Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have to be honest here. Im a little upset with the whole rainbow flag thing. It offends me that such a beautiful thing like a rainbow has been monopolized and its meaning given something entirely different. I like rainbows too. And what if my girls like rainbows and want a rainbow sticker? They cant use a rainbow sticker now.
fist fighting, my ancestors were the slaves, so what treason did we do exactly?
Did you know that free blacks and slaves fought for the confederacy? Were they fighting for the same cause? Freely? I don't know. That's still open for debate.
Again, The Civil War was not about slavery. The North went to war with the South, b/c the southern states wanted to secede from the United States. Anyone who willingly fought for the south were traitors. Hence the flag or any other form of that flag, is a traitors flag.
I'll certainly take issue with FFH. He/she insulted me by saying my ancestors committed treason. I would like to know exactly what act of treason he/she is referring to.
Did they fight for the Confederacy? Then yes, they were traitors. Dead ones.
Now if you don't have ancestors who were Confederates, but you just like the flag. Well, that makes you a sympathizer. Sedition your cup of tea, Amazon?
Did they fight for the Confederacy? Then yes, they were traitors. Dead ones.
Now if you don't have ancestors who were Confederates, but you just like the flag. Well, that makes you a sympathizer. Sedition your cup of tea, Amazon?
The Confederates were simply defending their homes. The Constitution allows for bearing of arms against a tyranical government. The U.S. government, by imposing outrageous levies on goods docking at southern ports was considered by many southerners as being tyranical. These acts were synonymous with the acts by Britain which sparked the Revolution.
BTW, not all were killed in battle. Many died, along with innocent women and children, while their houses were burnt down by the terrorist acts of the Union Army.
The Confederates were simply defending their homes.
Really? I wasn't aware that so many folks were living next to Ft. Sumter when the traitors fired the first salvo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
The Constitution allows for bearing of arms against a tyranical government. The U.S. government, by imposing outrageous levies on goods docking at southern ports was considered by many southerners as being tyranical. These acts were synonymous with the acts by Britain which sparked the Revolution.
They had their remedies in the Judiciary, as defined by the Constitution, which also was conveniently seated with a Southern majority. The traitors were itching for war, and they got one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
BTW, not all were killed in battle. Many died, along with innocent women and children, while their houses were burnt down by the terrorist acts of the Union Army.
Either way, they died in a war the traitors started. Funny you should call American soldiers terrorists. Nice support of the troops there, Amazon.
Really? I wasn't aware that so many folks were living next to Ft. Sumter when the traitors fired the first salvo.
They were fighting for their livelihood, via their need to purchase farm equipment at a reasonable price.
Quote:
They had their remedies in the Judiciary, as defined by the Constitution, which also was conveniently seated with a Southern majority. The traitors were itching for war, and they got one.
It was the Union Army who were in violation of the Constitution, which wouldn't leave State soil when directed to by the State of South Carolina. The Judiciary was filled with Lincoln's cronnies, how would justice have been served and the Constitution upheld?
Since we know that all rights not expressly given to the Federal government by the Constitution belongs to the States, where in the Contitution is there a prohibition against succession. It was Lincoln who was the scoundrel.
Quote:
Either way, they died in a war the traitors started. Funny you should call American soldiers terrorists. Nice support of the troops there, Amazon.
It was the leadership, not the soldiers responsible for these terrorist acts.
They were fighting for their livelihood, via their need to purchase farm equipment at a reasonable price.
It was the Union Army who were in violation of the Constitution, which wouldn't leave State soil when directed to by the State of South Carolina. The Judiciary was filled with Lincoln's cronnies, how would justice have been served and the Constitution upheld?
Since we know that all rights not expressly given to the Federal government by the Constitution belongs to the States, where in the Contitution is there a prohibition against succession. It was Lincoln who was the scoundrel.
It was the leadership, not the soldiers responsible for these terrorist acts.
I see. The leaders are the terrorists. So the greatest American President Abe Lincoln, the soon to be Pres. Grant, and the Great Gen. Sherman and defender of the Constitution-- all terrorists? There's no gentle way to say it Amazon, I find your opinion of our soldiers and leaders to be disgusting. No surprise you feel such comfort burnishing the image of traitors.
They were fighting for their livelihood, via their need to purchase farm equipment at a reasonable price.
It was the Union Army who were in violation of the Constitution, which wouldn't leave State soil when directed to by the State of South Carolina. The Judiciary was filled with Lincoln's cronnies, how would justice have been served and the Constitution upheld?
Since we know that all rights not expressly given to the Federal government by the Constitution belongs to the States, where in the Contitution is there a prohibition against succession. It was Lincoln who was the scoundrel.
It was the leadership, not the soldiers responsible for these terrorist acts.
You make an excellent point here Amaznjohn. As a history buff, one can make the case for the South having legitimate reason to secede from the Union, and yes there is no mention of secession in the Constitution. Raising an army against your own citizens could be considered unconstitutional. Also, where is the outrage over the rape and pillage by the Union army on it's own people in the South? This is where the technique of 'total war' was created. Absolute carnage was wraught upon the South and much of it burned to the ground to the horror of the citizens of both the North and the South. That is something that we must remember. This is coming from a Northerner, so please don't paste me with Southern bias. Obviously, the North prevailed and we are a great unified country today, but many folks in the South haven't forgotten what was done to their 'country' and people at the hand of the North and they show this by displaying this flag as a symbol of their past that they don't want to forget. That is my view. It's unfortunate that some idiots have used it as a rallying cry for white bigotry and that now people are 'offended' by it, but I think we must remember the original intent and preserve the history. Again, if the residents of SC want it to go...then it will go....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
