that, or should have checked first given the well-known controversy over that flag. Which is why the only thing that might stand in her favour in my opinion is her statement that the schoold HAD allowed the flag before. Even then though, if the dance had a dress code then she should have asked first.

She's an attention whore and she must have known that something like this was going to happen. I have no sympathy, especially for people who make hate propaganda into a dress...

... but that doesn't mean I don't support her right to wear the ugly dress. I just won't pity the stupid bitch.

Why does it matter if she's a hick or whatever?

Free speech is for hicks too!.

Why does it matter if she's a hick or whatever?

Free speech is for hicks too!.

Who said anything about her being a hick?

And, uh - yeah, free speech is for hicks too, yes - but so is taste and common sense. And so, apparently, are frivolous lawsuits.

Who said anything about her being a hick?


She made a confederate flag sequence dress for her prom, I think it goes without saying.

For all of my agreement that free spech is something to be protected, it must also be remembered that it is not absolute in that you have the right to say what you want - but not always where you want.

Yes you can shout out your support for Hitler on a streetcorner - it's a public place. You cannot, on the other hand, do so five feet away in the middle of the street blocking traffic, because that is a safety concern.

yuo can shout your hatred of blacks on a streetcorner, however you cannot force your way into a black man's house and do so there. That would be tresspassing.

Schools are not, by definition, public places. They are institutions of learning entitled by law to institute dress codes and behaviour codes condusive to providing a safe learning environment for their students.

And if there was a dress code regulation on the books that banned that flag, then the girl should have known that, or should have checked first given the well-known controversy over that flag. Which is why the only thing that might stand in her favour in my opinion is her statement that the schoold HAD allowed the flag before. Even then though, if the dance had a dress code then she should have asked first.

Zeppistan is correct. Court cases involving school dress:

Olesen v. Board of Education of School Dist. No. 228, 676 F. Supp 820 (N.D. Ill 1987)

High school students brought suit against the school district, challenging the constitutionality of school anti-gang rule prohibiting the wearing of earrings by males. The court upheld the high school’s anti-gang policy, saying it did not violate the students right to free speech and expression, since the only message was on of his individuality, which was not within the protected scope of the 1st Amendment. The court found nothing wrong with not allowing males to wear earrings while allowing females to wear earrings. The court felt the gender-based difference in classification was substantially related to the legitimate objective of discouraging gang membership and activities.

Broussard V. School Board of the City of Norfolk, 801 F. Supp. 1526 ( E.D. Virginia 1992)

A middle school student brought an action against the school board and other related parties to challenge their suspension for wearing a shirt that said "Drugs Suck!" The District Court held that a one day suspension did not violate due process and free speech rights.

Jenglin v. San Jacinto Unified School Dist., 872 F. Supp. 1459 (C.D. Cal. 1993)

The District Court upheld the anti-gang dress code which prohibited clothing identifying professional sports teams or colleges, for the high school, stating that it did not offend the Constitution because of the threat of violence created by the gang presence in the high school. Schools are given a great deal of deference regarding clothing which promotes or shows gang affiliation because most courts view gangs to be socially problematic. If a school district can not prove a gang problem exists, the justification for such a rule will be weak in the eyes of the court. This court ruled at the same time that the code violated the free speech rights of elementary and middle school students, as no gang problems could be shown to exist at their schools.

McInyre v. Bethel School Indep. Dist. No. 3, 804 F. Supp 1415 (W.D. Ok. 1992)
In this case the school district applied a dress code restriction to T-shirts bearing a logo considered to be an ad for alcohol. The U.S. District Court held that the school district failed to show that wearing the restricted clothing would interfere with school work or school discipline. In this case, the court held that it was very difficult to tell if the T-shirt advertised alcohol and that the rationale for the rule would not work in this specific situation. The standard for determining whether the 1st Amendment requires the school to tolerate expression is whether or not the speech would materially and substantially interfere with the school work, school discipline or the rights of other students.

Pyle v. South Hadley School Committee, 861 F. Supp. 157 (D. Mass. 1994)

In this case two high school students sued the school committee, challenging the school’s policy which prohibited their wearing of two T-shirts. One read "See Dick Drink. See Dick Drive. See Dick Die. Don’t be a Dick" and the other read "Coed Naked Band: Do It to the Rhythm". The District Court held that school officials could restrict vulgar expression by students regardless if their was any risk of substantial disruption, but that a dress code which prohibits apparel which harasses violates the students’ 1st Amendment rights. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit denied the motion to intervene and did not disturb the district courts judgment in relation to the enjoined enforcement of the harassment provision.

Bivens v. Albuquerque Public Schools, 899 F. Supp 556 (D. New Mexico, 1995)

In this case a student brought an action against the school board, based on a claim that the dress code prohibiting saggy pants violated students’ 1st Amendment rights, and the procedures used in imposing the long term suspension violated the student’s right to procedural due process The District Court held that the wearing of saggy pants was not speech and the dress code was not unconstitutionally vague.

According to the girls letter however, this is the first time that there had been any type of prohibition against wearing the flag. Apparently it was a daily occurence with other students.

Presuming the Confederate Flag has anything to do with racism would also require the assumption that the primary conflict that led to the Civil War was slavery. I have noticed a trend where the same people critical of the Conf flag refuse to accept the fact that the Union fought to free the slaves.

I think you meant, "did not fight to free the slaves." but...

As an American born and raised in the southern states, having had ancestors living in the area that go back to the time when man first walked here, I can say that this argument is not correct.

While I agree that the primary concern of the civil war had less to do with racism or slavery and more to do with economic issues and disparity in the cultures of the various states before the war, the flag has come to symbolize racism more than the civil war since that time.

It has been used since the late 1800's as one of the primary flags of the KKK. In the 50's it was added to the state flags of some states as a form of protest for integration. Pro-segregationists used it as a symbol of unity throughout the civil rights movement. It is on the cover of nearly every 'white power' book in the library.

If you really want to celebrate your heritage, there are six other confederate flags you can make your dress out of that don't have the lineage of hate behind them. I am all for one 'preserving their roots' and learning about the past. And I think the girl had every right to where the dress she made (I do wholeheartedly agree with freedom of speech and expression), but deluding oneself into believing that selecting that particular symbol is about heritage and not an allusion to racism is just ignorant.

I think you meant, "did not fight to free the slaves." but...

As an American born and raised in the southern states, having had ancestors living in the area that go back to the time when man first walked here, I can say that this argument is not correct.

While I agree that the primary concern of the civil war had less to do with racism or slavery and more to do with economic issues and disparity in the cultures of the various states before the war, the flag has come to symbolize racism more than the civil war since that time.

It has been used since the late 1800's as one of the primary flags of the KKK. In the 50's it was added to the state flags of some states as a form of protest for integration. Pro-segregationists used it as a symbol of unity throughout the civil rights movement. It is on the cover of nearly every 'white power' book in the library.

If you really want to celebrate your heritage, there are six other confederate flags you can make your dress out of that don't have the lineage of hate behind them. I am all for one 'preserving their roots' and learning about the past. And I think the girl had every right to where the dress she made (I do wholeheartedly agree with freedom of speech and expression), but deluding oneself into believing that selecting that particular symbol is about heritage and not an allusion to racism is just ignorant.

It is because that particular symbol (the blue and white 'cross of Saint Andrew' on a red background) is a part of several battle flags. It's either very easy or very difficult to avoid, depending on your resources

The issue isn't even freedom of speech. Claiming that the Confederate Flag promotes racism is about as smart as saying a short skirt promotes rape. Nonsense logic. The color red or blue does not promote gang activity, but quite a few schools ban students from wearing those colors because gangs have adopted them as a symbol.

Similarly the conferate flag has been adopted as a symbol by many racist groups and schools are within their rights to ban such symbols from their campuses and functions.

That dress sure isn't a Versaace....I don;t even think its a Kmart special

at my school most things are banned for some reason, being the revolutinary i am , i wera my che and commie badges on my tie though

The issue isn't even freedom of speech. Claiming that the Confederate Flag promotes racism is about as smart as saying a short skirt promotes rape. I, without shame, personally admit I (being a yankee) generally consider most southern folk to be backwater uneducated hicks, until I get to know them and am proven wrong. Is that a failing? yep.

I still think the Confed Flag is a pretty badass design. It simply looks good. She wants to wrap herself in it and pose for playboy (or a prom dress, whatever), more power to her.

That someone would boot her out just reinforces that stereotype image I was raised with of southern intelligence.


NEXT UP: Government launches solar shield to block all sunlight, because rainbows promote homosexuality. We all know how much we dont need that imagery infecting our youth. :rolleyes:

What a rude 1st paragraph. I am from the South. I wouldnt say I was a backwater hick though. That's pretty arrogant of you to say. Perhaps your parents were so busy raising you to stereotype people, that they didnt have time to squeeze in a few lessons on manners.

What a rude 1st paragraph. I am from the South. I wouldnt say I was a backwater hick though. That's pretty arrogant of you to say. Perhaps your parents were so busy raising you to stereotype people, that they didnt have time to squeeze in a few lessons on manners.
Meoowww pull in them claws ;) (just kidding have at it)

Where is this? The original post mentioned a Boyd County, but I'm wondering which state this occured in. Probably Mississippi, heh...

Note: I'm from Georgia, so I can make that crack.

What a rude 1st paragraph. I am from the South. I wouldnt say I was a backwater hick though. That's pretty arrogant of you to say. Perhaps your parents were so busy raising you to stereotype people, that they didnt have time to squeeze in a few lessons on manners.

Ouch. Mega burn.

What happened to the tolerance of another individuals beliefs?
People in the south commonly wear rebel flags as there are Confederate flag designs everywhere for almost anything. You can find them on music albums, to bumperstickers - many of the southern capitals and schools flew the Confederate Flag under the American Flag. It is a key symbol of the SOUTH.

The Confederate Flag is NOT the same thing as the Nazi Swastika, the only thing that connects the two are skinhead racists who are as ignorant as most people are about the symbolism of the Confederate Flag. The swastika was a symbol for an army of bigots trying to dominate the world. The Confederate Flag was a symbol of rebellion against a tyranical government, not a symbol for pro-slavery.

Let The South Rise Again, it isn't hurting anyone.

Just as well. It's an ugly dress.

The Confederate Flag is NOT the same thing as the Nazi Swastika, the only thing that connects the two are skinhead racists who are as ignorant as most people are about the symbolism of the Confederate Flag. The swastika was a symbol for an army of bigots trying to dominate the world. The Confederate Flag was a symbol of rebellion against a tyranical government, not a symbol for pro-slavery.

The Confederate Flag (the battle flag specifically) was a symbol for rebellion against a tyranical government in 1865. When the KKK started flying it a decade or so later, it started becomeing something else. When pro-segragationists started flying it over political rallies, and had it added to state flags in protest of federal integration mandates in the 50's and 60's its fate became sealed.

Whether you want to delude yourself into thinking it's only about rebellion or your heritage is certainly your perogative. But it IS a symbol of hate and has been for 150 years.

There are 6 other confederate flags that do not carry this stigmata (including the very nifty 'Don't Tread on Me' one). You want to celebrate rebellion, use one of those.

issue.

The Republic of Saint Aristus is strongly devoted to the issue of civil and personal rights. Having said that, the realm of personal expression is reached by the road of responsibility. The girl was wrong. Am I free to wear a KKK robe and dunce cap to a meeting of the NAACP? Sure. Should I? Of course not. Sensitivity to the feelings of others is paramount in a free and open society. A big clue to her motives was her use of the word "heritage". That word has been used to mask bigotry and hatred for decades now. The Southern "heritage" is one of racism, hatred, slavery and ethnically-motivated murder. Should she be surprised at the outcry?

Flame away.

The Southern "heritage" is one of racism, hatred, slavery and ethnically-motivated murder.

Honestly, is that the *only* heritage that the South has?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/marcatplay/commentaar/no-reb.gif

Just as well. It's an ugly dress.

I concur.

Honestly, is that the *only* heritage that the South has?

Incest, whiskey, and slavery.

So I guess the "great Southern writer" isn't part of the Southern heritage?
Faulkner, etc.?

I tihnk they should have allowed her to wear that, but let's face it, that flag is synonymous with slavery.

Because some people don't like seeing a Confederate Flag, the official word is to throw that person out and stifle their First Amendment rights.

I'm waiting for the country to go really right-wing. <irony> Then I'm going to complain that I'm reminded of 9-11 because a girl wore a hijab to school, and that memory is harming my child </irony>

Don't think it could happen? They are way ahead of us in Europe - the French are already banning headscarves.



Of course we're ahead </irony>. We're hardly going far enough.


But yes, all symbols of evil things such as:

Nazism
Islam
Seccession

Must be repressed.

What a rude 1st paragraph. I am from the South. I wouldnt say I was a backwater hick though. That's pretty arrogant of you to say. Perhaps your parents were so busy raising you to stereotype people, that they didnt have time to squeeze in a few lessons on manners.
Rude? No. Rude is telling you to go screw your sister. Of course you don't see yourself as a hick. You may, in fact, not be one. Most racists I know don't seem to see themselves as racists, either. If you had actually read the whole paragraph, you'd be well aware that I acknowledged my own failing and made room to meet people and get to know otherwise. I did something that some people aren't willing to do - I told the truth. I don't hide behind false platitudes like some chickenshit. I think this sums it up best:

And if I offended you, Oh I'm sorry But, maybe you needed to be offended But here's my apology and one more thing...Fuck you! Cause you can't bring me down

Should the US Confederacy be removed from public signs and displays?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7776496&posted=1#post7776496

Rude? No. Rude is telling you to go screw your sister. Of course you don't see yourself as a hick. You may, in fact, not be one. Most racists I know don't seem to see themselves as racists, either. If you had actually read the whole paragraph, you'd be well aware that I acknowledged my own failing and made room to meet people and get to know otherwise. I did something that some people aren't willing to do - I told the truth. I don't hide behind false platitudes like some chickenshit. I think this sums it up best:


You just need a good slapping is all. You didnt say the truth, you stated your opinion and how you were raised to stereotype the south. I'm about as far away from a racist as it gets. Your tone was arrogant and condescending so I responded properly. Like someone else posted, are they free to wear a robe and pointy hat to a NAACP meeting.....yep, should they? Nope. Ethics and morals are supposed to be used in accordnce with free speech I believe. When someone uses their freedom of speech as a cloak for pushing the envelope and disregauding others feelings, then its just a display of rebellion.
If you were Jewish and someone came to your halloween party dressed as Hitler, would you not be a little upset?

What happened to the tolerance of another individuals beliefs?
People in the south commonly wear rebel flags as there are Confederate flag designs everywhere for almost anything. You can find them on music albums, to bumperstickers - many of the southern capitals and schools flew the Confederate Flag under the American Flag. It is a key symbol of the SOUTH.

The Confederate Flag is NOT the same thing as the Nazi Swastika, the only thing that connects the two are skinhead racists who are as ignorant as most people are about the symbolism of the Confederate Flag. The swastika was a symbol for an army of bigots trying to dominate the world. The Confederate Flag was a symbol of rebellion against a tyranical government, not a symbol for pro-slavery.

Let The South Rise Again, it isn't hurting anyone.


Finally, someone speaking some sense.....I totally agree with you. I agree cause its the truth. The Confederate Flag was a symbol of rebellion against a tyranical government who was oppressing a way of life. Sounds farmilar dont it. No different then what our founding fathers did to the British.

The Flag of the Confederacy is NOT symbolic nor synonymous with slavery. I am from Maine yet love the Confederate flag because of what it DOES represent. Freedom. The whole reason for the succession of the states to the Confederacy was not to preserve slavery. It was to preserve the rights of the States over a strong central government. My State has lost many issues, mainly economic, due to Federal laws and regulations undermining attempts by Maine's legislation to protect our land and people. Primary issues being that over 60% of my state is privately owned, and the elderly have to cross the border to get cheeper medications.

I know some people are sensitive about issues in regards to displaying the Confederate flag, and I can understand that. But if you study American History thoroughly enough, you will find that several issues brought forth the decision for the succession from the Union, not just slavery.

I'm from Maine. We helped preserve the Union, but that doesn't mean every symbol of the Confederacy needs to be labeled evil. In Korea, for example, the swastika represents peace and prosperity. With an open mind, I hope people can look past the trendy and contemporary image of that flag, and maybe truly see it for what it represents. If not for that flag (and the States that fought for it), our Union would not be like it is. States would have much less power over themselves.

Addition: The Confederate Flag, and The Rebel Flag, are actually two different things. I'm not going to explain this, I'd rather see who's brave enough to do the research....

Finally, someone speaking some sense.....I totally agree with you. I agree cause its the truth. The Confederate Flag was a symbol of rebellion against a tyranical government who was oppressing a way of life. Sounds farmilar dont it. No different then what our founding fathers did to the British.


What it was a symbol of and what it is a symbol of today are two totally different things. You cant tell the people that it offends, that our forefathers didnt intend for it to be used by the rednecks to taunt you and offend you, but it turns out thats what happened-so oh well deal with it.

Free speech is Free speech. As long as it's not causing imminent risk of bodily harm, it's protected.
Amen! :)

What it was a symbol of and what it is a symbol of today are two totally different things. You cant tell the people that it offends, that our forefathers didnt intend for it to be used by the rednecks to taunt you and offend you, but it turns out thats what happened-so oh well deal with it.

It was never meant to offend, it was meant to inspire a rebellion against tyranny.

That's what people NOW use it for. And that is always another excuse for people to feel victimized. I know that some people are honestly offended by that flag. But it doesn't represent slavery, and never did. The Yanks wanted it to, so they could inspire rebellion by the slaves, and encourage them to revolt. If anything, the Confederate Flag should be valued for its positive affect on both sides of the table....

The Flag of the Confederacy is NOT symbolic nor synonymous with slavery. I am from Maine yet love the Confederate flag because of what it DOES represent. Freedom. The whole reason for the succession of the states to the Confederacy was not to preserve slavery. It was to preserve the rights of the States over a strong central government. My State has lost many issues, mainly economic, due to Federal laws and regulations undermining attempts by Maine's legislation to protect our land and people. Primary issues being that over 60% of my state is privately owned, and the elderly have to cross the border to get cheeper medications.

I know some people are sensitive about issues in regards to displaying the Confederate flag, and I can understand that. But if you study American History thoroughly enough, you will find that several issues brought forth the decision for the succession from the Union, not just slavery.

I'm from Maine. We helped preserve the Union, but that doesn't mean every symbol of the Confederacy needs to be labeled evil. In Korea, for example, the swastika represents peace and prosperity. With an open mind, I hope people can look past the trendy and contemporary image of that flag, and maybe truly see it for what it represents. If not for that flag (and the States that fought for it), our Union would not be like it is. States would have much less power over themselves.

Addition: The Confederate Flag, and The Rebel Flag, are actually two different things. I'm not going to explain this, I'd rather see who's brave enough to do the research....
I don't need to do any research on this. What most people refer to as either "the Confederate Flag" or "the Rebel Flag" is actually the Battle Flag of the Confederated States of America. The two flags don't look at all alike.

I don't need to do any research on this. What most people refer to as either "the Confederate Flag" or "the Rebel Flag" is actually the Battle Flag of the Confederated States of America. The two flags don't look at all alike.

Ding Ding Ding!

You get a star.

(It was one of many different Battle Flags, but it is the only one considered the official Battle Flag of the entire Confederacy, as I'm sure you know.)

Smart people are so much easier to get along with.

"Only the ingorant despise education."

It was never meant to offend, it was meant to inspire a rebellion against tyranny.

That's what people NOW use it for. And that is always another excuse for people to feel victimized. I know that some people are honestly offended by that flag. But it doesn't represent slavery, and never did. The Yanks wanted it to, so they could inspire rebellion by the slaves, and encourage them to revolt. If anything, the Confederate Flag should be valued for its positive affect on both sides of the table....


I know- thats what I said...it wasnt intended to offend, no. But if you have any black friends or just ask a black person at random, ask them how the flag and the manner in which it is displayed or used in the south today, makes them feel.

Presuming the Confederate Flag has anything to do with racism would also require the assumption that the primary conflict that led to the Civil War was slavery. I have noticed a trend where the same people critical of the Conf flag refuse to accept the fact that the Union fought to free the slaves.
I'm a little confused by what you're saying, and I certainly have no PhD in history, but slavery WAS the main issue of the civil war. It all started with the 3/5 compromise, which was about slavery. And then the Missouri Compromise, which was also, about slavery. And then we annexed Texas, and the South wanted this to be a slave state, but the North didn't. Hence, it was about slavery. It was admitted as a free state, throwing the "balance" off. Then the Kansas-Nebraska Act (I think it was called) was passed, which violated the line drawn in the Missouri Compromise (31-30 I think it was... anything about that was free, anything below was slave) and led to the whole "Bleeding Kansas" crisis and the issues in the Senate... I forgot the guys name... but he was advently against slavery and was loud about it, and a senator from SC beat the crap out of him on the senate floor. And then California I believe was next, and this skipped the whole territorial process because of the Gold Rush and was admitted as a free state. But then they came up with the Compromise of 1850, which set in motion the Fugitive Slave Law, which required the Northerners to send back any slaves that had escaped, putting it right in front of their faces. Abraham Lincoln said himself that his main purpose was to save the Union, not to save or destroy slavery, but he ALSO said, of the author of Uncle Tom's Cabin, an abolitionist book, that she was the little woman that started a huge war.
I recently moved to South Carolina, and it's unlike anything I've ever experienced in terms of racisim on both sides. Being from NY myself, I see the Confederate Flag as a symbol of racism, but it was also that girl's personal right to wear what she wanted, and it was the police force's job to protect her, not to arrest her for it. On the otherhand, many school dress codes forbid offensive apparrel, and I think it's one thing to wear a Confederate flag to school... another to wear it to a prom. You also have the formal/informality thing going on, too. They kicked some students out of my school's prom for wearing flip-flops.
I don't know if it's necessarily fair to associate the Confederacy with Racism, but I do...

Well lets look at it like this: she had the right to wear it, yes. Anyone who lives in a southern state, that would wear that dress, or allow their child to wear that dress, KNOWS that it could be interpretted as an insult to the black students and could start trouble at the dance. What if some of her friends kept going on and on about what a cool dress that is and how cool she is for wearing it despite the fact it might offend someone? Then lets say some of the black students get sick of hearing about how proud they are of their flag and how they dont care if it offends the black students. Then a black student decides to excercise his or her freedom of speech by telling the group thats bragging about the dress, that they think they are just being racists and think they should shut up and just let everyone enjoy the dance. Before you know it, the gym floor is covered in sequens, broken high heels, blood maybe, because a black against white fight broke out at a prom all because this girl had the right to wear her dress, but not the good sense of judgement that it might be a little too much.

it very well could have happened....

[soapbox mode]I've been waiting for some one to bring up the swastika. It's one of my pet peeves that I know will be forever futile. The swastika, also called the flyflot, is a symbol that is far older than the nazi's. You find this symbol used in cultures all over the world. I've yet - other than the degradeation inflicted upon it by the nazi's- to find within those cultures any thing negative associated with the symbol. But due to a brief period of useage by a small group of hate mongers, the positive energy, peaceful symbol has become twisted and broken - redeeming it in the eyes of the world is nigh impossible[off soapbox]

Wether the dress is good looking or not, the young woman spent several years hand sewing it. If the school had allowed the Confederate flag to be worn on campus, then they darn well should have allowed it at an off campus prom - especially as apparently there was no dress code for the prom.

I sincerely hope that the school looses the court case.

I'm a little confused by what you're saying, and I certainly have no PhD in history, but slavery WAS the main issue of the civil war. It all started with the 3/5 compromise, which was about slavery. And then the Missouri Compromise, which was also, about slavery. And then we annexed Texas, and the South wanted this to be a slave state, but the North didn't. Hence, it was about slavery. It was admitted as a free state, throwing the "balance" off. Then the Kansas-Nebraska Act (I think it was called) was passed, which violated the line drawn in the Missouri Compromise (31-30 I think it was... anything about that was free, anything below was slave) and led to the whole "Bleeding Kansas" crisis and the issues in the Senate... I forgot the guys name... but he was advently against slavery and was loud about it, and a senator from SC beat the crap out of him on the senate floor. And then California I believe was next, and this skipped the whole territorial process because of the Gold Rush and was admitted as a free state. But then they came up with the Compromise of 1850, which set in motion the Fugitive Slave Law, which required the Northerners to send back any slaves that had escaped, putting it right in front of their faces. Abraham Lincoln said himself that his main purpose was to save the Union, not to save or destroy slavery, but he ALSO said, of the author of Uncle Tom's Cabin, an abolitionist book, that she was the little woman that started a huge war.
I recently moved to South Carolina, and it's unlike anything I've ever experienced in terms of racisim on both sides. Being from NY myself, I see the Confederate Flag as a symbol of racism, but it was also that girl's personal right to wear what she wanted, and it was the police force's job to protect her, not to arrest her for it. On the otherhand, many school dress codes forbid offensive apparrel, and I think it's one thing to wear a Confederate flag to school... another to wear it to a prom. You also have the formal/informality thing going on, too. They kicked some students out of my school's prom for wearing flip-flops.
I don't know if it's necessarily fair to associate the Confederacy with Racism, but I do...

You're a little off. Slavery was the most vocal issue because it was the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back," not the main issue. If you follow events up to to the civil war, it was merely another instance in which "big central government" was controlling rights given to them during the debates in the Continental Congress. The 3/5 Agreement you mention was a holdover, the Union expected States to succede and this was an attempt to delay and persuade more States to stay rather than leave..... (Yes, a trip down memory lane....) I also was in South Carolina, mostly for training while at Ft. Jackson. I spent some time there, and one image that I fell in love with was a worn confederate flag, slightly torn, waving on a flag pole in front of a citizens house. I nearly cried, it was beautiful. Ironically, though, I saw very little racism during my time in the South. I expected much more, but didn't see much at all aside from typical comments from shady characters who I would assume would bitch at a cloud for being too dark.... (sorry for the sad attempt at humor.) And even those comments were passive. Maybe they just acted nice because I was walking by?

Nevertheless, slavery was not the sole issue, and not the biggest. It was merely imprinted onto history as such. The biggest issue is one we all lost on... State rights.

Well lets look at it like this: she had the right to wear it, yes. Anyone who lives in a southern state, that would wear that dress, or allow their child to wear that dress, KNOWS that it could be interpretted as an insult to the black students and could start trouble at the dance. What if some of her friends kept going on and on about what a cool dress that is and how cool she is for wearing it despite the fact it might offend someone? Then lets say some of the black students get sick of hearing about how proud they are of their flag and how they dont care if it offends the black students. Then a black student decides to excercise his or her freedom of speech by telling the group thats bragging about the dress, that they think they are just being racists and think they should shut up and just let everyone enjoy the dance. Before you know it, the gym floor is covered in sequens, broken high heels, blood maybe, because a black against white fight broke out at a prom all because this girl had the right to wear her dress, but not the good sense of judgement that it might be a little too much.

It very well could have happened....

That almost sounds like having a "big brother" monitor and screen our behavior just in case someone acts based on their personal opinion. Though I completely agree, it was a disaster waiting to happen, the responsibility should not fall on the the girl wearing the dress. The student, whether black or white, is still responsible for his or her actions. "I felt offended" has never been an accepted excuse for violence, neither in society nor the courtroom. It is simply the norm.

I know- thats what I said...it wasnt intended to offend, no. But if you have any black friends or just ask a black person at random, ask them how the flag and the manner in which it is displayed or used in the south today, makes them feel.

I have. And I have it displayed in my room. They say as long as there aren't verbal comments that go with it, they don't see a problem with it. Well, 8/10 say that. ^^

I know- thats what I said...it wasnt intended to offend, no. But if you have any black friends or just ask a black person at random, ask them how the flag and the manner in which it is displayed or used in the south today, makes them feel.


That's because it's how they were raised. Many groups take symbols from the past and 'corrupt' them. Take the theatrical Satanists, for example -- they took the pentacle and made most of America believe it stands for something dark and sinister.

The KKK and other supremacist groups did the same thing. They took symbols from history and adopted them, without giving half a rat's hairy ass about the original meaning, to spread their messages of hate.

I have. And I have it displayed in my room. They say as long as there aren't verbal comments that go with it, they don't see a problem with it. Well, 8/10 say that. ^^


8 out of 10 huh? well screw the 2 who were offended i guess. Thats a small number of people to take a poll from. What state do you live in? Black people in the south have to put up with a lot more crap than the rest of the US. Heres an example of what goes on down here in the south......

I saw a bumper sticker on a Ford F-150 truck the other day. This truck had a gun rack in the back window, a Confederate flag, a Piss on Chevy decal and the bumper sticker read:" Save a deer, kill a ****** ."

I hate that I even had to type that word. But you tell me, if you were black, and had to see crap like that on a regular basis, how would you feel about it? The people who display the flag in addition to other offensive things like that are the ones who have ruined the intended meaning.

And to the other person who said that being offended is no excuse for violence, I agree. But this is highschool,and people get in fights for much less nowadays.... you said yourself that it could have been an accident waiting to happen. I wasnt saying that fighting was the answer. I was saying it could have been a result of the situation.

That's because it's how they were raised. Many groups take symbols from the past and 'corrupt' them. Take the theatrical Satanists, for example -- they took the pentacle and made most of America believe it stands for something dark and sinister.

The KKK and other supremacist groups did the same thing. They took symbols from history and adopted them, without giving half a rat's hairy ass about the original meaning, to spread their messages of hate.


Yes, and I also had to explain to my 5 year old the other day why the middle finger was bad. She says to me as she holds up her middle finger only: " Mommie, why is this bad?" I had to pause for a moment because I couldnt think of a sensible answer. I ended up saying "because somewhere along the line honey, someone decided to make it mean something bad." She said 'But Mom, its just a finger. :( "

Shes absolutely right isnt she?......

But I had to tell her not to hold up her middle finger because it is being ugly to someone and she will be in trouble.
Something that was just a finger a few seconds ago, quickly became something she had to add to the "do not do" list. For no other reason than someone corrupted it along the way.

We could learn a lot from children.

8 out of 10 huh? well screw the 2 who were offended i guess. Thats a small number of people to take a poll from. What state do you live in? Black people in the south have to put up with a lot more crap than the rest of the US. Heres an example of what goes on down here in the south......

I saw a bumper sticker on a Ford F-150 truck the other day. This truck had a gun rack in the back window, a Confederate flag, a Piss on Chevy decal and the bumper sticker read:" Save a deer, kill a ****** ."

I hate that I even had to type that word. But you tell me, if you were black, and had to see crap like that on a regular basis, how would you feel about it? The people who display the flag in addition to other offensive things like that are the ones who have ruined the intended meaning.

And to the other person who said that being offended is no excuse for violence, I agree. But this is highschool,and people get in fights for much less nowadays.... you said yourself that it could have been an accident waiting to happen. I wasnt saying that fighting was the answer. I was saying it could have been a result of the situation.

Well I don't really have the liberty to ask potentially inflammatory questions in my current profession. I am from maine, which in 2 years saw over 20,000 african muslim refugees into its borders. Even a northern state like Maine had problems adjusting to THAT large of a populous change (considering there were many instances of racism against whites by land lords who wanted government funding for housing refugess). I've been around though, and I know many people are offended by the Battle Flag. Incidentally, they all insist that slavery was the reason for the Civil War, too. Ingorance leads blindness.

You're a little off. Slavery was the most vocal issue because it was the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back," not the main issue.

Really? Here is a little thought experiment for you. Mentally travel back in time and imagine everything is the same, EXCEPT that first boatload of slaves never arrived in 1607 and slavery had never taken root in the colonies, nor in the newly formed United States.

Would the Civil War have ever occurred under those circumstances? The only issue you are left with is a disagreement over tariffs and that was resolved without bloodshed in 1832.

Now mentally travel back in history and delete the concept of state's rights from the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Even without the philosophical underpinings of states rights I believe the South would not have given up slavery without a fight, so essential was it to the southern economy.

Slavery is the peg upon which hanged the cloak of state's rights.

The dress is hilariously tacky, but the design isn't half bad.

Really? Here is a little thought experiment for you. Mentally travel back in time and imagine everything is the same, EXCEPT that first boatload of slaves never arrived in 1607 and slavery had never taken root in the colonies, nor in the newly formed United States.

Would the Civil War have ever occurred under those circumstances? The only issue you are left with is a disagreement over tariffs and that was resolved without bloodshed in 1832.

Slavery is the peg upon which hanged the cloak of state's rights.

Actually it was part of the debates in the First Continental Congress to support slavery for economic and trade reasons. Oh, not to mention certain "soon-to-be-State" legislators refused to sign the Declaration of Independence (DoC) if the "Anti-Slavery" line was not removed....

Furthermore, I think that the civil war would have happened eventually, because the central government is still too powerful. Unless of course, there was no Union to revolt against, because there was no consensus on the DoC....

You seemed to ignore the other issues within the Confederacy, here's 2:
-Trade agreements between States shouldn't have needed Federal supervision unless there was a dispute, not just because the Federal government disputed the trade (and no, I'm not talking about Slaves.)
-States were going to be losing control over how thier commerce operated in accordance with federal standards in trade and economics, i.e. interstate gambling, interstate transportation of goods and currency, and interstate communications.

I saw a bumper sticker on a Ford F-150 truck the other day. This truck had a gun rack in the back window, a Confederate flag, a Piss on Chevy decal and the bumper sticker read:" Save a deer, kill a ****** ."

I hate that I even had to type that word. But you tell me, if you were black, and had to see crap like that on a regular basis, how would you feel about it?
This, dear Peechland, is exactly where we get the opinions we have on southern folk. We're educated enough to know that not all people are like that, but it's a matter of media saturation. If all you ever see or hear growing up is reinforcement of this image, what's to make us think otherwise?

For the record, I'm a "native american", inasmuch as that term can be supported. I also wind up on the receiving end of stereotypes, and the only way to deal with it is to challenge their beliefs by proving myself different. While you may have found my stated views "Arrogant" and "condescending", that's merely a matter of your misinterpretation of what was said. Don't get me wrong - I am arrogant, but not about this topic. Our society is one that encourages the constant belittling of others for any of a myriad reason, no matter how stupid and worthless a practice it is. Disagree? Watch "reality TV", its lowest-common-denominator broadcasting. The Apprentice? Elimidate? All built around the concept of having to win a popularity contest, and making others look worse than yourself.

The problem, from my northern perspective (and it may well be different down south) is that as a whole, the media (news, movies, television) does very little to encourage the idea that there could be intelligent, free-thinking, non-hick types in the lower states. This has been compounded somewhat by the people I've actually met who hail from the lowers. Maybe I'm lucky, or cursed, to only meet people who reinforce the baseline image. A good, though not solid guideline is thus: If "ya'll" is a part of daily conversation in the area you live in, you're being classified in that "southern hick" crowd, even if you have a Ph.D in chemical engineering.

To return to your current post- the clearly displayed racist motif is absurd. If someone up here were to drive around in a vehicle like that, while the flag would be overlooked, the bumper sticker would not. Odds are good he would have an "unfortunate accident", be it by civilian or perhaps "shot while resisting arrest" by an officer of non-caucasian origin. I won't say he'd be black (the cop or the civilian), I'm saying that open racism isn't nearly as tolerated up here by most people I know. What surprises me most about that is that most people I know up here who aren't pale-skinned seem to be living up to the stereotype image anyway.

Perhaps I'm naive, that could be the problem. Movies tell me blacks are all drug users and thieves, and that my people are all lazy drunks. I know one black guy who I'm fairly confident isn't a thief, but he smokes weed. I know some real hard workin' people like myself, but they drink. I must just be the oddball.

Oh, and I know one asian who hasn't tried to pimp out his Civic. Stereotypes are often a good way to get off on the wrong foot with people, but they aren't always wrong, either.

The same thing happened to me when I wore a Swedish flag prom dress. I think it was because I'm a guy and it was August however.

Actually it was part of the debates in the First Continental Congress to support slavery for economic and trade reasons. Oh, not to mention certain "soon-to-be-State" legislators refused to sign the Declaration of Independence (DoC) if the "Anti-Slavery" line was not removed....

Furthermore, I think that the civil war would have happened eventually, because the central government is still too powerful. Unless of course, there was no Union to revolt against, because there was no consensus on the DoC....

You seemed to ignore the other issues within the Confederacy, here's 2:
-Trade agreements between States shouldn't have needed Federal supervision unless there was a dispute, not just because the Federal government disputed the trade (and no, I'm not talking about Slaves.)
-States were going to be losing control over how thier commerce operated in accordance with federal standards in trade and economics, i.e. interstate gambling, interstate transportation of goods and currency, and interstate communications.

I'm not sure what your point is. My argument is not that there was no debate over slavery - there was. My contention is that without slavery there would have been no Civil War.

Civil War over a too powerful federal government? Really? The federal government has continued to grow larger and more powerful since the Civil War yet there has been no civil war, nor even anything close to it. There is no support for your theory.

Here’s a question...does the civil war effect you? Honestly, in the most direct terms…does it affect you? I don’t mean in the way that I am sure some people are going to interpret this, and yes I understand that the wars outcome had a major impact on the rest of history…but you directly? Did you lay eyes on the Confederate Flag while it was engaged in combat against the union? I am going to go out on a limb here and say probably not. The flag how ever does directly effect people. Example A: You are a young white person living in “the south” and let’s say you come from a family of a completely non –racist background, yet out of tradition they proudly display the Confederate Flag outside of your home, or even in your home. This being the case you is not going to grow up thinking the flag has any thing to do with racism, and the fact that a few brainless waste of life bigots used it for that probably offends you. On the other side of the coin let’s say you are a young black person from the south, again, yes the Civil War freed the slaves, but unless you personally caught a whip across the back for not picking cotton fast enough, that didn’t affect you either. Now what is pertinent is that if you are growing up as a young black person in the south, then any time you have EVER seen the Confederate Flag it has been in relation to hatred or worse yet, used to show a personal hatred toward you.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I have always been the type of person to just not give a shit about other peoples feelings, and I think even if she wanted to wear the dress as a symbol of racism and just bitched out under the guise of heritage, then that is her choice, but she would have to be one of the STUPIDIST people alive to think that nothing was going to be said about it. Once again I state I have always been the type of person to just not give a shit about other peoples feelings, but in my own interest when I was in high school I wouldn’t have worn something that I knew would get me in to a hairy situation, just to piss some one off. In the end, the “South” isn’t going to rise again; the school had the right to do what ever the hell they want because when it comes right down to it, it was the school’s prom; and if she wanted to drape her fat ass in a flag, go ahead, but she should have been ready to deal with what she should have damn well known enough was coming.

I'm not sure what your point is. My argument is not that there was no debate over slavery - there was. My contention is that without slavery there would have been no Civil War.

Civil War over a too powerful federal government? Really? The federal government has continued to grow larger and more powerful since the Civil War yet there has been no civil war, nor even anything close to it. There is no support for your theory.

My point is clearly understandable if you read your post, and then my reply. I'm stating an opinion, as was asked, not arguing, which is probably what confused you.

I said it was my opinion, not a theory. Yes, of COURSE the central government is too powerful. But the federal government also has the authority to activate the National Guards, leaving States with little equipment and trained personnel to lead a revolt. There CANNOT be a civil war as it was done, because the federal government is too powerful. The next Civil War will be political, and it will not end in bloodshed.

Here’s a question...does the civil war effect you? Honestly, in the most direct terms…does it affect you? I don’t mean in the way that I am sure some people are going to interpret this, and yes I understand that the wars outcome had a major impact on the rest of history…but you directly? Did you lay eyes on the Confederate Flag while it was engaged in combat against the union? I am going to go out on a limb here and say probably not. The flag how ever does directly effect people. Example A: You are a young white person living in “the south” and let’s say you come from a family of a completely non –racist background, yet out of tradition they proudly display the Confederate Flag outside of your home, or even in your home. This being the case you is not going to grow up thinking the flag has any thing to do with racism, and the fact that a few brainless waste of life bigots used it for that probably offends you. On the other side of the coin let’s say you are a young black person from the south, again, yes the Civil War freed the slaves, but unless you personally caught a whip across the back for not picking cotton fast enough, that didn’t affect you either. Now what is pertinent is that if you are growing up as a young black person in the south, then any time you have EVER seen the Confederate Flag it has been in relation to hatred or worse yet, used to show a personal hatred toward you.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I have always been the type of person to just not give a shit about other peoples feelings, and I think even if she wanted to wear the dress as a symbol of racism and just bitched out under the guise of heritage, then that is her choice, but she would have to be one of the STUPIDIST people alive to think that nothing was going to be said about it. Once again I state I have always been the type of person to just not give a shit about other peoples feelings, but in my own interest when I was in high school I wouldn’t have worn something that I knew would get me in to a hairy situation, just to piss some one off. In the end, the “South” isn’t going to rise again; the school had the right to do what ever the hell they want because when it comes right down to it, it was the school’s prom; and if she wanted to drape her fat ass in a flag, go ahead, but she should have been ready to deal with what she should have damn well known enough was coming.

*claps, approvingly

Our country, the US, has placed a large emphasis on the liberty of free speech.

In my opinion I believe all people should have the right to promote whatever sort of speech they believe. It is often hard to allow extreme views to pass, but it is an essentially civil liberty. All great social movements have started with a few brave souls working on the fringes of society for the betterment of mankind. Desegregation, end of the monarchial age, decolonization, all began with the minority dissident speech of a few individuals. To select which people should be heard and which should not will have a negative impact on all minority views. We may live in a democracy, but our constitution was written to empower the majority and protect the minority simultaneously.

Secondly, when one takes on a symbol, one needs to be aware of the framers intention of that symbol but also of its implications throughout history. There seems to be a dichotomy of thought in this forum on the differences between the Nazi flag and the Confederate flag on the intentions of their makers. Initially the Nazi flag was resurrected from the North German Confederation flag. It stood as a symbol of German unity and nationalism when it was adopted in 1871. Elements of Aryan superiority and anti-semitism came into the mainstream view of the flag after Hitler's rise to power.

In a similar manner, the Confederate flag was not intended to be a symbol of pro-slavery and pro-racism. But as time changes the views of all symbols, the flag has come to mean far more than the framers intended. It is insensitive to not taken into account these later meanings when choosing to acknowledge and display the Confederate flag as a symbol. One cannot act as if history has not occurred.

That said, even if the flag represents rebellion to oppressive government, and racism, the girl should still have the right to adorn the flag. However, in the case of a school, the same civil liberties of which I have spoken of have certain limitations. If the school is to prohibit her from wearing the flag, then I believe it should be required to give justification as well as to bring the authority of law by making a rule for all future proms.

There is a more contemporary issue with the Confederate flag. By publicly acknowledging or advocating the Confederate flag, people make their personal opinions public. This causes other individuals to make choices and identify potential friends/adversaries based on one aspect of their personality. So in a sense, bearing the flag causes fraction, although I do not believe this is significant grounds to restrict freedom of speech, unless the fraction itself becomes signficant. If the girl's prom dress caused a riot during the prom, it would not be unreasonable to restrict this sort of attire for a formal dance occassion in my opinion.

Also, I believe it is a mistake to rule off all Southerners as "hicks" or to claim all Confederate flag bearers as racists. But at the same time, when an individual chooses to adorn the Confederate standard, they should be aware of the racial implications. If they deem these as insignificant, they should also be aware that others have a right to be offended. If they choose to ignore these opinions, they should also be aware that human beings will gravitate towards a bigotry judgement. If they accept this condition, well... technically the accept the perception of being a racist. And to claim otherwise is to ignore the history of the flag.

I'd also like to add that while I believe people have the right to bear the Confederate flag, at the same time, these are not the sort of people I would like to have interpersonal relationships until they admit the potential pitfalls of their symbol. What one symbol may mean to me (I personally see it as a guise for racism and as a legacy of Southern resistance to oppressive government, but the right to own slaves?) may mean something completely different to another. While I personally strive to overcome initial impressions, the person who adorns the confederate flag should realize others will not be as tolerant, and given these others view of the flag, this is not suprising or unjustified.

My point is clearly understandable if you read your post, and then my reply. I'm stating an opinion, as was asked, not arguing, which is probably what confused you.

I said it was my opinion, not a theory. Yes, of COURSE the central government is too powerful. But the federal government also has the authority to activate the National Guards, leaving States with little equipment and trained personnel to lead a revolt. There CANNOT be a civil war as it was done, because the federal government is too powerful. The next Civil War will be political, and it will not end in bloodshed.

It is not your words I do not understand. You are stating there was debate and division over the issue in the colonies. I have no argument with that. The point is well documented.

What I don't understand is your thesis. I don't understand how division over slavery makes a difference about whether or not there would have been a civil war if slavery had not existed.

You contend that there would have been a war over the growing power of the federal government. The only flash point where that theory might be tested was the tariff dispute in the early 1830s. Even though South Carolina threatened to secede, no other southern state was willing to join. The issue was resolved without bloodshed and was never repeated, except over the issue of slavery.

You say there would have been a war over the power of the federal government. I'm just wondering what evidence you have for that assumption?

I just want to say...i love when people ask for evidence in these threads. It seems to me no one ever gives real evidence, you know something to support their theory or opinion, instead they do everything they can to destroy everyone else’s. Fortunately for me it seems that even though I may not agree with every post in this thread, they have all been intelligent and well spoken, so I am interested to se where this goes.

It is not your words I do not understand. You are stating there was debate and division over the issue in the colonies. I have no argument with that. The point is well documented.

What I don't understand is your thesis. I don't understand how division over slavery makes a difference about whether or not there would have been a civil war if slavery had not existed.

You contend that there would have been a war over the growing power of the federal government. The only flash point where that theory might be tested was the tariff dispute in the early 1830s. Even though South Carolina threatened to secede, no other southern state was willing to join. The issue was resolved without bloodshed and was never repeated, except over the issue of slavery.

You say there would have been a war over the power of the federal government. I'm just wondering what evidence you have for that assumption?

My assumption was based on several supreme court cases that, had slavery never existed, would never have gone to the supreme court. Had there been no slavery, and thus, no civil war, our government would be oblivious to the real concept of an "inferior race," and subsquently would not have acted in ways following the Civil War that preserved the Union. I think we would have been severly less global, and our internalism in the 1900s would have delayed the Japanese Assault until well into a time of complete stasis by our military, which would have had no major action because we'd be less active. I'm extremely tired and this may make this run-on paragraph seem to go on a tangient; I have lost most ability to properly structure my defense at this time. In summary: I think that with a nation as young and diverse as ours, we would have gone in one of 2 directions: no slavery and slow influx of minorities leading to international arrogance of non-white people (moreso than the apparence of today), OR other issues would have eventually encouraged at least one State to leave. I'm basiing that mostly on my limited but enjoyed experience studying human behaviour and psychology.

I just want to say...i love when people ask for evidence in these threads. It seems to me no one ever gives real evidence, you know something to support their theory or opinion, instead they do everything they can to destroy everyone else’s. Fortunately for me it seems that even though I may not agree with every post in this thread, they have all been intelligent and well spoken, so I am interested to se where this goes.


Opinions dont need evidence-thats the beauty of having an opinion. I like chocolate ice cream. I think its the best flavor. If someone wants evidence of that, then watch me buy it every time and end up with a chocolate mustache. Wish I had some now... :)

I just want to say...i love when people ask for evidence in these threads. It seems to me no one ever gives real evidence, you know something to support their theory or opinion, instead they do everything they can to destroy everyone else’s. Fortunately for me it seems that even though I may not agree with every post in this thread, they have all been intelligent and well spoken, so I am interested to se where this goes.

I'm glad, too, there's another thread based on the flag with people convinced that there was only ONE reason for the Civil War, and that the South represents evil and blah blah blah.

And the flaming has been rather limited.

*I applaud to the thread*

Really? Here is a little thought experiment for you. Mentally travel back in time and imagine everything is the same, EXCEPT that first boatload of slaves never arrived in 1607 and slavery had never taken root in the colonies, nor in the newly formed United States.

Would the Civil War have ever occurred under those circumstances? The only issue you are left with is a disagreement over tariffs and that was resolved without bloodshed in 1832.

Now mentally travel back in history and delete the concept of state's rights from the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Even without the philosophical underpinings of states rights I believe the South would not have given up slavery without a fight, so essential was it to the southern economy.

Slavery is the peg upon which hanged the cloak of state's rights.

Are you sure you're not confusing the so-called "Civil War" and the "War of Independence"?

The 'civil war' wasn't about slavery - since the North kept slaves, too. In fact, and I'm sure someone here can find the exact quote, Lincoln himself said that if he could have fought that war without having to free a single slave, he would have.

The 'civil war' was about the economic and political climate of the Union. The Confederate states seceded because they felt they weren't represented equally politically, and because they were being financially 'squeezed' by the North, in the form of a financial trade disparity... that is, the South was largely agricultural - producing a 'low-cost' item, trading with a more 'industrial' society producing 'high-cost' items. The South also wasn't represented equally under taxation - since they paid much the same taxes, but the bulk of Public Works spending was centred on Northern 'industrial' areas.

The 'civil war' was ultimately caused by an act of Northern aggression, the refusal to remove a military presence from the sovereign territory of another nation - i.e. the Sumter incident.

But, since the 'south' had left the voluntary 'Union', it wasn't a 'Civil War', it was an invasion.

Incest, whiskey, and slavery.

You forgot sweet tea and biscuits & gravy.

It isn't all bad around here (Though I would consider whiskey a plus in any society).

But, since the 'south' had left the voluntary 'Union', it wasn't a 'Civil War', it was an invasion.

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or any other legal document which precludes any state or group of states from seceding from the United States.

You are completely correct.

You forgot sweet tea and biscuits & gravy.

It isn't all bad around here (Though I would consider whiskey a plus in any society).
i think whisky is THE reason for society

Are you sure you're not confusing the so-called "Civil War" and the "War of Independence"?

The 'civil war' wasn't about slavery - since the North kept slaves, too. In fact, and I'm sure someone here can find the exact quote, Lincoln himself said that if he could have fought that war without having to free a single slave, he would have.

The 'civil war' was about the economic and political climate of the Union. The Confederate states seceded because they felt they weren't represented equally politically, and because they were being financially 'squeezed' by the North, in the form of a financial trade disparity... that is, the South was largely agricultural - producing a 'low-cost' item, trading with a more 'industrial' society producing 'high-cost' items. The South also wasn't represented equally under taxation - since they paid much the same taxes, but the bulk of Public Works spending was centred on Northern 'industrial' areas.

The 'civil war' was ultimately caused by an act of Northern aggression, the refusal to remove a military presence from the sovereign territory of another nation - i.e. the Sumter incident.

But, since the 'south' had left the voluntary 'Union', it wasn't a 'Civil War', it was an invasion.

Riiiight. And Nazi Germany had no choice but to defend itself after the Polish army blew up its radio tower.

There are days when I have the patience to play this silly game about the "war of northern aggression." Today isn't one of those days.

Well lets look at it like this: she had the right to wear it, yes. Anyone who lives in a southern state, that would wear that dress, or allow their child to wear that dress, KNOWS that it could be interpretted as an insult to the black students and could start trouble at the dance.
Which is why I'm unsure I support this girl. Good point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaica
You're a little off. Slavery was the most vocal issue because it was the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back," not the main issue.




Really? Here is a little thought experiment for you. Mentally travel back in time and imagine everything is the same, EXCEPT that first boatload of slaves never arrived in 1607 and slavery had never taken root in the colonies, nor in the newly formed United States.

Would the Civil War have ever occurred under those circumstances? The only issue you are left with is a disagreement over tariffs and that was resolved without bloodshed in 1832.

Now mentally travel back in history and delete the concept of state's rights from the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Even without the philosophical underpinings of states rights I believe the South would not have given up slavery without a fight, so essential was it to the southern economy.

Slavery is the peg upon which hanged the cloak of state's rights.

--Eh... I can see both sides. But slavery was an issue- a very important issue, but it really exploded after the invention of the Cotton Gin. The original 3/5 Compromise, I believe, forbade any further importation of slaves... or at least something did. But because of the Cotton Gin, more and more slaves were needed- and more were imported. EVERYONE... North, South, and even England were dependent upon the cotton, because England was the biggest customer and the North shipped everything to them, and the South produced over half of the world's supply of cotton. The problem was that the cotton production ruined the land. So as the small farmers' land dissipated, big plantation owners, who had enough land to let it recultivate for a season or two, would buy it out and those farmers would move west where the land was cheap. The South became its own aristocracy and became a one-crop economy. They were DEPENDENT upon the cotton, which was dependent upon the slaves. With all the Westward movement, the South felt like their way of life was becoming threatened.

Actually it was part of the debates in the First Continental Congress to support slavery for economic and trade reasons. Oh, not to mention certain "soon-to-be-State" legislators refused to sign the Declaration of Independence (DoC) if the "Anti-Slavery" line was not removed....
This is inaccurate, at leas the part about economics and trade reasons. Slavery was essentially dead until the invention of the cotton gin. The 3/5 Compromise was kind of a put off kind of deal... like "This is obviously an issue, but first we need to unify".

This, dear Peechland, is exactly where we get the opinions we have on southern folk. We're educated enough to know that not all people are like that, but it's a matter of media saturation. If all you ever see or hear growing up is reinforcement of this image, what's to make us think otherwise?

I live in South Carolina. I didn't before. Now, granted, it's nothing like it was 50 years ago, but it's still very easy to sense racial tension, in my opinion. The majority of people I talk with on a daily basis make everything an issue of black and white. And I'm Northern, so...

The same thing happened to me when I wore a Swedish flag prom dress. I think it was because I'm a guy and it was August however.
You're probably joking, but the Swedish flag doesn't have the same associations as the Confederate flag.

The thing is that however you use this symbol, it still carries with it bad connotations.

I think this symbol is much like the N word. And as much as I think it's important to discuss why it is offensive, I also think that people should just stop using it.

Riiiight. And Nazi Germany had no choice but to defend itself after the Polish army blew up its radio tower.

There are days when I have the patience to play this silly game about the "war of northern aggression." Today isn't one of those days.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your hostility, or the relevence of your post.

Certain states (known henceforth as Confederate States) voluntarily left the voluntary Union.

This made them sovereign states. Northern troops maintained an illegalr presence in one of those southern states (an act of aggression), and were forced out.

Northern states responded by effectively declaring war on seceded states.

Thus, it was neither a civil war, nor a war instigated by 'the South', nor a war over slavery.

What exactly was your point trying to be?

I say more power to the girl. She has every right to be proud of her history, and to any of yall who call her trash, hick, redneck or any of that shit, who cares. I am from the south, most of my cloths, my hat has the battle flag on it. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v396/wardoggames/wardogs_sig.bmp yes I know that I misspelled some words in it.

Opinions dont need evidence-thats the beauty of having an opinion. I like chocolate ice cream. I think its the best flavor. If someone wants evidence of that, then watch me buy it every time and end up with a chocolate mustache. Wish I had some now... :)

Mmm, sounds delicious.

Oh, and chocolate ice cream sounds good, too...

:)

.

Are you sure you're not confusing the so-called "Civil War" and the "War of Independence"?

The 'civil war' wasn't about slavery - since the North kept slaves, too. In fact, and I'm sure someone here can find the exact quote, Lincoln himself said that if he could have fought that war without having to free a single slave, he would have.

The 'civil war' was about the economic and political climate of the Union. The Confederate states seceded because they felt they weren't represented equally politically, and because they were being financially 'squeezed' by the North, in the form of a financial trade disparity... that is, the South was largely agricultural - producing a 'low-cost' item, trading with a more 'industrial' society producing 'high-cost' items. The South also wasn't represented equally under taxation - since they paid much the same taxes, but the bulk of Public Works spending was centred on Northern 'industrial' areas.

The 'civil war' was ultimately caused by an act of Northern aggression, the refusal to remove a military presence from the sovereign territory of another nation - i.e. the Sumter incident.

But, since the 'south' had left the voluntary 'Union', it wasn't a 'Civil War', it was an invasion.
[/QUOTE]

Screw it all...lets invade Canada

Screw it all...lets invade Canada

Canada? But that's where the GOOD chocolate comes from, not this crappy American wannabee-chocolate... :(

The statement that the Southern states could voluntarily leave the Union is false. Only one Southern state had that right, Texas. It was voluntary whether or not you joined the Union. After signing the papers and having the vote that brought that territory/colony/whatever into being as a state, it no longer had the right to leave. It was now part of the United States and in order to leave the Union it would have to rebel against the federal government. Texas had the right to secede since that particular clause was included when it became a state. It no longer has that right since it was removed after the South lost the Civil War.

The Confederate flag has become a symbol of oppression and hate in this country. If you want to display your Southern heritage why not wear clothing with your state's flag? That would be more true to Confederate beliefs anyway since one of the things they were fighting over was state's rights. Of course the primary reason for the war was economical, same reason why most wars get started.

No one has ever been guaranteed free speech at public schools. That's why they have dress codes, rules regarding moral conduct, etc. Public schools are meant to socialize youths, to instruct them on social norms and acceptable ways of behavior in society. People under the age of 18 have restricted rights in this country. You do not have the right to vote, run for political office, etc. Not to mention most public establishments have rules regarding behavior. You will probably be removed if you try to exercise your right to free speech by going into a public library and screaming profanity at the top of your lungs. Society has rules, plain and simple. The establishment will act to enforce them.

Canada? But that's where the GOOD chocolate comes from, not this crappy American wannabee-chocolate... :(

Canada makes Godiva?

The Confederate flag is a symbol of hate for some and a symbol of rebellion for others.

Those ignorant racists & bigots flying the Confederate flag with their burning crosses also used 'Old Glory' & the Christian cross. They do so to try and validate their dumbass claims.

I hate that these groups ever reached for the Confederate flag, but I will not allow secular groups to define the history and meaning behind that flag. It is a greater symbol of Southern Pride, heritage, a fight against oppression, and rebellion against tyranny.

http://fullsizebronco.com/forum/images/smilies/RebelSmilie.gif

The Confederate flag is a symbol of hate for some and a symbol of rebellion for others.

Those ignorant racists & bigots flying the Confederate flag with their burning crosses also used 'Old Glory' & the Christian cross. They do so to try and validate their dumbass claims.

I hate that these groups ever reached for the Confederate flag, but I will not allow secular groups to define the history and meaning behind that flag. It is a greater symbol of Southern Pride, heritage, a fight against oppression, and rebellion against tyranny.

http://fullsizebronco.com/forum/images/smilies/RebelSmilie.gif

Here here! (Even though I'm from Maine.) ^^

i didn't mean as a military, i meant lets invade Canada and just live there, lol, they won't mind

i didn't mean as a military, i meant lets invade Canada and just live there, lol, they won't mind

Awww man. And I just put all my gear on!

The Confederate flag is a symbol of hate for some and a symbol of rebellion for others.

<snip>
I hate that these groups ever reached for the Confederate flag, but I will not allow secular groups to define the history and meaning behind that flag. It is a greater symbol of Southern Pride, heritage, a fight against oppression, and rebellion against tyranny. Bingo. Best way of expressing common sense I've seen here yet.

I don't have to care what it means to you, what matters is what it means to me, and you don't get to define that. To risk offensiveness again, the Confederate flag has been called by another term. I don't recall ever hearing it called the "Slaver's Flag", or the "******'s Flag" (man, even I wince typing that one out), but you sure as hell know it's called the "Rebel Flag".

Rebel. Not Racist, not Redneck, not Oppression. It is no more a racist symbol than the "Holy Cross". Or will the devout christians proclaim they knowingly wear a racist icon? Yeah, I didn't think so.

This one's for you, Phimotic: :D

i didn't mean as a military, i meant lets invade Canada and just live there, lol, they won't mind

No - wait, I think you're onto something.... :)

Canada makes Godiva?

Well, no... obviously for REAL, GOOD chocolate you have to go to Europe... but, at least the Canadian stuff is better than all that Hershey crap.

Well, no... obviously for REAL, GOOD chocolate you have to go to Europe... but, at least the Canadian stuff is better than all that Hershey crap.


:eek: Making fun of our chocolate?! ;) I'd like to try some real choco-lats. You owe me ice cream for that Gravy.

*off to pay bills(sigh)*

The statement that the Southern states could voluntarily leave the Union is false. Only one Southern state had that right, Texas. It was voluntary whether or not you joined the Union. After signing the papers and having the vote that brought that territory/colony/whatever into being as a state, it no longer had the right to leave. It was now part of the United States and in order to leave the Union it would have to rebel against the federal government. Texas had the right to secede since that particular clause was included when it became a state. It no longer has that right since it was removed after the South lost the Civil War.

The Confederate flag has become a symbol of oppression and hate in this country. If you want to display your Southern heritage why not wear clothing with your state's flag? That would be more true to Confederate beliefs anyway since one of the things they were fighting over was state's rights. Of course the primary reason for the war was economical, same reason why most wars get started.

No one has ever been guaranteed free speech at public schools. That's why they have dress codes, rules regarding moral conduct, etc. Public schools are meant to socialize youths, to instruct them on social norms and acceptable ways of behavior in society. People under the age of 18 have restricted rights in this country. You do not have the right to vote, run for political office, etc. Not to mention most public establishments have rules regarding behavior. You will probably be removed if you try to exercise your right to free speech by going into a public library and screaming profanity at the top of your lungs. Society has rules, plain and simple. The establishment will act to enforce them.

Wrong, friend.

Texas had the right to secede AT ANY TIME, under it's terms of Annexation, but ANY state is allowed to respond to a perceived 'bad government'... check the Declaration of Independence: "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness".

As an example of why any state could legally secede, Amendment 10 gives "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively." Since secession isn't mentioned in the Constitution, ANY state may legally assert the state 'power' of secession.

:eek: Making fun of our chocolate?! ;) I'd like to try some real choco-lats. You owe me ice cream for that Gravy.

*off to pay bills(sigh)*

Bills, huh... that sucks.

Not really making fun of American chocolate... but it isn't a patch on the chocolate the rest of the civilised world is eating.

The US may rule at fast-food (Mmmm Taco Hell), but they somehow got left way behind on Chocolate.

My advice... if you think you like chocolate, take a holiday in Europe, and try what THEY call chocolate...

You neglected one essential detail in your excerpt, Mister Phimotic:

Duty, now a college student, said school officials told her before the prom not to wear the dress, but she didn't have another one and decided to see if administrators would change their minds.

She blatantly spurned the school's edict. I'd be the last person to deny the liberticide our public school system's rules of conduct entail, but her case is severely lacking if she was warned beforehand. Compound that with the obvious controversy and unease associated with the flag, and it's obvious that Little Miss Agitator was just trying to provoke whoever she could.

Sigh. What a hideous dress.

that dress is tacky anyways. too shiny.

Wrong, friend.

Texas had the right to secede AT ANY TIME, under it's terms of Annexation, but ANY state is allowed to respond to a perceived 'bad government'... check the Declaration of Independence: "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness".

As an example of why any state could legally secede, Amendment 10 gives "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively." Since secession isn't mentioned in the Constitution, ANY state may legally assert the state 'power' of secession.

I cannot refute the Tenth Amendment. You have proven that the states technically had the right to secede. I am not sure if the framers of the Bill of Rights thought of secession when writing it. In response to your statement regarding the Declaration of Independence, the South was not altering or abolishing the United States government, they were creating their own country using land belonging to the United States. They were saying that the land belonged to their new country and not the United Staes. Most nations view this as an act of war and rightly so. When a foreign nation occupies territory belonging to yours, you go to war.

I cannot refute the Tenth Amendment. You have proven that the states technically had the right to secede. I am not sure if the framers of the Bill of Rights thought of secession when writing it. In response to your statement regarding the Declaration of Independence, the South was not altering or abolishing the United States government, they were creating their own country using land belonging to the United States. They were saying that the land belonged to their new country and not the United Staes. Most nations view this as an act of war and rightly so. When a foreign nation occupies territory belonging to yours, you go to war.

Not at all.. the land didn't 'belong' to the Union - it belonged to the states, who were voluntary members of the Union.

Each state that seceded (due to their perception that the government was 'bad') seceded as an independent state, as allowed by the Decleration of Independence, and by the 10th Ammendment. They effectively (and legally) abolished Union government OVER THEIR OWN STATES, while still allowing the rest of the Union to continue, if it so chose.

The formation of the Confederacy followed secessation - it was the collection of already-seceded states. Thus - the Confederacy was a legal sovereign body, and the secessive states were legal sovereign states.

Thus - the Union troops left in Sumter were illegal aggressors (since they were asked to vacate first), and the war between North and South was a Northern Invasion, not a 'civil war'.

Not at all.. the land didn't 'belong' to the Union - it belonged to the states, who were voluntary members of the Union.

Each state that seceded (due to their perception that the government was 'bad') seceded as an independent state, as allowed by the Decleration of Independence, and by the 10th Ammendment. They effectively (and legally) abolished Union government OVER THEIR OWN STATES, while still allowing the rest of the Union to continue, if it so chose.

The formation of the Confederacy followed secessation - it was the collection of already-seceded states. Thus - the Confederacy was a legal sovereign body, and the secessive states were legal sovereign states.

Thus - the Union troops left in Sumter were illegal aggressors (since they were asked to vacate first), and the war between North and South was a Northern Invasion, not a 'civil war'.

When the states were annexed, their territory became part of the United States. The state governments handed over their land to the United States in return for the benefits of being a part of the Union. That legally made their land United States property. The Decleration of Independence makes no mention of secession as a means of abolishing or altering "bad" government. Any decleration of secession or independence is therefore an act of insurgency, or rebellion against the duly appointed federal government which was acting in the interests of the majority, as evidenced by Lincoln's election and re-election.

On a side note it is nice to debate someone who makes intelligent statements and doesn't get personal.

When the states were annexed, their territory became part of the United States. The state governments handed over their land to the United States in return for the benefits of being a part of the Union. That legally made their land United States property. The Decleration of Independence makes no mention of secession as a means of abolishing or altering "bad" government. Any decleration of secession or independence is therefore an act of insurgency, or rebellion against the duly appointed federal government which was acting in the interests of the majority, as evidenced by Lincoln's election and re-election.

On a side note it is nice to debate someone who makes intelligent statements and doesn't get personal.

Starting with your last comment... this is pretty much how I conduct all of my debates... I like to have a little idea about the situation I debate, rather than the running-through-flaming approach many seem to favour.

Also, since I debate as part of (what I consider) my learning process.. it would make no sense for me to personally attack someone... I want to grapple with arguments and concepts, not hurl abuse.

THIS is the sort of debate I like.

BAck on topic... I believe that the Decleration gave clear legal allowance for secession... "it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government"... seems to perfectly allow for a state to 'institute' a self 'government' - effectively (and legally) causing a secession from the Union.

Confederacy is a different matter - but, since that took place AFTER secession, it is irrelevent.

Also - regarding re-election of Lincoln... that was part of the problem... the South didn't have the same voting power as the North, which was part of their argument - and the half-hearted attempt to redress that balance (by allowing 'fractional votes' for Slaves, still came nowhere near creating any kind of voting equality.

Thus, Lincoln was re-elected because he was the popular representative of the Union, an example of the political disparity that the South was fighting.

Starting with your last comment... this is pretty much how I conduct all of my debates... I like to have a little idea about the situation I debate, rather than the running-through-flaming approach many seem to favour.

Also, since I debate as part of (what I consider) my learning process.. it would make no sense for me to personally attack someone... I want to grapple with arguments and concepts, not hurl abuse.

THIS is the sort of debate I like.

BAck on topic... I believe that the Decleration gave clear legal allowance for secession... "it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government"... seems to perfectly allow for a state to 'institute' a self 'government' - effectively (and legally) causing a secession from the Union.

Confederacy is a different matter - but, since that took place AFTER secession, it is irrelevent.

Also - regarding re-election of Lincoln... that was part of the problem... the South didn't have the same voting power as the North, which was part of their argument - and the half-hearted attempt to redress that balance (by allowing 'fractional votes' for Slaves, still came nowhere near creating any kind of voting equality.

Thus, Lincoln was re-elected because he was the popular representative of the Union, an example of the political disparity that the South was fighting.

Accepting that secession is allowed by the Decleration of Independence or Tenth Amendment, I believe it is still shaky from a legal standpoint since the act of secession could be considered equivalent to treason which is definitely not legal. I am sorry but I have to cut this debate short, I must go finish my christmas shopping. I will check back to see your response to my last statement. Thank you for your time. It was enlightening.

Accepting that secession is allowed by the Decleration of Independence or Tenth Amendment, I believe it is still shaky from a legal standpoint since the act of secession could be considered equivalent to treason which is definitely not legal. I am sorry but I have to cut this debate short, I must go finish my christmas shopping. I will check back to see your response to my last statement. Thank you for your time. It was enlightening.

have a good time fighting the barbarian hordes. :)

I don't see how secession (a legal procedure, under the Declaration, and the Amended Constitution) could be treasonous? If the government is 'bad', the states are not tied to it, (and are, in fact, OBLIGED to change their government in some way) - so treason is, effectively, 'legitimated' under those circumstances.

Accepting that secession is allowed by the Decleration of Independence or Tenth Amendment, I believe it is still shaky from a legal standpoint since the act of secession could be considered equivalent to treason which is definitely not legal. I am sorry but I have to cut this debate short, I must go finish my christmas shopping. I will check back to see your response to my last statement. Thank you for your time. It was enlightening.

Question:

James Madison. Great Man or Hypocrite?

A girl who was kicked out of her school prom because of what she was wearing.
http://wkyt.static.worldnow.com/images/2716598_BG1.jpg
Jacqueline Duty personally designed and made this dress for last spring's prom at Russell High School in Boyd County. She says she designed it as a tribute to her southern heritage by incorporating elements from the Confederate flag.

According to her lawsuit, when she showed up wearing the dress the school principal, Sean Howard, had police force her to leave. She also claims the principal intimated her by striking her car.

Duty says students often wore clothes with Confederate flags to school, and that there was nothing in the dress code prohibiting it. School officials will not comment on the lawsuit.

The attorney for Duty says his client had high grades but was knocked out of potential scholarship money because she was portrayed as a racist.

http://fullsizebronco.com/forum/images/smilies/RebelSmilie.gif

WTF?

There was a big to do about clothing with the Confederate Flag on it at my school my freshman year (02-03). In my school alone in one day nearly 200 students were suspended for wearing the clothes. In a school across town nearly 350 were suspended, and on the way other side of school about 100 students were suspended. By the way, I live in South Carolina, so its a common battle. The school code of conduct book said that you couldn't wear any article of clothing that would be offensive to other people, so they were suspended for wearing Dixie Outfitters shirts. Even ones with puppies on them. And so a lot of us got together and said if we cant wear close with the Conf. Flag on it, then they cant wear anything with the black panthers, malcum x, mlk jr, or fubu. And then they tried to tell us that we couldnt wear tommy hilfiger because he said that if he would have known that as many black would have worn his close, then he would have never made them.

Anyways there was a lot of turmoil about it. And we made CNN. And what doesnt make any since, is last year and this year, they arent enforcing that rule. People wear dixie outfiters shirts all the time.

The 'civil war' was ultimately caused by an act of Northern aggression, the refusal to remove a military presence from the sovereign territory of another nation - i.e. the Sumter incident.

But, since the 'south' had left the voluntary 'Union', it wasn't a 'Civil War', it was an invasion.

Okay, I’ll bite. First let’s gets some assumptions out of the way.

I have had this discussion many times with fellow historians and history buffs alike, so you may assume I am familiar with the arguments made by defenders of southern secession. You may assume I have read John C. Calhoun’s defense of nullification (the South Carolina Exposition and Protest), the transcripts of the Webster-Haynes debate, as well as the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and am intimately familiar with all the salient issues and events leading up to the Civil war.

I will also assume you too are familiar with the major events and the counter arguments, especially Daniel Webster’s defense of the Union (particularly his second reply to Robert Haynes).

Let me go so far as to suggest that, at the time (the issue has since been resolved), the state’s rights crowd had the stronger legal and historical argument. Furthermore, let us stipulate that you are entirely correct that the states could freely leave a union they had freely joined (it is not what I believe, but no matter).

That brings us to your point about who started the war and what it should be called (the latter an issue brought up only by defenders of the Confederacy). The leaders of the secessionist movement did not have the examples of how to divide a nation that we have today, the most recent being the division of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the breakup of Yugoslavia, or the fragmentation of the Soviet Union into 15 separate nations. Perhaps the closest thing southern leaders had as an example was the division of New Spain into Mexico and the Central American republics and the creation of the northern South American nations from New Granada. Both these examples provide little in the way of a template for the southern secession movement, although they were peaceful (the division, not their war with Spain). The southern leaders did, however, come from a legal and political tradition that valued democratic principles and the rule of law. In fact it was within this tradition that the debate about state's rights was carried out, up until secession.

So, the southern states secede and form a new nation. Then what?

Well, as we all know a divorce between a husband and wife can be messy and complicated. How much more so for a country? There were countless issues to be resolved. How much of the U.S. debt (incurred in large part by southern states) would this new Confederate States of America assume? What was to become of federally owned property within the now independent south? Would the south compensate the U.S. for this land and material? What was to be done with federal employees (mostly soldiers) in the south? What about the customs houses and their revenue in southern port cities? What was to become of property owned by American railroad companies in both regions? Were Americans in the southern states to be given dual citizenship or the right to leave the new nation? Would areas of this new Confederacy be allowed to leave the CSA to rejoin the USA (i.e. West Virginia)? Was there to be a transition time? These are just a few of the many issues, great and small, that needed to be resolved.

It is not so simple to just say, ‘we are now a new country, get out.’ Did the southern states make any attempt to resolve these legitimate issues? Did the south set up any institutions or mechanisms to peacefully resolve disputes or handle the tranfer of wealth and materials? Lincoln extended an olive branch in his inauguration (“In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors.”). The southern states made no effort to recipricate.

There are many property owners in a state; individual land owners, corporations, local governments, the state, and the federal government. The U.S. owned property in the south. Fort Sumter was a federal facility, not a base for the South Carolina militia. Even if South Carolina were to peacefully secede its status would have to be negotiated. If it was in dispute then it was incumbent upon the leadership of this new “nation” to negotiate with the U.S. to resolve this issue. The southern states, no less than the other states of the Union, come from a long tradition, stretching back to England, of resolving legal disputes through established legal channels. The South Carolina militia did not do this.

In firing on Ft. Sumter the southern states not only fired upon a federal facility of the United States (is that not an act of war?), but they made a huge tactical mistake. They became the aggressors, firing upon the flag of the United States and causing many who were otherwise apathetic about the dispute to rally around the cause of the Union.

As to what we call this dispute, it is only a war between two nations if the seceding “nation” wins (no country in the world gave official recognition to the “CSA”). A failed attempt to leave is simply a civil war, the justice of that attempt not withstanding.

Okay, I’ll bite. First let’s gets some assumptions out of the way.

I have had this discussion many times with fellow historians and history buffs alike, so you may assume I am familiar with the arguments made by defenders of southern secession. You may assume I have read John C. Calhoun’s defense of nullification (the South Carolina Exposition and Protest), the transcripts of the Webster-Haynes debate, as well as the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and am intimately familiar with all the salient issues and events leading up to the Civil war.

I will also assume you too are familiar with the major events and the counter arguments, especially Daniel Webster’s defense of the Union (particularly his second reply to Robert Haynes).

Let me go so far as to suggest that, at the time (the issue has since been resolved), the state’s rights crowd had the stronger legal and historical argument. Furthermore, let us stipulate that you are entirely correct that the states could freely leave a union they had freely joined (it is not what I believe, but no matter).

That brings us to your point about who started the war and what it should be called (the latter an issue brought up only by defenders of the Confederacy). The leaders of the secessionist movement did not have the examples of how to divide a nation that we have today, the most recent being the division of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the breakup of Yugoslavia, or the fragmentation of the Soviet Union into 15 separate nations. Perhaps the closest thing southern leaders had as an example was the division of New Spain into Mexico and the Central American republics and the creation of the northern South American nations from New Granada. Both these examples provide little in the way of a template for the southern secession movement, although they were peaceful (the division, not their war with Spain). The southern leaders did, however, come from a legal and political tradition that valued democratic principles and the rule of law. In fact it was within this tradition that the debate about state's rights was carried out, up until secession.

So, the southern states secede and form a new nation. Then what?

Well, as we all know a divorce between a husband and wife can be messy and complicated. How much more so for a country? There were countless issues to be resolved. How much of the U.S. debt (incurred in large part by southern states) would this new Confederate States of America assume? What was to become of federally owned property within the now independent south? Would the south compensate the U.S. for this land and material? What was to be done with federal employees (mostly soldiers) in the south? What about the customs houses and their revenue in southern port cities? What was to become of property owned by American railroad companies in both regions? Were Americans in the southern states to be given dual citizenship or the right to leave the new nation? Would areas of this new Confederacy be allowed to leave the CSA to rejoin the USA (i.e. West Virginia)? Was there to be a transition time? These are just a few of the many issues, great and small, that needed to be resolved.

It is not so simple to just say, ‘we are now a new country, get out.’ Did the southern states make any attempt to resolve these legitimate issues? Did the south set up any institutions or mechanisms to peacefully resolve disputes or handle the tranfer of wealth and materials? Lincoln extended an olive branch in his inauguration (“In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors.”). The southern states made no effort to recipricate.

There are many property owners in a state; individual land owners, corporations, local governments, the state, and the federal government. The U.S. owned property in the south. Fort Sumter was a federal facility, not a base for the South Carolina militia. Even if South Carolina were to peacefully secede its status would have to be negotiated. If it was in dispute then it was incumbent upon the leadership of this new “nation” to negotiate with the U.S. to resolve this issue. The southern states, no less than the other states of the Union, come from a long tradition, stretching back to England, of resolving legal disputes through established legal channels. The South Carolina militia did not do this.

In firing on Ft. Sumter the southern states not only fired upon a federal facility of the United States (is that not an act of war?), but they made a huge tactical mistake. They became the aggressors, firing upon the flag of the United States and causing many who were otherwise apathetic about the dispute to rally around the cause of the Union.

As to what we call this dispute, it is only a war between two nations if the seceding “nation” wins (no country in the world gave official recognition to the “CSA”). A failed attempt to leave is simply a civil war, the justice of that attempt not withstanding.

First: I'm perhaps not the classic 'supporter' of the Confederacy, as you seem to think - since I am not an American. Outside of US borders, we actually probably have better access to information about the 'civil war' than you do within, if we chose to look.

Second:You said you were an expert, and I have no reason to disbelieve that... so how is it you are confusing Secession with Confederation? The Confederacy was formed FROM seceded states - the states didn't become a Confederacy and then leave (which COULD have been argued as treasonous) - so the Confederacy is actually irrelevent to the debate.

Third: The real bone of contention is Sumter. Yes - Southern 'troops' fired on Sumter - but Union troops had already been told to leave. They were clearly violating state sovereignty... imagine if Americans found a Cold-War Russian Missile Base somewhere in those huge expanses of Western deserts... would they happily accomodate those Russians? Would they order them to stand down? Similar situation, I feel.

Regarding the Confederacy again, Southern States didn't fire on Sumter, only the citizens of the one state, legally defending their territory, which was being illegally occupied. The Confederacy did offer SUPPORT after the fact, but firing on Sumter wasn't a 'Confederacy issue', anymore than the US invasion of Iraq was a UN issue.

Oh, by the way - I was under the impression that France officially recognised the CSA, at the very least. You need to provide evidence that NOBODY recognised it, if you believe otherwise... since you made the assertion.

The Confederate flag, no matter what your opinion of it is, is a unique example in the realm of vexilliology. And it's fun to display it to see how people react. :D

The outcome would have been the same if the girl had worn a dress with the logo of Al Qaeda on it.

Enemies of the US are enemies of the US, with the confederacy being a particularly insidious example owing to its bellicosity being treason.

That is still what it represents. I am pretty sure that the German people didn't fight WW II just to murder 6 million Jews, but the Swastika has come to represent anti-semitism.

Different situation. Confederate flag was a symbol of a government. Many of the government officials were not pro-slavery, but pro-states' rights. Whereas, the swastika was chosen as the symbol of the Nazi party, an anti-semitic group by definition.

The outcome would have been the same if the girl had worn a dress with the logo of Al Qaeda on it.

Enemies of the US are enemies of the US, with the confederacy being a particularly insidious example owing to its bellicosity being treason.
I think the comparision is flawed. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organisation operating in other states (not that it has any it self) the cofederates were a body fighting for autonimy and political freedom (thiers). Not yet making a study of the war I don't know but am interested in the legallity of the war waged by the north on the south.

The Confederate Flag (the battle flag specifically) was a symbol for rebellion against a tyranical government in 1865. When the KKK started flying it a decade or so later, it started becomeing something else. When pro-segragationists started flying it over political rallies, and had it added to state flags in protest of federal integration mandates in the 50's and 60's its fate became sealed.

Whether you want to delude yourself into thinking it's only about rebellion or your heritage is certainly your perogative. But it IS a symbol of hate and has been for 150 years.

There are 6 other confederate flags that do not carry this stigmata (including the very nifty 'Don't Tread on Me' one). You want to celebrate rebellion, use one of those.

And the United States Flag flew over hate as well. Why not ban it? It was the rallying flag to displace countless native americans, and the like.

The Southern Indian tribes, rallied beneath the Confederate Flag. and infact a special "stars and bars" Confederate Flag bearing five extra red stars was made for commemorating the 5 southern indian nations entrance into the confederacy. (Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole), all of which contributed troops to the Confederate forces to fight the genocidal maniacs in the Union.

http://www.unknowncivilwar.com/images/1STCHEROKEEGIF.gif

I feel free to fly the lesser known official flags:
http://www.unknowncivilwar.com/images/LEEHQgif.gif
Robert E. Lee's HQ flag
http://www.unknowncivilwar.com/images/sumterflagGIF.gif
The first authorized flag. (Was abandoned because it looked too much like the US flag in the battlefield).

People should be more tolerant of the intolerant.

The outcome would have been the same if the girl had worn a dress with the logo of Al Qaeda on it.

Enemies of the US are enemies of the US, with the confederacy being a particularly insidious example owing to its bellicosity being treason.

Treason? the only Traitors during that period were the ones sitting in offices in Washington. Real treason is violating the US Constitution (note Lincoln's suspention of the First, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments).

Sorry, but at least two states, Texas and Virginia, because of their unique ratification agreements, had full rights to secede from the Union. Since their condition of ratification was that those Amendments cannot be suspended or removed for any reason.

If you doubt this, please reffer to Virginia's official ratification letter to the Constitutional Congress in 1788.

First: I'm perhaps not the classic 'supporter' of the Confederacy, as you seem to think - since I am not an American. Outside of US borders, we actually probably have better access to information about the 'civil war' than you do within, if we chose to look.

This is pure silliness. You will find no greater information about the American Civil War outside the United States. In fact unless you have access to American sources in English, you will find much less information. With the exception of some foreign diplomatic documents, all of the primary sources are in English and in the United States.


Second:You said you were an expert, and I have no reason to disbelieve that... so how is it you are confusing Secession with Confederation? The Confederacy was formed FROM seceded states - the states didn't become a Confederacy and then leave (which COULD have been argued as treasonous) - so the Confederacy is actually irrelevant to the debate.

You claim the southern states had a right to secede and then form an independent country (the Confederacy). That issue was settled by the civil war. There may be all kinds of historical and legal arguments supporting the right of secession, but the reality is that the civil war settled the issue once and for all - states do not have that right. The Civil War transformed the phrase "United States of America" from plural to singular.

The issue of the Confederacy as an independent country goes to the heart of your argument - that the base at Ft. Sumter was an illegal U.S. instillation on foreign soil. It is only foreign soil - only an independent country - if the south wins. They did not. Simply saying a thing does not necessarily make it so.


Third: The real bone of contention is Sumter. Yes - Southern 'troops' fired on Sumter - but Union troops had already been told to leave. They were clearly violating state sovereignty... imagine if Americans found a Cold-War Russian Missile Base somewhere in those huge expanses of Western deserts... would they happily accommodate those Russians? Would they order them to stand down? Similar situation, I feel.

If the separation had been entirely peaceful this is an issue that would have to be negotiated, as I pointed out in my previous post. Although you largely ignored my thesis, I took pains to demonstrate the separation of two nations is a complicated and largely legalistic process. It isn't simply a matter of saying leave and that's that. Ft. Sumter was a federal instillation with federal soldiers and equipment. Even if the south were allowed to leave there is no reason to assume they would get to keep federal property, uncompensated.

Your example of a Russian base in the western U.S. does not apply. Russia is a long established and recongnized nation, not a part, or even former part, of the United States. The U.S. did not go to South Carolina and build Ft. Sumter. It was already an American fort. The disposal of American property on CSA soil was only one of many issues that the south would have to negotiate with the U.S.

The beligerant south made no such attempt.


Regarding the Confederacy again, Southern States didn't fire on Sumter, only the citizens of the one state, legally defending their territory, which was being illegally occupied. The Confederacy did offer SUPPORT after the fact, but firing on Sumter wasn't a 'Confederacy issue', anymore than the US invasion of Iraq was a UN issue.

South Carolina was part of the Confederacy and the South Carolina militia was part of the CSA army. Yours is a distinction without a difference.

Oh, by the way - I was under the impression that France officially recognized the CSA, at the very least. You need to provide evidence that NOBODY recognized it, if you believe otherwise... since you made the assertion.

If you are interested in the diplomatic history of the southern states you may read The Burden of Confederate Diplomacy by Charles M. Hubbard (assuming it is available in your country).

"The Burden of Confederate Diplomacy assesses the failure of Confederate diplomats to achieve recognition/intervention from the European powers or to secure something approaching legitimacy from the Lincoln administration. While acknowledging that the Southern cause was lost on the battlefield, Dr. Hubbard proceeds to chronicle the missed opportunities of the Confederacy on the diplomatic front that failed to associate or reconcile the interests of an independent South with those of the European powers--a failure that contributed substantially to the Confederate defeat."

You will want to especially read about the Duncan Kenner mission, a desperate, but failed, attempt late in the war to exchange emancipation of Southern slaves for recognition.

In the meantime you may visit the Columbia Encyclopedia at http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/Confeder.html

"The story of the Confederacy is essentially the story of the loss of the Civil War. Even with its early military triumphs, the Confederacy experienced trying days. It never won recognition as an independent government, although Southerners had been confident that “king cotton” would bring this about...."

I am afraid, my friend, that yours, like that of the fallen south, is a lost cause.

This is pure silliness. You will find no greater information about the American Civil War outside the United States. In fact unless you have access to American sources in English, you will find much less information. With the exception of some foreign diplomatic documents, all of the primary sources are in English and in the United States.


I disagree... I find it interesting that you assume that you have the best access to historical documentalia about the event. WHY do you assume that? In my time in the North, I was exposed to one set of 'porpoganda' about the 'civil war', and in the South, I was exposed to a different set of 'propoganda' about the 'civil war'.

Both were presented as 'factual'. Both were presented as history. Both were presented as education.

It seems obvious, therefore, that the impartial observer MUST have better subjective ability to examine the facts... also, you seem to assume that resources are somehow not available outside the US for people to study the issue. That... one might argue... is silliness.


You claim the southern states had a right to secede and then form an independent country (the Confederacy). That issue was settled by the civil war. There may be all kinds of historical and legal arguments supporting the right of secession, but the reality is that the civil war settled the issue once and for all - states do not have that right. The Civil War transformed the phrase "United States of America" from plural to singular.

The issue of the Confederacy as an independent country goes to the heart of your argument - that the base at Ft. Sumter was an illegal U.S. instillation on foreign soil. It is only foreign soil - only an independent country - if the south wins. They did not. Simply saying a thing does not necessarily make it so.


Separate the two. You continue to confuse secession with confederation.

The states had the legal right to secede. The independent states had a right to confederacy.

You do make some interesting points, but I'm afraid you are still wrong.

Just because the North 'won' doesn't mean that the secessions were not legal. Retrospectively, they were claimed as illegal by the Union... and the Union never accepted the secession mechanism... but that is all irrelevent.

Southern states seceded. The Union invaded. Southern states were justified in secession (under the Declaration - since the Union was playing fast and loose with the Constitution), whether the Union allowed them to leave, or no.


Even if the separation had been entirely peaceful this is an issue that would have to be negotiated, as I pointed out in my previous post. Although you largely ignored my thesis, I took pains to demonstrate the separation of two nations is a complicated and largely legalistic process. It isn't simply a matter of saying leave and that's that. Ft. Sumter was a federal instillation with federal soldiers and equipment. Even if the south were allowed to leave there is no reason to assume they would get to keep federal property.

Your example of a Russian base in the western U.S. does not applt. Russia is a long established and recongnized nation, not a part, or even former part, of the United States. The U.S. did not go to South Carolina and build Ft. Sumter. It was already an American fort. The disposal of American property on CSA soil was only one of many issues that the south would have to negotiate with the U.S.

The beligerant south made no such attempt.


I ignored your points about negotiation, because they are irrelevent.

If an enemy force holds territory in a sovereign nation, with hostile capacity, that sovereign nation has the right to demand a withdrawal. If the hostile force doesn't withdraw, the sovereign nation has the right to force the issue.

What you are not understanding is that the Federal troops at Sumter refused to acknowledge the secession - and continued operating under Union orders. Thus, they were Union soldiers in another nation, and they were occupying a military base in that soverign nation.

Federal land, or not, the Union made a Union stand at Sumter - nothing to do with 'federal' rules. Thus, Northern Aggression.


South Carolina was part of the Confederacy and the South Carolina was part of the CSA army. Yours is a distinction without a difference.


South Carolina was occupied by a foreign power. South Carolina fired on Sumter. The distinction is that you are, once again, confusing a sovereign state with the affiliations it might hold.


If you are interested in the diplomatic history of the southern states you may read The Burden of Confederate Diplomacy by Charles M. Hubbard (assuming it is available in your country). "The Burden of Confederate Diplomacy assesses the failure of Confederate diplomats to achieve re, cognition/intervention from the European powers or to secure something approaching legitimacy from the Lincoln administration. While acknowledging that the Southern cause was lost on the battlefield, Dr. Hubbard proceeds to chronicle the missed opportunities of the Confederacy on the diplomatic front that failed to associate or reconcile the interests of an independent South with those of the European powers--a failure that contributed substantially to the Confederate defeat."

You will want especially read about the Duncan Kenner mission, a desperate attempt late in the war to exchange emancipation of Southern slaves for recognition.

Once again you make assumptions, my friend.

I said I am not an American. I didn't say that I lived in a nation OTHER THAN America.

Ok. I should have listened to my first instinct about responding to this topic. This is a debate between one person arguing history and another arguing a long dead ideology.

Its not racist liking the Southern states, I am British/Irish whatever and I am really interested in the Confedarate states..My Nation on is a Confederacy. I think she should wear what she likes. Long live the Confederacy!!
Anyway it was a long time ago and to be honest slavery was not the issue. Lincoln olny said that because it gave him an excuse to unite the states(Faire enough).
The bottom line is it did not change slavery but if I lived then I would have crossed the pond to fight for the Confedarates!

"The story of the Confederacy is essentially the story of the loss of the Civil War. Even with its early military triumphs, the Confederacy experienced trying days. It never won recognition as an independent government, although Southerners had been confident that “king cotton” would bring this about...."



"Gladstone, not yet at the acme of political power, but still a powerful spokesman for the enlightened wing , in a controversial speech in Newcastle in 1862 referred to the South as having made a nation."

http://www.americancivilwar.org.uk/meet_reps/meet_11_03.htm

Ok. I should have listened to my first instinct about responding to this topic. This is a debate between one person arguing history and another arguing a long dead ideology.

That is harsh.

I wouldn't have said that your 'ideology' was 'long dead'... you just need to revise some of your 'facts'.

"Gladstone, not yet at the acme of political power, but still a powerful spokesman for the enlightened wing , in a controversial speech in Newcastle in 1862 referred to the South as having made a nation."

http://www.americancivilwar.org.uk/meet_reps/meet_11_03.htm

Was there some point to this?

That is harsh.

I wouldn't have said that your 'ideology' was 'long dead'... you just need to revise some of your 'facts'.

Yes, but your ideology, if it is the belief that states may leave the Union, is long dead. That question was resolved by the Civil War. You can regurgitate all the pre-Civil War arguments you want, but not all issues are settled in the court room or around the conference table. This one was resolved on the battlefield.

IMHO Ogiek makes the better argument.

Why do people take so much pride in the souther secession?

Rebellion to tyrannical rule? I don't quite understand. It is my understanding that the majority of the South was not composed of Southern Genteels as idealists would have it, but of mostly small plantation farmers. Majority of the South did not in fact own slaves. Rather, it seems to me that the South was enjoying a semblance of aristocratic rule, where the average person had little access to the sophisticated affairs of the Genteel government.

I don't know, it seems to me the war for the South was directed by the elites without benefits to the poor, seems like some things never change.

I have some pals in America(Pennsilvania)who I e-mail and to be honest they agree that even though the North one Slavery was still going on in some parts.(These pals re-enacht ACW battles mainly Gettysburg and Harpers Ferry).

Did the defeat of the Confedarate army and the states being united change slavery?

Was there some point to this?

Sorry you couldn't see through to it.

Gladstone was a member of the British Parliament... although the Parliament as a whole never expressed a conclusive support for the Confederacy, parts of the British government DID recognise the states as seceded.

It was only really good politics on Lincoln's part (backing down, and running off with tail between legs) that stopped England from entering the war on the Confederate side... it really WAS that close.

IMHO Ogiek makes the better argument.

Why do people take so much pride in the souther secession?

Rebellion to tyrannical rule? I don't quite understand. It is my understanding that the majority of the South was not composed of Southern Genteels as idealists would have it, but of mostly small plantation farmers. Majority of the South did not in fact own slaves. Rather, it seems to me that the South was enjoying a semblance of aristocratic rule, where the average person had little access to the sophisticated affairs of the Genteel government.

I don't know, it seems to me the war for the South was directed by the elites without benefits to the poor, seems like some things never change.

I personally don't think Ogiek has really made an argument. The assertion that secession was illegal, because the South lost... makes no sense to me.

Regarding the slaves, a large number of slaves actually fought for the South, whereas the slaves held up North stayed away from the conflict.

Native Americans ALSO fought on behalf of the Confederacy, against Northern aggression.

Personally, I don't think it is a matter of pride in the Southern secession - since I am not American, I am fairly unmoved by American history, except as an academic pursuit.

To me, it is more a matter of one of the wrongs that has been committed and brushed under the carpet. Slavery was wrong. Manifest Destiny was wrong. The War of Northern Aggression was wrong.

I personally don't think Ogiek has really made an argument. The assertion that secession was illegal, because the South lost... makes no sense to me.

You contend that my thesis that it was incumbent upon the southern states to resolve their dispute through legal, political, and diplomatic channels is irrelevant.

So be it.

Coincidently that was the very same position the seceding southern states took. They chose not to work toward separation through the courts, through the congress, or through a public dialogue. Instead they opted to settle the matter through force of arms. Once they fired on Ft. Sumter they made the decision to use the argument of might-means-right.

However, they failed in this argument. It turns out that might was on the side of the Union forces. However, having lost the decision on the battlefield of their choosing Confederate dead enders, such as yourself, now want to revert back to making the state’s rights legal, diplomatic, and political arguments.

Sorry. It is too late for that.

The south wished to resolve the issue on the battlefield and on the battlefield is was resolved. It makes no difference what the merits of the state’s rights argument was before the Civil War, because the fact of the Civil War changed everything. The simple truth is that although the south may have had a stronger legal and political argument before they fired on Ft. Sumter they chose not to pursue it through the political channels available. By agreeing to resolve this issue through force of arms they de facto agreed to abide by the results.

Sorry you couldn't see through to it.

Gladstone was a member of the British Parliament... although the Parliament as a whole never expressed a conclusive support for the Confederacy, parts of the British government DID recognise the states as seceded.

It was only really good politics on Lincoln's part (backing down, and running off with tail between legs) that stopped England from entering the war on the Confederate side... it really WAS that close.

Smoke and mirrors? The British government did not recognise the CSA. Read the rest of the paragraph of the sentence fragment you cited.

I'm sure that this is lost on most of you but I looked at that picture and one thing comes to mind.

IT'S THE CONFEDERATE BATTLE FLAG!

The battle flag is what the troops waved when they were on the field of battle. The Stars and Bars is the Confederate Flag. Pass that around please

Now on to this:

The Girl is doing the right thing in suing. I wish her luck and this northerner is behind her.

Acts by Lincoln.

1. Calling up of troops, without Congressional consent.
2. Suspension of the writ of Habeus Corpus*
3. Violation of the Enumerated Powers of the President*

*-Note:This included the arrest of newspapermen, and state legislators in Delaware, Maryland and Kentuky, violation of the First Amendment, and the President over-rulling the Supreme Court [Prisident Lincoln, over-ruled the Supreme Courts finding of Lincoln's actions as unconstitutional. Thereby destroying the balance of power, and the form and function of the US Constitution).

The "Union" was destroyed by Lincoln. What we have now, is not the real and true United States of America... And all of the problems, especially the many complaints of President Bush's own present acts, and powers; can be traced back to the mess created by Lincoln in his tyranical rule by force and supremecy... He tore down the ballance and function of the USA by it's foundation; and erected a Totalitarian Feralism which still stands today. One where the government can suspend as many rights as it wants; steal as much as it wants, own anything it wants....

Lincoln's acts.... were specifically quoted by the Commonwealth of Virginia in her own secession. And Virginia, as per her ratification treaty with the Constitutional Congress in 1788, had full rights and authority to secede from the United States of America, and for her people to take back all power which they vested in that body, when Lincoln violated all the fundamental foundations of the same said Constitution... Lincoln violated Virginia's ratification treaty with the formational Federal Government of the United States of America... As such, Virginia had full power of authority and action to repeal her ratification and resume all her sovereign powers, per agreement.

Truthfully, Lincoln was a traitor, an enemy of the Union; because he forever destroyed the foundations of the United States for his own petty power-tripping. Anyone who sides with Lincoln, is a traitor; for siding with an enemy of the United States of America; and also is in violation of the declaration of Chief Justice Taney's findings. which despite Lincoln's claims, stands; since Lincoln is given no authority, by law, to over-rule.

You contend that my thesis that it was incumbent upon the southern states to resolve their dispute through legal, political, and diplomatic channels is irrelevant.

So be it.

Coincidently that was the very same position the seceding southern states took. They chose not to work toward separation through the courts, through the congress, or through a public dialogue. Instead they opted to settle the matter through force of arms. Once they fired on Ft. Sumter they made the decision to use the argument of might-means-right.

However, they failed in this argument. It turns out that might was on the side of the Union forces. However, having lost the decision on the battlefield of their choosing Confederate dead enders, such as yourself, now want to revert back to making the state’s rights legal, diplomatic, and political arguments.

Sorry. It is too late for that.

The south wished to resolve that issue on the battlefield and on the battlefield is was resolved. It makes no difference what the merits of the state’s rights argument was before the Civil War, because the fact of the Civil War changed everything. The simple truth is that although the south may have had a stronger legal and political argument before they fired on Ft. Sumter they chose not to pursue it through the political channels available. By agreeing to resolve this issue through force of arms they de facto agreed to abide by the results.

How am I a Confederate dead-ender? I am not a confederate, nor even an American.

you admit that the South had the stronger legal and political argument BEFORE Sumter. The Union refused to remove a hostile force from Sumter, in order to provoke an enforced removal. Well, they got what they wanted, and they used it as the springboard to launch an invasion.

As you said, the South had the stronger legal argument... vis-a-vis... their secession was carried out legally - which means the Union was an illegal hostile force occupying sovereign land... regardless of who fired the first shot, that means that the Union broke the 'law of the land' - it does not, in any way, invalidate Secession.

Also - the main reason that the South seceded was the Union "messing around" in the Constitution. Given that fact, how can ANY Union action be legitimate?

I'm sure that this is lost on most of you but I looked at that picture and one thing comes to mind.

IT'S THE CONFEDERATE BATTLE FLAG!

The battle flag is what the troops waved when they were on the field of battle. The Stars and Bars is the Confederate Flag. Pass that around please

Now on to this:

The Girl is doing the right thing in suing. I wish her luck and this northerner is behind her.

Actually, it's the Naval Jack. Which is similar. The Naval Jack is what is seen most of the time being carried.

Battle Flag:
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/confed_b.gif

Naval Jack:
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/scross.gif

Truthfully, Lincoln was a traitor, an enemy of the Union
...and all the wackos come out of the woodwork.

My part in this discussion is over.

It is because that particular symbol (the blue and white 'cross of Saint Andrew' on a red background) is a part of several battle flags. It's either very easy or very difficult to avoid, depending on your resources

Your right. That dress is a copy of a Confederate Battle Flag. Not the Confederate flag.

...and all the wackos come out of the woodwork.

My part in this discussion is over.

Or alternatively, history is proved to oppose my view, so I'll get while the getting is good.

Just because someone else finds different things in history, to what you were taught, doesn't make them a 'wacko' or a 'dead-ender'.

Attack the argument, not the messenger.

...and all the wackos come out of the woodwork.

My part in this discussion is over.

Ah, so you appearantly approve of the President suspending sections of the US Constitution? And that there is nothing wrong with it? As long as he is accomplishing some goal you may support?

People like you disgust me.

Just as well. It's an ugly dress.

I personally liked it. It was very well made and gorgeous.

I don't need to do any research on this. What most people refer to as either "the Confederate Flag" or "the Rebel Flag" is actually the Battle Flag of the Confederated States of America. The two flags don't look at all alike.

I can post a pic of the Confederate flag and the Battle or "Rebel" flag! They are very different. Besides, I have both flags up in my room as well as like 8 American Flags

I'm a wacko? Why?

Because I declare the truthful facts that Lincoln specifically violated:

(1)Article I section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
(2)Article II section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
(3)Article III section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
(4)Amendment I of the US Constitution
(5)Amendment IV of the US Constitution
(6)Amendment V of the US Constitution
(7)Amendment VI of the US Constiution
as well, as Amendment IX and Amendment X, in lieu of all his others.

more than 7 Violations! Violations of Specific Constitutional declarations!

Let me guess, you're a Bush supporter aren't you?

Actual Confederate Flags:

First one:
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/stars_ba.gif
(1861)

Second one:
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/confed2.gif
(1863)

Third one:
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/confed3.gif
(1865)

I'm a wacko? Why?

Because I declare the truthful facts that Lincoln specifically violated:

(1)Article I section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
(2)Article II section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
(3)Article III section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
(4)Amendment I of the US Constitution
(5)Amendment IV of the US Constitution
(6)Amendment V of the US Constitution
(7)Amendment VI of the US Constiution
as well, as Amendment IX and Amendment X, in lieu of all his others.

more than 7 Violations! Violations of Specific Constitutional declarations!

Let me guess, you're a Bush supporter aren't you?

Hahaha. That made me laugh. Sorry.

I'm a wacko? Why?

Because I declare the truthful facts that Lincoln specifically violated:

(1)Article I section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
(2)Article II section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
(3)Article III section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
(4)Amendment I of the US Constitution
(5)Amendment IV of the US Constitution
(6)Amendment V of the US Constitution
(7)Amendment VI of the US Constiution
as well, as Amendment IX and Amendment X, in lieu of all his others.

more than 7 Violations! Violations of Specific Constitutional declarations!

Let me guess, you're a Bush supporter aren't you?

How the hell did you get a bush supporter out of that. Look at whom Lincoln tossed into jail. Abolitionist Paper writers and those inciting people. Did you know that Lincoln didn't do a damn thing until AFTER Sumter was fired upon? Did you know that in war, Censorship skyrockets? Did you know that in war rights are suspended? The samething happened in 1812, 1848, 1898, 1917, 1941,1950, the 60s, Panama, Grenada, 1st Gulf War, and now this one?

How the hell did you get a bush supporter out of that. Look at whom Lincoln tossed into jail. Abolitionist Paper writers and those inciting people. Did you know that Lincoln didn't do a damn thing until AFTER Sumter was fired upon? Did you know that in war, Censorship skyrockets? Did you know that in war rights are suspended? The samething happened in 1812, 1848, 1898, 1917, 1941,1950, the 60s, Panama, Grenada, 1st Gulf War, and now this one?

By whose authority? The President is given no authorotative power to suspend any portion of the US Constitution during wartime. In fact, it even has specific rights that are only applicalbe IN war time. Merely because it has happened. Does not make it legal. Under all previous declared wars, it was suspended under the authority of the US Congress; who has the power to declare war. War was never declared by Congress, and they never suspended the writ for Lincoln; Lincoln suspended it with no authority (which the Supreme Court called him on), he merely "over-ruled" the Supreme Courts findings of his unconstitutional acts; which was another violation of his enumerated powers.

Will the next Hamiltonian step up to the plate!

By whose authority? The Federal Government is given no authorotative power to suspend any portion of the US Constitution during wartime. In fact, it even has specific rights that are only applicalbe IN war time. Merely because it has happened. Does not make it legal. Under all previous declared wars, it was suspended under the authority of the US Congress; who has the power to declare war. War was never declared by Congress, and they never suspended the writ for Lincoln; Lincoln suspended it with no authority (which the Supreme Court called him on), he merely "over-ruled" the Supreme Courts findings of his unconstitutional acts; which was another violation of his enumerated powers.

Will the next Hamiltonian step up to the plate!

no but the use of force was so there you go. As for Lincoln, yea he was called on it but wasn't impeached.

no but the use of force was so there you go. As for Lincoln, yea he was called on it but wasn't impeached.

I could care less what happened or didn't in the case of his Constitutional Violations.

He still, specifically, and numerously, violated his, and took upon others, enumerated powers. And then acted, without any actual authortative power, to violate the Bill of Rights.

The acts were illegal. He breached his powers and violated the US Constitution. Such actions are what caused states like Virginia to secede... (Note, they did not secede to quite some time after Sumter, and after all of Lincoln's illegal acts. Because under Ratification, Virginia still legally retained the right to resume her full sovereign powers, should the Constitution be violated by the Federal Government. If you don't believe me; look at the Ratification document sent to the Constitutional Congress by the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1788.

Specifically:
WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.

I could care less what happened or didn't in the case of his Constitutional Violations.

He still, specifically, and numerously, violated his, and took upon others, enumerated powers. And then acted, without any actual authortative power, to violate the Bill of Rights.

The acts were illegal. He breached his powers and violated the US Constitution. Such actions are what caused states like Virginia to secede... (Note, they did not secede to quite some time after Sumter, and after all of Lincoln's illegal acts. Because under Ratification, Virginia still legally retained the right to resume her full sovereign powers, should the Constitution be violated by the Federal Government. If you don't believe me; look at the Ratification document sent to the Constitutional Congress by the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1788.

Specifically:

And, of course, there is always the implied right to sessation, from the Declaration of Independence: "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness".

So - if a state perceived that the Union government was becoming "destructive", the DoI granted them right to take measures as they saw fit. Seceding wasn't ruled out... so it's in.

Before the war:
1. The States had the power to repeal the Constitution and resume their sovereignty if the same said constitution was perverted to their oppression.
2. The Executive was a branch, and fully accountable, to the Legislature and rulings of the Judicial.
3. The President had to appeal to Congress to attain war powers, raise troops, and suspend habeus corpus.

After the war:
1. States are under mandate to the Constitution, and may never leave it under any circumstance.
2. The Executive branch could assume whatever powers it wanted, and take on the powers and authority of any other branch at whim.
3. The President could over-rule and overturn all other branches of government.

AKA. Before the war, we had a Republic. Afterwards we had a Federal Dictatorship.

We should bring back duels, so we can take care of this fucktards, just like Hamilton was taken care of.

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."


Confedate Veep A.H. Stephens.

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."


Confedate Veep A.H. Stephens.


merp~! here's an interesting, yet random, little tidbit -- A.H. Stephens' home is in Crawfordville, GA -- right across the street from Ruffin Flag Company (a major dealer in all sorts of Confederate battle flags)

this shows how fucked up the south really is.
fucking rednecks

And we quote John Quincy Adams:

This is a publication of the office of the president. It's called the "Executive Review," and I'm sure you all read it. At least I'm sure the president hopes you all read it. This is a recent issue, and there's an article in written by a "keen mind of the South," -- who is my former vice president, John Calhoun, perhaps. Could it be? -- who asserts that:

"There has never existed a civilized society in which one segment did not thrive upon the labor of another. As far back as one chooses to look, to ancient times, to biblical times, history bears this out. In Eden, where only two were created, even there one was pronounced subordinate to to the other. Slavery has always been with us and is neither sinful nor immoral. Rather, as war and antagonism are the natural states of man, so, too, slavery, as natural as it is inevitable.

Well, gentlemen, I must say that I differ with the keen minds of the South, and with our president, who apparently shares their views, offering that the natural state of mankind is instead -- and I know this is a controversial idea -- is freedom. Is freedom. And the proof is the lengths to which a man, woman, or child will go to regain it, once taken. He will break loose his chains, He will decimate his enemies. He will try and try and try, against all odds, against all prejudices, to get home.



Cinque, would you stand up, if you would, so everyone can see you. This man is black. We can all see that. But can we also see as easily that which is equally true? That he is the only true hero in this room. Now, if her were white, he wouldn't be standing before this court fighting for his life. If he were white and his enslavers were British, he wouldn't be able to stand, so heavy the weight of the medals and honors we would bestow upon him. Songs would be written about him. The great authors of our times would fill books about him. His story would be told and retold in our classrooms. Our children, because we would make sure of it, would know his name as well as they know Patrick Henry's.



Yet, if the South is right, what are we to do with that embarrassing, annoying document, "The Declaration of Independence"? What of its conceits? "All men created equal," "inalienable rights," "life," "liberty," and so on and so forth? What on earth are we to do with this?



I have a modest suggestion. [tears up a facsimile of the Declaration]

The other night I was talking with my friend Cinque. He was over at my place, and we were out in the greenhouse together. And he was explaining to me how when a member of the Mende -- that's his people -- when a member of the Mende encounters a situation where there appears to hope at all, he invokes his ancestors. Tradition. See, the Mende believe that if one can summon the spirit of one's ancestors, then they have never left, and the wisdom and strength they fathered and inspired will come to his aid.



James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams. We've long resisted asking you for guidance. Perhaps we have feared in doing so we might acknowledge that our individuality which we so, so revere is not entirely our own. Perhaps we've feared an appeal to you might be taken for weakness. But, we've come to understand, finally, that this is not so. We understand now, we've been made to understand, and to embrace the understanding that who we are is who we were.



We desperately need your strength and wisdom, to triumph over our fears, our prejudices, our-selves. Give us the courage to do what is right. And, if it means civil war, then let it come. And when it does, may it be, finally, the last battle of the American Revolution.

That's all I have to say.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/mp3clips/newmoviespeeches/moviespeechamistad1.mp3

Well, the "conflict" arrised from the Civil War didn't solve the problem. Because there were a multitude of fundamental differences of opinion in the area.

The Majority of the deep-south Cotton States wanted to perpetuate the practice, or at least, had no plans for its abolishment.

The majority in other states, such as Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentuky and the like; Wanted the gradual education and phase-out. To produce an effect of minized economic impact, while making the Negros, eventually, productive citizens.

Most Northern States were opposed to any form of "negro" integration: In fact, Ohio, Indiana and even Lincoln's own Illinois (and Lincoln himself) wanted all the negros deported to a foreign land, either back to Africa, or to somewhere in South America. And most Northern States had laws forbidding the settlement of Negros in their states.

Just as the great son of Virginia Jefferson was to say during it formation: Virginia was leading the way before, during and after the war. We were the first state to abolish the importation of negros (as slaves) over our state borders, we were the first with a system of laws and functions to free blacks from slavery, and formed systems of apprenticeships so they would be capable of earning a living on their own; and since then we have had the status of being the first state to integrate our public school system (even before all the acts by the northern states and federal government), and have status of being the first state to have an elected black govenor. (Douglas Wilder, who is presently the Mayor-elect for the City of Richmond; Virginia's State Capitol, as Richmond's first elected mayor; which he pushed for.[before it was an appointment position by the City Council]).

this shows how fucked up the south really is.
fucking rednecks


I could say something to the extent of "damn yankees" right now, but apparently I have enough sense to refrain from such overgeneralizations. Apparently you don't.

It is uncouth,unfair, and , frankly, unintelligent to state that an entire region is "fucked up", and to call those who live in the region "fucking rednecks." Tell me, are you just upset with a Southern person at the moment, or are you usually a flamer?

I could say something to the extent of "damn yankees" right now, but apparently I have enough sense to refrain from such overgeneralizations. Apparently you don't.

It is uncouth,unfair, and , frankly, unintelligent to state that an entire region is "fucked up", and to call those who live in the region "fucking rednecks." Tell me, are you just upset with a Southern person at the moment, or are you usually a flamer?


upset with a southern person...
well who isn't

and yes im usually a flamer

upset with a southern person...
well who isn't

and yes im usually a flamer

Apparently you do not know that flaming is both VERY ANNOYING and against the damn rules.

Apparently you do not know that flaming is both VERY ANNOYING and against the damn rules.

and i don't give a rats ass what the rules are. so shut the fuck up

and i don't give a rats ass what the rules are. so shut the fuck up

Being a flamer will get you deted.

don't give a damn

Apparently the mods are busy right now. I assume they'll get to him when the time is right.

and i don't give a rats ass what the rules are. so shut the fuck up

Did you know that you can stop that rasping noise, when you breathe, by simply closing your mouth?

Apparently the mods are busy right now. I assume they'll get to him when the time is right.

Hopefully. I hate to see anyone deleted but he deserves it.

Hopefully. I hate to see anyone deleted but he deserves it.

You know, when I signed up a few days ago, I thought your post counts were soooo high...now I'm getting closer to 500 already....lol

Well, the "conflict" arrised from the Civil War didn't solve the problem. Because there were a multitude of fundamental differences of opinion in the area.

The Majority of the deep-south Cotton States wanted to perpetuate the practice, or at least, had no plans for its abolishment.

The majority in other states, such as Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentuky and the like; Wanted the gradual education and phase-out. To produce an effect of minized economic impact, while making the Negros, eventually, productive citizens.

Most Northern States were opposed to any form of "negro" integration: In fact, Ohio, Indiana and even Lincoln's own Illinois (and Lincoln himself) wanted all the negros deported to a foreign land, either back to Africa, or to somewhere in South America. And most Northern States had laws forbidding the settlement of Negros in their states.

Just as the great son of Virginia Jefferson was to say during it formation: Virginia was leading the way before, during and after the war. We were the first state to abolish the importation of negros (as slaves) over our state borders, we were the first with a system of laws and functions to free blacks from slavery, and formed systems of apprenticeships so they would be capable of earning a living on their own; and since then we have had the status of being the first state to integrate our public school system (even before all the acts by the northern states and federal government), and have status of being the first state to have an elected black govenor. (Douglas Wilder, who is presently the Mayor-elect for the City of Richmond; Virginia's State Capitol, as Richmond's first elected mayor; which he pushed for.[before it was an appointment position by the City Council]).


Excellent fox hunting in northern Va.

rant rant rant, slavery's bad, rant rant rant


This isn't a debate about slavery. This long piece of copy and paste rhetoric has nothing to do with the Civil War. It was about secession rights.

Maybe the principal was black...j/k

Anyway, it is her right to where that flag if she wants since its not against school policy but at the same time she should have used some common sense.

This is all PC crap! PC Offends me so its politically incorrect to use political correctness around me.

This whole flag debate reminds me of what is going on in Germany. In the Federal Republic of Germany, the Nazi swastika is banned. So neo-nazis use the old imperial prussian flag instead. Now the prussian flag wasn't originaly a symbol of white supremacy or anti-semitism. But since about the only people now of days that uses that flag are fascists, many germans would probaly consider it to be offensive. If I were to display it here in the U.S.A. however, most people here probaly wouldn't think anything of it. On a side note, the iron cross is not racist. You will find it all over modern day military vehicles in Germany.

This isn't a debate about slavery. This long piece of copy and paste rhetoric has nothing to do with the Civil War. It was about secession rights.

No, it was about money, plain and simple.

This whole flag debate reminds me of what is going on in Germany. In the Federal Republic of Germany, the Nazi swastika is banned. So neo-nazis use the old imperial prussian flag instead. Now the prussian flag wasn't originaly a symbol of white supremacy or anti-semitism. But since about the only people now of days that uses that flag are fascists, many germans would probaly consider it to be offensive. If I were to display it here in the U.S.A. however, most people here probaly wouldn't think anything of it. On a side note, the iron cross is not racist. You will find it all over modern day military vehicles in Germany.

And yet, the Iron Cross was displayed everywhere along with the Swastika....

There can be multiple meanings to flags. And the simple fact is "Southern Cross = Oppression and Slavery" is not a valid meaning; I could say the same for the US Flag; since it flew from slave ships, and over slavery for much longer than the CSA flags.

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."


Confedate Veep A.H. Stephens.

The assertion that seccession is about anything other than the raht to keep ower slaves... is nothing but spin.

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."


Confedate Veep A.H. Stephens.

The assertion that seccession is about anything other than the raht to keep ower slaves... is nothing but spin.

That's your opinion - but I would say, you are wrong.

The North owned slaves. The South owned slaves. Lincoln himself said that, if he could have won the 'civil war' without having to free a single slave, he would have.

That's not to say that slave issues weren't involved - but this idea that the North was a emancipationist paragon is ridiculous in light of actual historical evidence.

All of which pales in significance, in comparison to Lincoln's abuses of the Constitution - which is what gave Southern states the legal right to secede, and sufficient reason.

That's your opinion - but I would say, you are wrong.

The North owned slaves. The South owned slaves. Lincoln himself said that, if he could have won the 'civil war' without having to free a single slave, he would have.

That's not to say that slave issues weren't involved - but this idea that the North was a emancipationist paragon is ridiculous in light of actual historical evidence.

All of which pales in significance, in comparison to Lincoln's abuses of the Constitution - which is what gave Southern states the legal right to secede, and sufficient reason.

So, say for a moment that I accept that the Southern states had a legal right to secede. Why does that mean that the Union could not try to retake the Confederacy? What's to say that the Union didn't have the right to attack another sovereign nation? Certainly the US has gone to war over less provocation than the attack of Ft. Sumter.

So, say for a moment that I accept that the Southern states had a legal right to secede. Why does that mean that the Union could not try to retake the Confederacy? What's to say that the Union didn't have the right to attack another sovereign nation? Certainly the US has gone to war over less provocation than the attack of Ft. Sumter.

Thing is, Fort Sumter was a military fort, attacked by military troops. When that occured, it was war between the North and South.

Thing is, Fort Sumter was a military fort, attacked by military troops. When that occured, it was war between the North and South.

Right. So how was it about secession rights? Why is it such a disgrace that the North attacked the South after Ft. Sumter, especially considering the pretenses we have used to go to war previously and since?

If the confederate flag represents slavery then the Union and prior to 1866 American flags have to represent it as well. Slavery was not abolished in the North until AFTER the civil war. If the war was truly about slavery then how do you explain this contradiction. Others include both Grant and Sherman being slaveowners and Lee and Jackson not being slaveowners. And I assure you many people do not see the confederate flag as a symbol of slavery. Those ships carrying slaves to American most definatly bore Old Glory.

Right. So how was it about secession rights? Why is it such a disgrace that the North attacked the South after Ft. Sumter, especially considering the pretenses we have used to go to war previously and since?

No it wasn't a disgrace. An attack on an american fort should've been responded too and it was. The south was fighting for States Rights in all reality. The Union was fighting to preserve it.

As for other pretenses for Declaring War:

1812 was our ships being seized at sea and our people being impressed into the British Navy.

The Mexican-American war we somewhat provoked!

Those were the 2 previous wars

1898, we used the destruction of the USS Maine and blamed it on a mine when it was improperly stored gunpowder.

1917 self preservation and the death of american civilians on two ocean liners

1941 was Pearl Harbor

Pearl Harbor was the last time we declared war on a nation.

If the confederate flag represents slavery then the Union and prior to 1866 American flags have to represent it as well. Slavery was not abolished in the North until AFTER the civil war. If the war was truly about slavery then how do you explain this contradiction. Others include both Grant and Sherman being slaveowners and Lee and Jackson not being slaveowners. And I assure you many people do not see the confederate flag as a symbol of slavery. Those ships carrying slaves to American most definatly bore Old Glory.

This is so 100% True! Amazing how we focus on one thing and not the big picture.

No it wasn't a disgrace. An attack on an american fort should've been responded too and it was. The south was fighting for States Rights in all reality. The Union was fighting to preserve it.

As for other pretenses for Declaring War:

1812 was our ships being seized at sea and our people being impressed into the British Navy.

The Mexican-American war we somewhat provoked!

Those were the 2 previous wars

1898, we used the destruction of the USS Maine and blamed it on a mine when it was improperly stored gunpowder.

1917 self preservation and the death of american civilians on two ocean liners

1941 was Pearl Harbor

Pearl Harbor was the last time we declared war on a nation.

Oh, I know. I'm just saying the argument that the Union had no right to attack the South is garbage. The US reserves every right to wage war.

Oh, I know. I'm just saying the argument that the Union had no right to attack the South is garbage. The US reserves every right to wage war.

K! That I will agree with!

K! That I will agree with!

I'll agree that Lincoln was sort of a fascist bastard, but to say the Union was outside its rights to attack the Confederacy is plain wrong.

I'll agree that Lincoln was sort of a fascist bastard, but to say the Union was outside its rights to attack the Confederacy is plain wrong.

Okay - I was going to respond to the first one, back up there... but I'll respond down here...

Why is it 'alright' for the United States to decalre war?

I don't necessarily think the reasons the US has used since have been any better - especially not Pearl Harbour (which, I think Corneliu mentioned), where the US government decided to deliberately instigate an incident, and deliberately put military and civilian lives on the line, in order to give them a reason to enter the war.

The Union legally had to let Southern states secede. After that secession, any military movement was against a sovereign state. The fact that the Union deliberately maintained a troop presence on Confederate land, despite being told to pull those troops out (so they were given the option of avoiding a conflict there), was an action deliberately designed to make Southern troops fire on Sumter - to give Lincoln an 'excuse' for the war he was itching to fight.

I dislike political lies. I dislike Bush saying that the US is in Iraq because of links to Terror or WMD. I dislike the assertion that the Union had any legitimate right to war on another nation.

I would have more respect for Lincoln if he'd just sucked it up and said "We don't like them there Confederates, let's go kill them", rather than hiding behind deceptions and ploys.

Okay - I was going to respond to the first one, back up there... but I'll respond down here...

Why is it 'alright' for the United States to decalre war?

I don't necessarily think the reasons the US has used since have been any better - especially not Pearl Harbour (which, I think Corneliu mentioned), where the US government decided to deliberately instigate an incident, and deliberately put military and civilian lives on the line, in order to give them a reason to enter the war.

The Union legally had to let Southern states secede. After that secession, any military movement was against a sovereign state. The fact that the Union deliberately maintained a troop presence on Confederate land, despite being told to pull those troops out (so they were given the option of avoiding a conflict there), was an action deliberately designed to make Southern troops fire on Sumter - to give Lincoln an 'excuse' for the war he was itching to fight.

I dislike political lies. I dislike Bush saying that the US is in Iraq because of links to Terror or WMD. I dislike the assertion that the Union had any legitimate right to war on another nation.

I would have more respect for Lincoln if he'd just sucked it up and said "We don't like them there Confederates, let's go kill them", rather than hiding behind deceptions and ploys.

I'm not disagreeing with a single word you said. I say that the Union was well within its legal rights to attack the Confederacy. Whether it was "right" or not is irrelelvant, and open to debate. But to say that the Union had no right to retake the Confederacy is bunk. The US has maintained the right to wage war if it is deemed necessary.

I'm not disagreeing with a single word you said. I say that the Union was well within its legal rights to attack the Confederacy. Whether it was "right" or not is irrelelvant, and open to debate. But to say that the Union had no right to retake the Confederacy is bunk. The US has maintained the right to wage war if it is deemed necessary.

Therein lies the crux of the matter, though.

Revisionist history teaches that:

a) The South were to blame, for resisting the emancipationist wisdom of the North.

b) The South never actually seceded, becuae it wasn't allowed to.

c) The South started the war, by firing on Northern troops.

d) It was a 'civil war'.

Whereas, a little research shows that the North was not 'anti-slavery', the South had plenty of legal room to secede, after secession - the Union holding Sumter was illegal.

Also - of course, if the states seceded, and the Union then fought the Confederacy, that ISN'T a Civil War - it's just a war, and a war that the Union forced to happen.

Let's make it very, very simple, shall we? The use of the Confederate battle flag did NOT end with the conclusion of the Civil War (as one might well have expected should have occurred.) They did, after all, lose the war, but were allowed by the "traitorous?" Northerners to continue to display their colors.

Interesting military and historical paradox, yes?

The battle flag was co-opted by those Southerners who DID believe in racial dichotomy, and the inferiority of one group to another (a general trend which, incidentally, was use by many "educated" men and women to justify slavery.) I would have much less of problem with the display of the Confederate battle flag if not for its concomittant use by:

KKK
Skinheads
Aryan Nation
White Citizens Council
Disneyland (sorry, couldn't resist--LOL)

and

Those who seem insistent on confusing the antebellum culture of the South with the post-Civil War vitriol of the wound-licking, racist, resentful southern contingent which gave birth to the KKK and its modern-day grandchild organizations.

The young lady's (and I use that term politely, if not accurately) decision to wear the dress carries with it the responsibility of understanding its implications. At some point, folks, we need to accept the reality that our society can only exist through peaceful and respectful coexistence. Sometimes, only occassionally mind you, this requires one to think of others before thinking of himself or herself. It is NOT political correctness to acknowledge that what is a legacy of culture to one person is a history of cruelty to another. That is called maturity, ladies and gentlemen.

He said.

Okay - I was going to respond to the first one, back up there... but I'll respond down here...

Ok! That's a relief! LOL

Why is it 'alright' for the United States to decalre war?

Soveriegn Right?

I don't necessarily think the reasons the US has used since have been any better - especially not Pearl Harbour (which, I think Corneliu mentioned), where the US government decided to deliberately instigate an incident, and deliberately put military and civilian lives on the line, in order to give them a reason to enter the war.

Now your spoutin' Conspiracy Theory BS! We already destroyed the US Government perpetrated Pearl Harbor in another thread. We had no clue that was going to happen. We knew of an attack but we thought it would be in the Philippiness, not Hawaii.

The Union legally had to let Southern states secede. After that secession, any military movement was against a sovereign state. The fact that the Union deliberately maintained a troop presence on Confederate land, despite being told to pull those troops out (so they were given the option of avoiding a conflict there), was an action deliberately designed to make Southern troops fire on Sumter - to give Lincoln an 'excuse' for the war he was itching to fight.

Actually, the North didn't have too. If we use your line of logic then Kosovo should've been granted their independence and on down the list of nations that wanted independence. Britain then should've let us rule ourselves and save us 8 years of war that resulted in an American Victory. As for deliberately maintaining troops there. I suggest you read up more on the American Civil War and Fort Sumter to begin with. Lincoln didn't want a war. He said it himself. If he could've found away to preserve the union without fighting a war, he would've done so. As for spoiling for a fight. I think the South was spoiling more otherwise they wouldn't have fired on Fort Sumter WITHOUT a declaration of war coming out of Richmond.

I dislike political lies. I dislike Bush saying that the US is in Iraq because of links to Terror or WMD. I dislike the assertion that the Union had any legitimate right to war on another nation.

I dislike lies too! Hussein did have links to terror and he never dismanted his WMD Program and would've restarted it the minute the sanctions where lifted. Besides, if he never had them, then why was he continously portraying that he had them and stonewalling the inspection process? As for the Civil War, we did have legitament reason. ITS CALLED FORT SUMTER!! Fire on an American Fort and there will be a retaliation.

I would have more respect for Lincoln if he'd just sucked it up and said "We don't like them there Confederates, let's go kill them", rather than hiding behind deceptions and ploys.

You need to study the AMerican Civil War more buddy.

Revisionist history teaches that:

Thank God I do alot of research before doing anything else!

a) The South were to blame, for resisting the emancipationist wisdom of the North.

No one said this as far as I know. That was what the south was afraid of in reality and split from the Union. They are also to blame for starting the war by firing on Fort Sumter.

b) The South never actually seceded, becuae it wasn't allowed to.

That is what Lincoln thought! Don't believe me? look it up.

c) The South started the war, by firing on Northern troops.

Accurate 100%! Fort Sumter was a Union Fort that was fired upon by Confederate Forces. Hence, its war.

d) It was a 'civil war'.

Civil War- War between parties of the same government, between states within a nation, between fellow citizens, etc.

Whereas, a little research shows that the North was not 'anti-slavery', the South had plenty of legal room to secede, after secession - the Union holding Sumter was illegal.

Union hanging on to Fort Sumter was actually legal and it was tolerated till it was re-enforced. That is why the South fired on it. As for the North not 'anti-slavery' I can agree with though it is questionable if they were or not.

Also - of course, if the states seceded, and the Union then fought the Confederacy, that ISN'T a Civil War - it's just a war, and a war that the Union forced to happen.

The Union never recognized the SOuth seceeding from the union so yes it is a Civil War. Read Definition above.

Thank God I do alot of research before doing anything else!



No one said this as far as I know. That was what the south was afraid of in reality and split from the Union. They are also to blame for starting the war by firing on Fort Sumter.



That is what Lincoln thought! Don't believe me? look it up.



Accurate 100%! Fort Sumter was a Union Fort that was fired upon by Confederate Forces. Hence, its war.



Civil War- War between parties of the same government, between states within a nation, between fellow citizens, etc.



Union hanging on to Fort Sumter was actually legal and it was tolerated till it was re-enforced. That is why the South fired on it. As for the North not 'anti-slavery' I can agree with though it is questionable if they were or not.



The Union never recognized the SOuth seceeding from the union so yes it is a Civil War. Read Definition above.
That last point is a bit dubious. It sort of depends what side you are on. What it would require would be neutral nation to look at international law at the time. Bugger the North aming the rules up then expecting every one to stick to them from then on.

That last point is a bit dubious. It sort of depends what side you are on. What it would require would be neutral nation to look at international law at the time. Bugger the North aming the rules up then expecting every one to stick to them from then on.

Well Britain was close to recognizing the South as well as declaring war on the US thanks to the Trent Affair.

Well Britain was close to recognizing the South as well as declaring war on the US thanks to the Trent Affair. And if they had and actually brought some real resources to bear what would the world be like now. And any all too patrioctic Americans that think it would not have made a difference want to look at what power Britain actualy wealded at that time.

And if they had and actually brought some real resources to bear what would the world be like now. And any all too patrioctic Americans that think it would not have made a difference want to look at what power Britain actualy wealded at that time.

two senerios! both of them were written as books by Harry Harrison and Harry Turtledove! Of course there are more senerios but these are only 2 that I know of.

As to Britain, I know the power they weilded back then and since we would've been fighting a 2 front war, it definitely wouldn't be 1812 all over again. The Brits and South probably would've won.

two senerios! both of them were written as books by Harry Harrison and Harry Turtledove! Of course there are more senerios but these are only 2 that I know of.

As to Britain, I know the power they weilded back then and since we would've been fighting a 2 front war, it definitely wouldn't be 1812 all over again. The Brits and South probably would've won.
Don't know if the world would be any better place for it but it would be an interesting thought. Again it depends if they had stopped at independance for the south or destruction of the North.

Don't know if the world would be any better place for it but it would be an interesting thought. Again it depends if they had stopped at independance for the south or destruction of the North.

For the Brits? Destruction of the North! For the South? Stop at independence. That is my guess.

Fort Sumter, after the secession of South Carolina, was not under legal US Occupation. The Fort, technically, belonged to South Carolina. It was not US owned land (The federal government cannot own land, except the 10 mile square area known as "The District of Columbia"). At secession, The Fort was being used to accost and attack Incomming merchant vessels. The South Carolinian militia was able to supress the fort, and prevent its resupply by the "Star of the West", during Buchanan's term. The Union was using the Fort to tax vessels entering charleston harbor (of which, after secession, they had no right to do).

Lincoln's own attempted resupply lead to the SC militia taking the fort.... Prior to that, the SC government had been giving the fort food and medical supplied, because they had been assured by "Union Representatives" that Lincoln would be pulling the troops out..... He did not, it was all a deception by Lincoln...

Fort Sumter was attacked, because Lincoln wanted it to be attacked. So he would have an excuse. Of course, most of this got out... And it caused more problems; because Lincoln was not expecting that this would lead to even more secessions.

If it weren't for Lincoln's petty tyranny, my state never would have seceded.

1. Virginia seceded because the President of the United States of America was acting and operating outside of his authority. He was acting deceptively towards the cotton states, he forced a conflict over Fort Sumter, he was taking on powers, and acting outside of his enumerated power and authority in over-turning other branches of the Union governments decisions, he was raising armies without congressional approval, he was having individuals arrested, and detained, both press and legislative, suspended the writ of habeus corpus (all of which are powers given to congress only), and, in short, acting like a Tyrant. The Federal Government of the United States of America, was no longer operating on its established authority; and Virginia, having been a stern supporter of the Union up to this point, could no longer stand by, and attempt peaceful discourse, when a tyrant was being allowed to run unchecked. As such, she choose to leave the Union, and re-establish her own autonomy... (Nothing really lost in this, since Virginia had by state constitution, every right and protection as that of the old union).

Once Virginia left, the dominoes fell.... North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, etc. all followed Virginia's suit..... and Maryland and Kentucky would have also; had Lincoln not taking even more action and actually ARRESTED duly elected legislators in those states (Which effectively would have made D.C. a Union island surrounded by Secessionist states, and not a very tenable position to be in).....

Lincoln was a tyrant, had he not been one, He would have still had Virginia on his side, as well as her suitors.... And the Confederacy would have been confined to the original 5 cotton states.... Of course, seeking peaceful solutions was not good enough for Lincoln... He wanted to rule like a King, not a President.

The Fort, technically, belonged to South Carolina. It was not US owned land (The federal government cannot own land, except the 10 mile square area known as "The District of Columbia").
I'm no lawyer, but if the Goverment Does not own the land, then who does?
At secession, The Fort was being used to accost and attack Incomming merchant vessels.
A quick googling does not support to that arguement. Do you have a source for that?
The Union was using the Fort to tax vessels entering charleston harbor (of which, after secession, they had no right to do).

Same as above
Virginia seceded because the President of the United States of America was acting and operating outside of his authority How So?
, he was having individuals arrested, and detained, both press and legislative, suspended the writ of habeus corpus (all of which are powers given to congress only)
I do know that lincoln had some State Legislature dudes arrested, although I do believe that this was after the attack on fort sumter.

I've been to fort sumter. I was really hung over, and spent the entire time looking for a drinking fountain and a place to take a dump.

Charleston is a really great city though, I highly recommend the peninsula grill.

Soveriegn Right?


Oh yes... I'm sure every nation maintains the 'right' to attack, to declare war. But, does that make it 'right'?

If China decided that the US was a pain in the butt, and started raining nuclear warheads on the East Coast... they would have the 'right' to do that, but I'm pretty sure that some people would complain it wasn't a good thing.

That's more or less what we are describing. Sure, the Union was ALLOWED to declare war on the South (although, if you check your history, you'll see it was Lincoln that started the hostilities - thereby, outstretching his presidential mandate) - but they were WRONG to do so... they invaded a sovereign nation, just because they wanted to.


Now your spoutin' Conspiracy Theory BS! We already destroyed the US Government perpetrated Pearl Harbor in another thread. We had no clue that was going to happen. We knew of an attack but we thought it would be in the Philippiness, not Hawaii.


Check your history better, friend. Records have been released periodically over the years that clearly show that the Hawaiian defences were not alerted to the presence of the Japanese fleet. Records have also been released that show that the Japanese fleet was clearly identified in the locality of Pearl Harbour.

Checking back to before the instance, there were advisements from high ranking US officers, and various other intelligence agents (including Russian) that activities were planned... even down to the exact technique to be used.

Further checking will show that Japan actually asked for the precise location of the US fleet shortly before the strike on Pearl Harbour. The US forces in Pearl Harbour were not informed of that trivial detail, either.


Actually, the North didn't have too. If we use your line of logic then Kosovo should've been granted their independence and on down the list of nations that wanted independence. Britain then should've let us rule ourselves and save us 8 years of war that resulted in an American Victory. As for deliberately maintaining troops there. I suggest you read up more on the American Civil War and Fort Sumter to begin with. Lincoln didn't want a war. He said it himself. If he could've found away to preserve the union without fighting a war, he would've done so. As for spoiling for a fight. I think the South was spoiling more otherwise they wouldn't have fired on Fort Sumter WITHOUT a declaration of war coming out of Richmond.


Not at all... the US Declaration of Independence allowed states to secede. Lincoln broke the terms of the Declaration by not allowing the South to secede.

He didn't say that he would have preserved the union without fighting a war, if he could... he said he would have preserved the Union without FREEING A SLAVE if he could. Big difference.


I dislike lies too! Hussein did have links to terror and he never dismanted his WMD Program and would've restarted it the minute the sanctions where lifted. Besides, if he never had them, then why was he continously portraying that he had them and stonewalling the inspection process? As for the Civil War, we did have legitament reason. ITS CALLED FORT SUMTER!! Fire on an American Fort and there will be a retaliation.


Hussein has been proved not to have links to terror... you're a Republican, right?

And where have you been for the last year? It has been pretty conclusively proved that there was no buildup of WMDs in Iraq.

Regarding Fort Sumter - the Southerners were perfectly legitimate in firing on Sumter - the Union was holding it illegally, after promising to withdraw. They were told to leave, since they were an 'occupying force' in sovereign territory, but they refused. The South only opened fire when Lincoln breached his promise to withdraw, by attempting to re-inforce the Fort.


You need to study the AMerican Civil War more buddy.

I could say the same.

Oh - and it's not a 'civil war' if it's between two sovereign powers.

Thank God I do alot of research before doing anything else!

No one said this as far as I know. That was what the south was afraid of in reality and split from the Union. They are also to blame for starting the war by firing on Fort Sumter.

That is what Lincoln thought! Don't believe me? look it up.

Accurate 100%! Fort Sumter was a Union Fort that was fired upon by Confederate Forces. Hence, its war.

Civil War- War between parties of the same government, between states within a nation, between fellow citizens, etc.

Union hanging on to Fort Sumter was actually legal and it was tolerated till it was re-enforced. That is why the South fired on it. As for the North not 'anti-slavery' I can agree with though it is questionable if they were or not.

The Union never recognized the SOuth seceeding from the union so yes it is a Civil War. Read Definition above.

All I can assume is that you have been brainwashed so thoroughly that you are now immune to evidence.

The Declaration of Independence allows a state to secede. Texas was allowed to secede ANYWAY, by their terms of Annexation.

Thus - regardless of what Lincoln professed, he was operating outside of the DoI terms by refusing to acknowledge the secessions of states. Lincoln wasn't a stupid man, just an evil one - he knew what he was doing, just as he knew what he was doing when he lied about withdrawing from Sumter.

Since the DoI allows for secession - Lincoln wasn't fighting a civil war, he was fighting a war. He had an occupying force in another nation which he wouldn't remove - which is an act of war. When Southern soldiers emptied the fort, Lincoln used that as a pretext for war on ALL the seceded states.

You really do need to look up some of these facts.

Some of your arguments are pitiful - since they clearly show you haven't done even the most cursory of examinations in an objective manner. You have decided what you believe, and you are not going to let mere facts get in the way.

All I can assume is that you have been brainwashed so thoroughly that you are now immune to evidence.

The Declaration of Independence allows a state to secede. Texas was allowed to secede ANYWAY, by their terms of Annexation.

Thus - regardless of what Lincoln professed, he was operating outside of the DoI terms by refusing to acknowledge the secessions of states. Lincoln wasn't a stupid man, just an evil one - he knew what he was doing, just as he knew what he was doing when he lied about withdrawing from Sumter.

Since the DoI allows for secession - Lincoln wasn't fighting a civil war, he was fighting a war. He had an occupying force in another nation which he wouldn't remove - which is an act of war. When Southern soldiers emptied the fort, Lincoln used that as a pretext for war on ALL the seceded states.

You really do need to look up some of these facts.

Some of your arguments are pitiful - since they clearly show you haven't done even the most cursory of examinations in an objective manner. You have decided what you believe, and you are not going to let mere facts get in the way.


Since when is sovereignty established by a purely municipal US act?

The rebs can no more declare themselves 'sovereign' than I can declare myself 'omnipotent'.

The Rebs were traitors the moment they CONSIDERED leaving the Union.

Oh yes... I'm sure every nation maintains the 'right' to attack, to declare war. But, does that make it 'right'?

No but they do have the right to declare war and it is every country's soveriegn right to declare war.

If China decided that the US was a pain in the butt, and started raining nuclear warheads on the East Coast... they would have the 'right' to do that, but I'm pretty sure that some people would complain it wasn't a good thing.

If they launch a missile strike, the US would detect it and launch missiles in return. Would China see it coming? They might but we would have warning to get to shelter though it doesn't help much in a nuclear strike.

That's more or less what we are describing. Sure, the Union was ALLOWED to declare war on the South (although, if you check your history, you'll see it was Lincoln that started the hostilities - thereby, outstretching his presidential mandate) - but they were WRONG to do so... they invaded a sovereign nation, just because they wanted to.

How did Lincoln start hostilities? It was the South that FIRED FIRST!!!! That is something that your forgetting. Due to this, it was war. Also if you check your facts, no war was declared! Why? Because Lincoln never recognized the south's right to seceed from the Union therefor making it a Civil War.

Check your history better, friend. Records have been released periodically over the years that clearly show that the Hawaiian defences were not alerted to the presence of the Japanese fleet. Records have also been released that show that the Japanese fleet was clearly identified in the locality of Pearl Harbour.

Like to know why? BECAUSE WE DIDN"T KNOW THEY WERE THERE!!!!! Boy you really are stretching now aren't you? Haven't you been listening to anything anyone has told you? We were expecting an attack on the Philippinnes not Hawaii. We DID NOT know where the Jap Fleet was at because of RADIO SILENCE!!! Study up more buddy before you spout stuff about the Pacific Theater of WWII. The only record was dude was a midget sub which was destroyed by the USS Ward!

Checking back to before the instance, there were advisements from high ranking US officers, and various other intelligence agents (including Russian) that activities were planned... even down to the exact technique to be used.

Activities yes! WHere? Philippinness was the most likely target. If we suspected Pearl Harbor, don't you think that we would've been better prepared? My thinking is yes!!!

Further checking will show that Japan actually asked for the precise location of the US fleet shortly before the strike on Pearl Harbour. The US forces in Pearl Harbour were not informed of that trivial detail, either.

Japanese Intelligence was good! Your still stretching though. Like to know why they asked for that? So they didn't run into them. Just because they wanted to know where the US Fleet was doesn't necessarily mean an attack on the Fleet. It means that they didn't want to run into them. We could keep this up all day.

Not at all... the US Declaration of Independence allowed states to secede. Lincoln broke the terms of the Declaration by not allowing the South to secede.

Its a toss up on wether or not the Declaration of Independence gave permission to any nation to seceed from the Union. Scholars are mixed on it.

He didn't say that he would have preserved the union without fighting a war, if he could... he said he would have preserved the Union without FREEING A SLAVE if he could. Big difference.

Not in reality when your talking about the Civil War which had roots in the word Slavery.

Hussein has been proved not to have links to terror... you're a Republican, right?

Actually its the exact opposite but I guess your either a liberal or european to see that he did have links to terror and my political views is none of your concern. I look at all facts of the case and come out to my opinion.

And where have you been for the last year? It has been pretty conclusively proved that there was no buildup of WMDs in Iraq.

At the University getting an education and giving one in return. Also I've been following what's been coming out of Iraq. I never did say buildup did I? No I said they retained the stuff to make them. Duel use facilities anyone? The never dismantled their WMD Program and that is in direct violation of the UN Cease-Fire as well as countless UN Resolutions. If there was no build up of WMD then why did Bill Clinton Bomb'em for 4 straight days?

Regarding Fort Sumter - the Southerners were perfectly legitimate in firing on Sumter - the Union was holding it illegally, after promising to withdraw. They were told to leave, since they were an 'occupying force' in sovereign territory, but they refused. The South only opened fire when Lincoln breached his promise to withdraw, by attempting to re-inforce the Fort.

They weren't holding it illegally. They had an agreement and the Union resupplied it thus it was fired upon sparking the Civil War.

I could say the same.

*Amature Military Historian* I study everything I can get my hands on. If something is suspicious, I track it down to verify its accuracy. If I can't then I write it off. If I can vouch for its accuracy then I keep it. Research is a marvelous word.

Oh - and it's not a 'civil war' if it's between two sovereign powers.

And how is it between 2 sovereign powers when one side doesn't recognize the other's independence? Its only a war when both sides are recognized. Since the South never recognized the Union and the Union never recognized the South, then by defintion, it is a Civil War.

All I can assume is that you have been brainwashed so thoroughly that you are now immune to evidence.

Thanks for this character assessment on a person you don't know! No I haven't been brainwashed. I just do research before I spout off. Unlike you however.

The Declaration of Independence allows a state to secede. Texas was allowed to secede ANYWAY, by their terms of Annexation.

And that is totally different. Texas was annexed yes but the terms of the annexation gave them permission to leave. The South never had such. Its a toss up on wether or not the DoI gave them permission to secceed or not. I know that the Constitution of the USA didn't.

Thus - regardless of what Lincoln professed, he was operating outside of the DoI terms by refusing to acknowledge the secessions of states. Lincoln wasn't a stupid man, just an evil one - he knew what he was doing, just as he knew what he was doing when he lied about withdrawing from Sumter.

He didn't have too under the Constitution of the United States. In his mind, the CoUSA out did the DoI therefor rendering the DoI obsolete since it only declared themselves independent of Great Britain. Thus, holding on to Fort Sumter was legal and as stated before, was tolerated until the Union enforced it thus causing the South to fire. It was more resupplied and not re-enforced but that is beside the point.

Since the DoI allows for secession - Lincoln wasn't fighting a civil war, he was fighting a war. He had an occupying force in another nation which he wouldn't remove - which is an act of war. When Southern soldiers emptied the fort, Lincoln used that as a pretext for war on ALL the seceded states.

It was a Civil War in accordance with the Definition of the word Civil War. I gave you the def but I guess that your brainwashed to badly to understand.

You really do need to look up some of these facts.

You need to look up your own facts.

Some of your arguments are pitiful - since they clearly show you haven't done even the most cursory of examinations in an objective manner. You have decided what you believe, and you are not going to let mere facts get in the way.

HAHAHAHA!!!! Sounds like a liberal Arguement. I have studied the Civil War since as far back as I can remember. That and WWII. The two major wars that I study because of the historical Significance of both of these wars. I am not letting facts get in the way but since you have no proof of what your saying is true then I have no reason to believe you.

Since when is sovereignty established by a purely municipal US act?

The rebs can no more declare themselves 'sovereign' than I can declare myself 'omnipotent'.

The Rebs were traitors the moment they CONSIDERED leaving the Union.

The Declaration of Independence has no value, if it is not taken as a basis for an Independent nation.

However, although it is one element of the right to secession, it is not the only element - since the 10th Amendment also allows for secession:

Any state had the right to secede AT ANY TIME, under it's terms of Annexation, but ANY state is allowed to respond to a perceived 'bad government'... check the Declaration of Independence: "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness".

As an example of why any state could legally secede, Amendment 10 gives "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively." Since secession isn't mentioned in the Constitution, ANY state may legally assert the state 'power' of secession.

The 'rebs' were not traitors, until the formed the Confederacy... and, even then, they are only traitors if you use Lincoln's abuse of rights to refuse them sovereignty.

No but they do have the right to declare war and it is every country's soveriegn right to declare war.


Irrelevent - not debating whether Lincoln was ALLOWED to decalre war - although he wasn't... and had to exceed his office to do so - I am debating whether or not it was JUST.


If they launch a missile strike, the US would detect it and launch missiles in return. Would China see it coming? They might but we would have warning to get to shelter though it doesn't help much in a nuclear strike.


Irrelevent - whether or not there is retaliatory fire has NOTHING to do with whether or not China would be JUSTIFIED in it's attack.


How did Lincoln start hostilities? It was the South that FIRED FIRST!!!! That is something that your forgetting. Due to this, it was war. Also if you check your facts, no war was declared! Why? Because Lincoln never recognized the south's right to seceed from the Union therefor making it a Civil War.


Lincoln started hostilities by maintaining an armed presence in someone else's territory - which is tantamount to an act of war.


Like to know why? BECAUSE WE DIDN"T KNOW THEY WERE THERE!!!!! Boy you really are stretching now aren't you? Haven't you been listening to anything anyone has told you? We were expecting an attack on the Philippinnes not Hawaii. We DID NOT know where the Jap Fleet was at because of RADIO SILENCE!!! Study up more buddy before you spout stuff about the Pacific Theater of WWII. The only record was dude was a midget sub which was destroyed by the USS Ward!


Believe what you like. The evidence is there if you care to look for it, but I'm not going to pursue Pearl Harbour any further in this thread.


Activities yes! WHere? Philippinness was the most likely target. If we suspected Pearl Harbor, don't you think that we would've been better prepared? My thinking is yes!!!


See above.


Japanese Intelligence was good! Your still stretching though. Like to know why they asked for that? So they didn't run into them. Just because they wanted to know where the US Fleet was doesn't necessarily mean an attack on the Fleet. It means that they didn't want to run into them. We could keep this up all day.


See above.


Its a toss up on wether or not the Declaration of Independence gave permission to any nation to seceed from the Union. Scholars are mixed on it.


The Declaration of Independence pretty much guarantees the right to secession - but, as I pointed out in another post, it isn't the ONLY legitimising element.


Not in reality when your talking about the Civil War which had roots in the word Slavery.


Both Union and Confederacy kept slaves. Slavery may have been a contributing factor in leading up to the war, but the War itself, was caused by Lincoln thirsting for Confederate blood.


Actually its the exact opposite but I guess your either a liberal or european to see that he did have links to terror and my political views is none of your concern. I look at all facts of the case and come out to my opinion.


How did he have links to terror? Even the current administration has had to admit that there were no links.


At the University getting an education and giving one in return. Also I've been following what's been coming out of Iraq. I never did say buildup did I? No I said they retained the stuff to make them. Duel use facilities anyone? The never dismantled their WMD Program and that is in direct violation of the UN Cease-Fire as well as countless UN Resolutions. If there was no build up of WMD then why did Bill Clinton Bomb'em for 4 straight days?


You didn't even know that Clinton isn't president anymore?

That must be what you mean, since otherwise, that would be totally irrelevent, surely?

Weapons Inspectors said they didn't believe that Iraq had WMDs, and they needed more time to confirm. The US said they were going to invade, so the weapons inspectors pulled out. The US invades... and, oh look, no WMDs.


They weren't holding it illegally. They had an agreement and the Union resupplied it thus it was fired upon sparking the Civil War.


The Union had agreed to withdraw. Instead they attempted a re-supply. Since Sumter was on sovereign turf, holding the Fort (after agreeing to hand it over...) was equaivalent to an act of war.


*Amature Military Historian* I study everything I can get my hands on. If something is suspicious, I track it down to verify its accuracy. If I can't then I write it off. If I can vouch for its accuracy then I keep it. Research is a marvelous word.


Unfortunately, it looks like you 'verify' accuracy, by whether or not it fits your preconceived notions. Like I say, not objective.


And how is it between 2 sovereign powers when one side doesn't recognize the other's independence? Its only a war when both sides are recognized. Since the South never recognized the Union and the Union never recognized the South, then by defintion, it is a Civil War.

Lincoln broke the rules when he declared war.

Lincoln broke the rules when he clamped down on free speech.

Lincoln broke the rules when he failed to recognise sovereignty of seceded states.

He broke the rules so that he could call it a 'civil war', rather than be honest, and admit it was a territorial war of northern aggression.

The Declaration of Independence has no value, if it is not taken as a basis for an Independent nation.

BINGO!!! That was our declaration of 13 Colonies DECLARING INDEPENDENCE from Great Britain and the British Empire.

However, although it is one element of the right to secession, it is not the only element - since the 10th Amendment also allows for secession:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively."

Sorry dude but the 10th doesn't cover the secession of states. Your reaching. Check a constitutional Layawer.

The 'rebs' were not traitors, until the formed the Confederacy... and, even then, they are only traitors if you use Lincoln's abuse of rights to refuse them sovereignty.

Frankly, I don't think they were traitors though most people at the time and even today call them that.

Thanks for this character assessment on a person you don't know! No I haven't been brainwashed. I just do research before I spout off. Unlike you however.

It was a Civil War in accordance with the Definition of the word Civil War. I gave you the def but I guess that your brainwashed to badly to understand.


You start out by claiming I'm character-assassinating you, and proceed to character-assassinate me...

Not a civil war.. nothing to do with me being "brainwashed to badly to understand", more a matter of the fact that, when two nations war, it isn't a civil war.

I beleive all the other points (the ones I chopped out) have been addressed already in my other post.

BINGO!!! That was our declaration of 13 Colonies DECLARING INDEPENDENCE from Great Britain and the British Empire.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively."

Sorry dude but the 10th doesn't cover the secession of states. Your reaching. Check a constitutional Layawer.

Frankly, I don't think they were traitors though most people at the time and even today call them that.

The DoI was a document describing the aims of those seeking Independence from British rule. It exceeds that scope, however, since it also sets down rules of how the independent nation SHOULD be run.

That later generations ignored the wishes of those drafting the DoI, is more a fault of the later generations.

The 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively". Secession IS a power not delegated to the United States. Secession was not prohibited by the United States. Thus, secession is a right reserved by each respective state.

It doesn't get much clearer than that, surely?

Irrelevent - not debating whether Lincoln was ALLOWED to decalre war - although he wasn't... and had to exceed his office to do so - I am debating whether or not it was JUST.

How wasn't he not allowed too?

Irrelevent - whether or not there is retaliatory fire has NOTHING to do with whether or not China would be JUSTIFIED in it's attack.

Very relevent! If they hadn't fired on Fort Sumter nothing would've happened.

Lincoln started hostilities by maintaining an armed presence in someone else's territory - which is tantamount to an act of war.

Armed yes? Permission? Tolerable until it was re-enforced.

Believe what you like. The evidence is there if you care to look for it, but I'm not going to pursue Pearl Harbour any further in this thread.

The evidence IS NOT there. I have reasonable arguements to counter yours.

See above.

Likewise

See above.

Likewise

The Declaration of Independence pretty much guarantees the right to secession - but, as I pointed out in another post, it isn't the ONLY legitimising element.

It doesn't guarantee the right. Its debatable on wether it does or not.

Both Union and Confederacy kept slaves. Slavery may have been a contributing factor in leading up to the war, but the War itself, was caused by Lincoln thirsting for Confederate blood.

Correct in the first sentence. As for the war, it was caused by the firing on Fort Sumter. Your just trying to pin it on a republican because that is all your capable of doing.

How did he have links to terror? Even the current administration has had to admit that there were no links.

How about offering Bin Ladin Sanctuary? How about paying off suicide bombers? Even Israel knew of the terror links!

You didn't even know that Clinton isn't president anymore?

Boy isn't that a twist. Operation Desert Fox was the operation to Bomb IRaq for 4 straight days because of his so called WMD Program and the intelligence on it. Your really need to read the papers more.

That must be what you mean, since otherwise, that would be totally irrelevent, surely?

Don't know what your talking about here but then, your so full of it... I'm surprised that it hasn't happened sooner.

Weapons Inspectors said they didn't believe that Iraq had WMDs, and they needed more time to confirm. The US said they were going to invade, so the weapons inspectors pulled out. The US invades... and, oh look, no WMDs.

But found that he still maintained the ability to build them thus it is in violation of the UN Cease-fire and UN Resolutions which told him to dismantle it and he didn't thus, we still had cause to go in.

The Union had agreed to withdraw. Instead they attempted a re-supply. Since Sumter was on sovereign turf, holding the Fort (after agreeing to hand it over...) was equaivalent to an act of war.

They didn't agree to hand fort sumter over. It was the fort in the south that they agreed to hand over and did. Sumter wasn't like that.

Unfortunately, it looks like you 'verify' accuracy, by whether or not it fits your preconceived notions. Like I say, not objective.

Sorry dude! I verify it by seeing how many times it appears as well as where it appears. There are very few sites I trust in this regard.

Lincoln broke the rules when he declared war.

War was never declared.

Lincoln broke the rules when he clamped down on free speech.

Happens in War.

Lincoln broke the rules when he failed to recognise sovereignty of seceded states.

He didn't have too. Its not a requirement for him to recognize the seceeding states.

[quoteHe broke the rules so that he could call it a 'civil war', rather than be honest, and admit it was a territorial war of northern aggression.[/QUOTE]

It was a civil war. Read the definition of it.

You start out by claiming I'm character-assassinating you, and proceed to character-assassinate me...

Right! "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Not a civil war.. nothing to do with me being "brainwashed to badly to understand", more a matter of the fact that, when two nations war, it isn't a civil war.

I'm giving up! Your to brainwashed to see it infront of your own eyes that what occured between 1861-1865 matches the defintion of a Civil War.

I beleive all the other points (the ones I chopped out) have been addressed already in my other post.

And in mine

The DoI was a document describing the aims of those seeking Independence from British rule. It exceeds that scope, however, since it also sets down rules of how the independent nation SHOULD be run.

No it doesn't! Its still debateable no matter how you look at it. You can make a case for it and a case against it.

That later generations ignored the wishes of those drafting the DoI, is more a fault of the later generations.

K! I won't take your word for it but I won't argue it either.

The 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively". Secession IS a power not delegated to the United States. Secession was not prohibited by the United States. Thus, secession is a right reserved by each respective state.

Talk to a constitutional lawayer.

It doesn't get much clearer than that, surely?

Your opinion.

idiocy... that's all it is. on her part for wearing the dress when she should have known it was going to be contraversial, and on everyone elses part for making such a big deal out of it.

No it doesn't! Its still debateable no matter how you look at it. You can make a case for it and a case against it.
K! I won't take your word for it but I won't argue it either.
Talk to a constitutional lawayer.
Your opinion.

Seriously... how do you NOT read that the 10th Amendment allows secession?

Secession isn't even mentioned in the Constitution, so it is not a right for the United States... so, under the 10th Amendment, it IS a right for the independent states.

How can you possibly argue that otherwise?

The First shots of the "war" was not at Fort Sumter in April of 1861; It was shots fired at the Union flaged, military run Merchant "Star Of The West", a side paddled steamer, which was engaged and pushed from the Charleston Harbor in retreat in January 9th 1861.

Fort Sumter was an unoccupied Fort at the time of S.C.'s secession in early December 1860. President Buchanan moved the troops from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter after the secession in late December 1860.

It was AFTER the "Star of the West" incident that Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, Texas, Florida and Lousiana seceded.

It was AFTER Lincoln declared war on the South in response to the South Carolina Militia's taking of Fort Sumter (From an enemy occupying army) that Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina seceded.

President Buchanan and President Lincoln started the war by their perpetual actions to restore the Union by force. Both of them assisted in the Destruction of the United States of America, as she was founded in finality in 1789. The Present United States of America, was created by Lincoln. A USA in which the President has virtual supremecy over everyone else, where governmental branches have no accountability to the people, where presidents can wage war at whim.

John Wilkes Booth epiteth towards that treasonist Abraham Lincoln was fit. Sic Semper Tyrannis..... Which is also the motto of my state..... "Thus Always to Tyrants!" The Same epiteth we threw towards King George during the Revolution, and the same one we through towards Lincoln at our secession in mid 1861, in "You have asked us to raise an army. Tell [Lincoln] we have done so. And we will show the same conviction and earnestness towards troops coming from the north into our land, as you have shown to the deep cotton states."

I don't give a shit (is swearing allowed here?) about the confederacy. All I know is that racism is stupid.

Seriously... how do you NOT read that the 10th Amendment allows secession?

I haven't asked a constitutional lawayer but i'm betting it doesn't

Secession isn't even mentioned in the Constitution, so it is not a right for the United States... so, under the 10th Amendment, it IS a right for the independent states.

That has been the debate since it happens and most people say that it doesn't allow for it.

How can you possibly argue that otherwise?

I'm not a constitutional lawayer but I'm going by arguements given against it.

Correct in the first sentence. As for the war, it was caused by the firing on Fort Sumter. Your just trying to pin it on a republican because that is all your capable of doing.


Pinning it on a Republican is all I am capable of doing?

How does that make sense, even in your head?

You think I blame Lincoln, for one of the greatest travesties of US history, (and, let's be serious, there have been a few), because he was a REPUBLICAN?

Blinkered, much?


How about offering Bin Ladin Sanctuary? How about paying off suicide bombers? Even Israel knew of the terror links!


Prove that Iraq gave bin Laden sanctuary.

Or, in fact, that Saddam 'paid off' suicide bombers.


Boy isn't that a twist. Operation Desert Fox was the operation to Bomb IRaq for 4 straight days because of his so called WMD Program and the intelligence on it. Your really need to read the papers more.


My point was, you seem to be confusing two seperate incidents, seperated by quite a duration.... Clinton's encounters with Saddam over WMDs are nothing to do with Bush's encounters with Saddam over WMD's.

Yet, you talk about Clinton's encounter as though it were evidence for Bush to invade... I merely pointed out that they were different events, at different times.

With the amount of evidence about WHY the US invaded Iraq (Ms. Rice admitted that Bush had told her he was going to invade Iraq BEFORE 9/11, and the Pax Americana called for a regime change in Iraq before Bush was even 'elected'), it is unbelievable that someone is STILL buying the Dick'n'Bush spin-machine.

The First shots of the "war" was not at Fort Sumter in April of 1861; It was shots fired at the Union flaged, military run Merchant "Star Of The West", a side paddled steamer, which was engaged and pushed from the Charleston Harbor in retreat in January 9th 1861.

Fort Sumter was an unoccupied Fort at the time of S.C.'s secession in early December 1860. President Buchanan moved the troops from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter after the secession in late December 1860.

It was AFTER the "Star of the West" incident that Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, Texas, Florida and Lousiana seceded.

It was AFTER Lincoln declared war on the South in response to the South Carolina Militia's taking of Fort Sumter (From an enemy occupying army) that Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina seceded.

President Buchanan and President Lincoln started the war by their perpetual actions to restore the Union by force. Both of them assisted in the Destruction of the United States of America, as she was founded in finality in 1789. The Present United States of America, was created by Lincoln. A USA in which the President has virtual supremecy over everyone else, where governmental branches have no accountability to the people, where presidents can wage war at whim.

John Wilkes Booth epiteth towards that treasonist Abraham Lincoln was fit. Sic Semper Tyrannis..... Which is also the motto of my state..... "Thus Always to Tyrants!" The Same epiteth we threw towards King George during the Revolution, and the same one we through towards Lincoln at our secession in mid 1861, in "You have asked us to raise an army. Tell [Lincoln] we have done so. And we will show the same conviction and earnestness towards troops coming from the north into our land, as you have shown to
the deep cotton states."

Excellent post. *round of applause*

Pinning it on a Republican is all I am capable of doing?

Well that is what it seems like. I haven't yet heard you say anything else considering it was the South that started it.

How does that make sense, even in your head?

Look at what you have typed.

You think I blame Lincoln, for one of the greatest travesties of US history, (and, let's be serious, there have been a few), because he was a REPUBLICAN?

Haven't heard anything bad about the South and what they did to spark it.

Blinkered, much?

Fits my thoughts! LOL



Prove that Iraq gave bin Laden sanctuary.

I didn't say gave him, I said offered him. Nice twist on words.

Or, in fact, that Saddam 'paid off' suicide bombers.

Its been proven. Surprised you haven't heard.

My point was, you seem to be confusing two seperate incidents, seperated by quite a duration.... Clinton's encounters with Saddam over WMDs are nothing to do with Bush's encounters with Saddam over WMD's.

ACtually they are one in the same. Look at the intel they used to launch their campaigns against Iraq. You maybe surprised.

Yet, you talk about Clinton's encounter as though it were evidence for Bush to invade... I merely pointed out that they were different events, at different times.

Not 100% different. Look at the evidence used to get authorization for the bombing compared to that used for the authorization to invade. Both people felt Hussein to be a threat. One just bombed him and the other eliminated him. WHy was the bombing there if he didn't have any wmd? Answer it please.

With the amount of evidence about WHY the US invaded Iraq (Ms. Rice admitted that Bush had told her he was going to invade Iraq BEFORE 9/11, and the Pax Americana called for a regime change in Iraq before Bush was even 'elected'), it is unbelievable that someone is STILL buying the Dick'n'Bush spin-machine.

I never bought it. I supported it for a whole set of different reasons. I didn't care what the wmd evidence was! I am glad the Hussein is gone and that should've happened years ago. Screw the reasons. Its done and I'm glad it is.

Excellent post. *round of applause*

He did have a good one. for once, we're in agreement

Well that is what it seems like. I haven't yet heard you say anything else considering it was the South that started it.


Don't get me wrong... I'm not a new-confederate (or whatever you'd call it). I don't think the South was necessarily a paragon to the evil North, but I don't believe the opposite view EITHER.

If Lincoln had been honest, (and not so corrupt), I would have much more time for him... but he was dishonest - and so America STILL believes it has had a 'civil war'.

I just dislike misinformation.

If he was a bastard, he could have at least admitted it.

History LOVES a bastard.


WHy was the bombing there if he didn't have any wmd? Answer it please.


Different incident, different time.

Just because Clinton THOUGHT Saddam had WMD's before, doesn't mean he would still have those WMDs (if he EVER had them) when Bush used that platform.


I never bought it. I supported it for a whole set of different reasons. I didn't care what the wmd evidence was! I am glad the Hussein is gone and that should've happened years ago. Screw the reasons. Its done and I'm glad it is.

Looks like we are going to agree twice in the same page... I supported invasion of Iraq... I just objected to the 'party line' that it was over humanitarian concerns, or over WMDs, or over links to Terror.

Saddam was a bad man, and deserved to go... and if Bush had put it like that, I might have respected his stance.

Same goes for Lincoln.

Let's look at the timeline of events in my state.

After the "Star of the West" incident, in February 1861, Virginias lead the formation of the "Peace Convention" in Washington D.C. Representatives meet from various secession states, with Virginians and others. To formulate a way to prevent hostilities from breaking out further. (Note, Virginia has not seceded yet, and infact, Virginia convention holds against secession at this time 81 to 62 [most of the committee is made of unionists and moderates]).
The Convention is nick-named "The Old Gentlemen's Club" by war-mongerers in Washington.

Bu the end of April, 1861, after Lincoln's announcement not to accept any form of secession, and S.C. taking of Fort Sumter (in that order); The Convention, of same composition in Virginia, approves secession in favor 88 to 55. The Ordinance of Secession is submitted to the House of Delegates and then the Senate of the Commonwealth of Virginia, where it is submitted to public ratification by the people.

By late May, 1861, all Virginia citizens have voted on the Ordinance of Secession, and ratify it by 78% approval. (Note, unlike some other states, the official ratification of the Ordinance of Secession by Virginia, was done by the PEOPLE OF VIRGINIA, and not the legislators... THE PEOPLE CHOSE TO SECEDE FROM THE UNION [Please note opening preamble to the United States Constitution]).

Late July, 1861, the first Union forced, illegally enter Virginia, and in the first Civil War engagement by the Army of Northern Virginia, against the invasionary Union forces, is also the first victory in the war, in the Battle of First Manassas (Known to you yankee types as "Bull Run"): It was also at this time, that workers from Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond (most of them free black blacksmiths) are sent to Norfolk to refit the hulk of the Merrimac left destroyed in dock, into the IronClad C.S.S. Virginia.

Fort Sumter, after the secession of South Carolina, was not under legal US Occupation.

Fort's a federal property. They had the right to defend it even if SC said we withdraw.


Lincoln's own attempted resupply lead to the SC militia taking the fort.... Prior to that, the SC government had been giving the fort food and medical supplied, because they had been assured by "Union Representatives" that Lincoln would be pulling the troops out..... He did not, it was all a deception by Lincoln...

Emmmmmmm deception and politics. Shrewed man.


Fort Sumter was attacked, because Lincoln wanted it to be attacked. So he would have an excuse. Of course, most of this got out... And it caused more problems; because Lincoln was not expecting that this would lead to even more secessions.


Again the President was a shrewed man. Gen. Beuregard gave him a great blessing.


If it weren't for Lincoln's petty tyranny, my state never would have seceded.

Doubtful. The argument had been going on for a long time. Lincoln and recent events just moved it. People so will to succeed is something that builds. People don't wake up one day and scream "the President is a bastard so we are leaving."


Lincoln was a tyrant, had he not been one, He would have still had Virginia on his side, as well as her suitors.... And the Confederacy would have been confined to the original 5 cotton states.... Of course, seeking peaceful solutions was not good enough for Lincoln... He wanted to rule like a King, not a President.

Sounds like sour grapes. The war is over. Let it go.

The man perserved this nation and that will always be his great contribution to this nation.

Excellent post. *round of applause*

Actually he made a mistakes.

"Fort Sumter was an unoccupied Fort at the time of S.C.'s secession in early December 1860. President Buchanan moved the troops from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter after the secession in late December 1860.
"

It was Major Anderson who decided to move when he was challenged at Moultrie. He knew he could not hold Moultrie so he movied.

"It was AFTER Lincoln declared war on the South in response to the South Carolina Militia's taking of Fort Sumter (From an enemy occupying army) that Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina seceded."

The Fort's are federal property.


"John Wilkes Booth epiteth towards that treasonist Abraham Lincoln was fit. Sic Semper Tyrannis..... Which is also the motto of my state..... "Thus Always to Tyrants!"
*snip*"

Booth was in idiot. Lincoln would not have supported the abuse of the South(carpet baggers, etc.), his assassination paved the way for Grant and his corrupt goverment.

By late May, 1861, all Virginia citizens have voted on the Ordinance of Secession, and ratify it by 78% approval. (Note, unlike some other states, the official ratification of the Ordinance of Secession by Virginia, was done by the PEOPLE OF VIRGINIA, and not the legislators... THE PEOPLE CHOSE TO SECEDE FROM THE UNION [Please note opening preamble to the United States Constitution]).


Well now. I will challenge that statement. Prove to us that everybody in Virginia was for succession.

Preamble?
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

What is your point? Forming a union versus breaking it up?


Late July, 1861, the first Union forced, illegally enter Virginia, and in the first Civil War engagement by the Army of Northern Virginia, against the invasionary Union forces, is also the first victory in the war, in the Battle of First Manassas (Known to you yankee types as "Bull Run"): It was also at this time, that workers from Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond (most of them free black blacksmiths) are sent to Norfolk to refit the hulk of the Merrimac left destroyed in dock, into the IronClad C.S.S. Virginia.

I like your writing. The Union "illegally" entered Virgina. That is funny.

The man perserved this nation and that will always be his great contribution to this nation.

He didn't preserve the nation. He created a new one. One in which the DoI and Constitution are meaningless.

As for "Fort's are federal property".... No, they are not. The Federal government does not actually own any land outside of the "10 miles" known as the District of Columbia.... They are prevented as such from the Constitution of the United States of America.... Of course, we know, since Lincoln, the US Constitution means little to nothing...

Once South Carolina seceded. The Fort was illegally occupied by an enemy army.

http://www.researchonline.net/gacw/images/releeflag.gif

He didn't preserve the nation. He created a new one. One in which the DoI and Constitution are meaningless.


Ok. The DOI's sole purpose is to say "buhbye" to England.
The Constitution is what runs this land.

I have heard the 10th and 14th amendements all the time by "you revisionist" types. ;)

Sessesion is not a Southern thing.

New England first talked about it in the war of 1812. If Madison didn't allow NE to pull out, then he is either the great hypocrite or people are trying to suggest something that is not there.


As for "Fort's are federal property".... No, they are not. The Federal government does not actually own any land outside of the "10 miles" known as the District of Columbia.... They are prevented as such from the Constitution of the United States of America....


Yes. That is true for the land. But the fort itself is the federals.

"Of course, we know, since Lincoln, the US Constitution means little to nothing..."

The Constitution didn't mean anything to SC when they said we are leaving.


Once South Carolina seceded. The Fort was illegally occupied by an enemy army.

http://www.researchonline.net/gacw/images/releeflag.gif

Sure and it was still to the Unions right to say, "we aren't leaving"

Anderson couldn't have lasted. Ol' Beuregard just was a tad impatient.

Well now. I will challenge that statement. Prove to us that everybody in Virginia was for succession.

Ratification of the Ordinance of Secession was approved by Public vote in May, 1861 of all the voters in the Commonwealth of Virginia, 132,201 for to 37,451 against.


Preamble?
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What is your point? Forming a union versus breaking it up?


Read in relation to the DoI and Virginia's Ratification Letter in 1788 and Ordinance of Secession in 1861. You traitorous, torrie bastard.


I like your writing. The Union "illegally" entered Virgina. That is funny.

Ok, what law allows for United States forces to enter the sovereign territory of another? None... Lincoln and the troops had no authority... They were invading the people of Virginia's homes...

Every fact I have quoted of Virginia is available by public record. Merely because you're too much of a moron to look it up, and spend all the time refuting it, with sophist claims, give you no credence.

The Declaration of Independence
The United States Constitution
The Commonwealth of Virginia's 1788 Secession from the Confederation and Ratification of the Constitution
-and-
The Commonwealth of Virginia's Ordinance of Secession from the United States of 1861

are all available on public record.

Virginia wanted peave, Lincoln wanted war. Lincoln commanded the Commonwealth to raise 75,000 troops to put down the Rebelion: Which we did..... We used those 75,000 troops to whip Lincoln's but at the Battles of First and Second Manassas and Fredericksburg.... Sending the Rebel Union army in retreat.

The True rebels were in Washington, re-writing and re-interpreting the U.S. Constitution into a Military Dictatorship governmnet. Virginians were patriots; during the Revolution, durting the AoC and during the Civil War. Fighting for our FREEDOM and our LIBERTY against a petty Tyranical regime bent on war, and occupation.

Black Forrest, it is people like you who make me sick. With your petty diatribe of falsities and rhetoric. And you bending to the absolute destruction of everything this nation was found upon.

And you might as well take off that Madison quote, likely, were you around in Madison's time, he would have had you shot (most likely because at that time you would have been a red-coat).

Ok. The DOI's sole purpose is to say "buhbye" to England.
The Constitution is what runs this land.

I have heard the 10th and 14th amendements all the time by "you revisionist" types. ;)

Sessesion is not a Southern thing.

New England first talked about it in the war of 1812. If Madison didn't allow NE to pull out, then he is either the great hypocrite or people are trying to suggest something that is not there.



Yes. That is true for the land. But the fort itself is the federals.

"Of course, we know, since Lincoln, the US Constitution means little to nothing..."

The Constitution didn't mean anything to SC when they said we are leaving.



Sure and it was still to the Unions right to say, "we aren't leaving"

Anderson couldn't have lasted. Ol' Beuregard just was a tad impatient.

The 10th Amendment gave the right for the states to secede. No argument. The Constitution does not say anything about secession, therefore the 10th Amendment allots the right of secession to the states.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The Constitution exists by the Consent of the Governed. Such was used in abuse. And such can be removed altered or replaced by the governed at their will under such abuse. ALL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT EXIST by the consent of the governed. Which includes the United States, the US was not existing by Virginia's consent when it was taking actions to invade others. And indeed, use the State of Virginia, even when she is trying to make peace, as a pawn for war. So she left, because the Union was no longer consentual. Because the Consent of the people of Virginia was engrafted in her consent to form a new government, of her own. Which had the same protections that the US was losing by tyrant Lincoln.

You can deny this fact all you want, it does not make it untrue. It is a FOUNDATION of these United States, and a FOUNDATION to which the moronic masses following Hamiltonian regimes have destroyed To create A UNITED STATE, by coersion and force, which exists to rule the people rather than serve them, to which the people have lost almost all control and power.

Thanks to your ideological (or should that be idiological) descent. The United States of America is actually dead. It died long ago....

Goodbye Black Forrest.... One day I hope you are looking down the wrong end of a Patriots gun.

Ratification of the Ordinance of Secession was approved by Public vote in May, 1861 of all the voters in the Commonwealth of Virginia, 132,201 for to 37,451 against.


:)
Ahh doesn't that prove I was right? Not everybody was for leaving.


Read in relation to the DoI and Virginia's Ratification Letter in 1788 and Ordinance of Secession in 1861. You traitorous, torrie bastard.

Again the DOI was supplanted by the Constitution.

The Ratificaiton Letter, I admit to not reading that. Have a link?

The secession Letters I read awhile back.

As to the torrie bastard? :)
Well one branch of my family has been here since 1707. My Great- etc. Grandad pacified the Ohio Valley and actually turned down Washington for a Lieutenant colonel postion in the Contental army(family problems and he didn't like his commanding officer).


Ok, what law allows for United States forces to enter the sovereign territory of another? None... Lincoln and the troops had no authority... They were invading the people of Virginia's homes...

A sovereign territory has to be recognised by somebody first.

It was a civil war so Lincoln was going to invade.


Every fact I have quoted of Virginia is available by public record. Merely because you're too much of a moron to look it up, and spend all the time refuting it, with sophist claims, give you no credence.


Ahh poor bunky. Can't sell your argument so you need to insult. That is a real boost to your credibility.

I have read
The Declaration of Independence.
The United States Constitution.

The Commonwealth of Virginia's Ordinance of Secession from the United States of 1861 *though only once*


Virginia wanted peave, Lincoln wanted war. Lincoln commanded the Commonwealth to raise 75,000 troops to put down the Rebelion: Which we did..... We used those 75,000 troops to whip Lincoln's but at the Battles of First and Second Manassas and Fredericksburg.... Sending the Rebel Union army in retreat.

Nobody argues the Rebs weren't weak fighters. But you revisionist types like to gloss over the fact that all these battles had weak commanders in the Union. Fact is who won? The Rebs won many battles but they still lost the war.


The True rebels were in Washington, re-writing and re-interpreting the U.S. Constitution into a Military Dictatorship governmnet. Virginians were patriots; during the Revolution, durting the AoC and during the Civil War. Fighting for our FREEDOM and our LIBERTY against a petty Tyranical regime bent on war, and occupation.

Black Forrest, it is people like you who make me sick. With your petty diatribe of falsities and rhetoric. And you bending to the absolute destruction of everything this nation was found upon.

And you might as well take off that Madison quote, likely, were you around in Madison's time, he would have had you shot (most likely because at that time you would have been a red-coat).

Ohhh poor bunky. Again. Get an argument and you get childish.

Sorry lad but my family has done more for this country then probably yours.

The only wars we missed have been Viet Nam and afterward...

Don't worry you don't offend me. Unlike you I am not offended by differing remarks or debate. i encourage it while you.....

why is no one talking about the shitty looking dress any more, go debate the civil war in a different topic

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
*SNIP*


Again as others have told you, there is NO precedent that suggests the DOI overrides the Consititution.

Quote it all you like. Many belive the Consititution supplanted the DOI for running this nation.


Thanks to your ideological (or should that be idiological) descent. The United States of America is actually dead. It died long ago....

Goodbye Black Forrest.... One day I hope you are looking down the wrong end of a Patriots gun.

Eww now violence threats.

Last refuge of the fanatic.

You are no patriot sir.

The 10th Amendment gave the right for the states to secede. No argument. The Constitution does not say anything about secession, therefore the 10th Amendment allots the right of secession to the states.

There lies the debate. It is the interpretation of the 10th admendment. Madison either was a hypocrite for not allowing New England to secessed or there is an interpretation debate raging.

''The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.'' 1 ''The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.'' 2 That this provision was not conceived to be a yardstick for measuring the powers granted to the Federal Government or reserved to the States was firmly settled by the refusal of both Houses of Congress to insert the word ''expressly'' before the word ''delegated,'' 3 and was confirmed by Madison's remarks in the course of the debate which took place while the proposed amendment was pending concerning Hamilton's plan to establish a national bank. ''Interference with the power of the States was no constitutional criterion of the power of Congress. If the power was not given, Congress could not exercise it; if given, they might exercise it, although it should interfere with the laws, or even the Constitutions of the States.'' 4 Nevertheless, for approximately a century, from the death of Marshall until 1937, the Tenth Amendment was frequently invoked to curtail powers expressly granted to Congress, notably the powers to regulate commerce, to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, and to lay and collect taxes.


In McCulloch v. Maryland, 5 Marshall rejected the proffer of a Tenth Amendment objection and offered instead an expansive interpretation of the necessary and proper clause 6 to counter the argument. The counsel for the State of Maryland cited fears of opponents of ratification of the Constitution about the possible swallowing up of states' rights and referred to the Tenth Amendment to allay these apprehensions, all in support of his claim that the power to create corporations was reserved by that Amendment to the States. 7 Stressing the fact that the Amendment, unlike the cognate section of the Articles of Confederation, omitted the word ''expressly'' as a qualification of granted powers, Marshall declared that its effect was to leave the question ''whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend upon a fair construction of the whole instrument.'' 8

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/01.html#2

There lies the debate. It is the interpretation of the 10th admendment. Madison either was a hypocrite for not allowing New England to secessed or there is an interpretation debate raging.

Thank You! I was beginning to wonder if I was the only rational one here! LOL!! I offered them to ask a constitutional lawayer to see what they say and besides, the 14 amendment can't be used in this arguement because it was ratified AFTER the Civil War.

A little-known fact of the Constitution is that two of the largest states -- Virginia and New York -- made the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution. And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all.

The procedure of the articles of ratification of the Constitution in Virginia is described in depth, in original documents, in "The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution," a wonderful work in progress from the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, volume X, p.1512 and after.

The Virginia convention ended its clause-by-clause consideration of the proposed Constitution on June 23, 1788, and the next day George Wythe proposed that the Committee of the Whole ratify the document. He also recommended amendments to be considered by the new Congress, in the manner prescribed by the Constitution.

This took the form of two resolutions, prefaced by a preamble expressing the belief that all powers not granted to the government by the Constitution were retained by the people and that the government could neither cancel, abridge, restrain, nor modify the people's rights except where the Constitution gave it such power.

Patrick Henry, who led the opposition to ratification, moved that it was premature to do so and he proposed a resolution "to refer a declaration of rights, with certain amendments to the most exceptionable parts of the Constitution, for the other states in the Confederacy, for their consideration, previous to ratification." Henry also presented at the same time a declaration of rights and structural amendments.

The next day (June 25) the convention sat as a Committee of the Whole. Both Wythe's proposal and Henry's were read again, and debated at length. Early in the afternoon, the matter came to a vote. The antifederalist proposal that a declaration of rights and amendments be submitted to the other states "previous to the ratification of the new Constitution" was voted down, 88 to 80. Then the delegates voted 89 to 79 to ratify the Constitution.

[The two-vote difference is because David Patteson of Chesterfield voted with the Antifederalists on amendments, but with the Federalists on ratification.]

The convention then appointed a committee of five to prepare the form of ratification. This "engrossed" ratification was read before the convention and accepted. On June 26, the engrossed Form of Ratification was read again, signed by President Edmund Pendleton, and transmitted to the Confederation Congress. The opening reads like this:


We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes ...

The committee of five that wrote the ratification was Edmund Randolph, George Nicholas, James Madison, John Marshall, and Francis Corbin -- all of them Federalists and Madison and Randolph, of course, members of the Constitutional Convention that had met in Philadelphia in 1787.

But was this binding? Or was the Constitution merely a "take it as-is or leave it" proposition when put to the states?

Five states (Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Georgia) ratified the Constitution without a word about a bill of rights. The rest, following Massachusetts, advocated for one, and it became a major subject of contention as the antifederalists adjusted their tactics.

States went so far as to attach proposed bills of rights to their ratifications in some cases, and they urged their members in the new government to tirelessly advocate for them. Yet these were not "conditions" of their ratification. And it was made clear, in convention after convention, that a state's "conditional" ratification of the Constitution would not be accepted by Congress.

In New York's convention, for instance, on July 24, 1788, Antifederalist John Lansing Jr. moved that a resolution be adopted giving New York the right to secede from the Union if certain amendments were not adopted within a certain number of years. Alexander Hamilton, who had anticipated such a proposal, had written to James Madison several days earlier and posed the question to him. Madison, in his capacity as a Congressman, had replied, indicating that Congress would not consider a conditional ratification to be valid. Hamilton read the letter to the convention, and Lansing's motion was defeated on the 25th by a vote of 31 to 28.[6]

So the right of secession claimed by Virginia and New York cannot be seen as "conditions" or amendments to the Constitutional proposal. If they were, those states' ratifications would have been rejected, as per Madison's letter. The other conditions listed as presumed in the preamble to the Virginia ratification -- the inability of the federal government to interfere in free exercise of religion and the press -- were agreed by all, federalists included, to be beyond the power of the federal government.

The question was not whether such rights would exist under the new government, but whether the rights, specifically those of individuals, needed to be made explicit in a bill of rights.[7] Their being claimed in Virginia's ratification presented no obstacle to Virginia being accepted by Congress as the 10th state in the new union, because the powers claimed were consistent with the Constitution, as understood by those who drew it up and those who recommended it to the states for ratification. The right to secede claimed in the Virginia ratification has to be regarded in the same light.



Further Madison himself, depsite the claims, warns against the very Acts Lincoln took:


It has been observed, to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single state. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war?

Suppose Massachusetts, or any large state, should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would they not have influence to procure assistance, especially from those states which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying state at war with a non-complying state; Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another; this state collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against the federal head.

Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself -- a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government. But can we believe that one state will ever suffer itself to be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream; it is impossible.


In the Blackstone Law Commentary written in 1803, it had this to say about the new nation:

The federal government, then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.

So what was the school's dress code for the prom?

So what was the school's dress code for the prom?

formal attire which that beautiful dress is!

So what was the school's dress code for the prom?
no really ugly dresses, which she obviously violated