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.
There is little difference between the Nazi Death Camps and some of the sugar plantations of Louisiana
What an absurdity. The purpose of the Nazi death camps was the extermination of the Jews. Period. If they extracted labor from the healthiest immates for a while before killing them, that didn't change the basic purpose. The purpose of the sugar plantations of Louisiana (as far as their holding of slaves is concerned) was to extract labor from the immates. Extermination would have been directly counter-productive to the goal, as a dead slave cannot perform any labor. The slaves in Louisiana were assets to their owners. The Jews in the death camps were simply condemned people awaiting execution, and many of them didn't even have to wait 24 hours.
There was one similarity of course (not that this similarity justifies the wild hyperbole) and it is that in both cases the people being held against their will were considered sub-human.
A disclaimer, just for those who would willingly misunderstand: I consider slavery to be immoral.
People who take up arms against the United States are Traitors, an armed militiaman flying a Confederate Flag is an Enemy Combatant
The sheeple have found the thread...yay....See what Boompa doesn't realize is according to Britain our founding fathers were traitors as well. Doesn't matter to him obviously he just picks and chooses what parts of history he agrees with.I have more loyalty to the stars and bars then then stars and stripes. We are an occupied land and people.
That happens when you lose. That is why the Confederacy is referenced as "The Lost Cause"...because your ancestors were not up to the job of winning their independence.
Maybe someday you will demonstrate enough maturity so that we may remove those occupation troops and allow the South their own state governments.
The sheeple have found the thread...yay....See what Boompa doesn't realize is according to Britain our founding fathers were traitors as well. Doesn't matter to him obviously he just picks and chooses what parts of history he agrees with.I have more loyalty to the stars and bars then then stars and stripes. We are an occupied land and people.
Well, our founding fathers decided NOT to be British. They were traitors to Britain but in winning their Revolution, they created an new nation.
The Confederates were also attempting NOT to be Americans.
Maybe someday you will demonstrate enough maturity so that we may remove those occupation troops and allow the South their own state governments.
Sometimes the most effective rebuttal is tongue-in-cheek. Those kind are also more entertaining. The above was both - devastatingly effective and very entertaining. (It was in response to RPON's statement, "We are an occupied land and people".)
I don't get how people like RPON can remain so mired in the past. Most people in the South today have moved on, and I am not talking about transplants from the North. While there are many things not to like about the present U.S. Federal Government, RPON as a southerner has the same degree of input into it as a citizen of any northern state. So while the federal government may be seen as intrusive, it cannot be legitimately seen as a foreign occupying power except in a few places such as Guam, which is not a state.
1. If the Confederates had secured independence, what would their nationality be called? USA = Americans (please no debate by our Latin American friends and others on how Argentinians and Peruvians are American too, I am referring to nationality), The United States of Mexico = Mexicans , the United States of Brazil = Brazilians, etc. Would the people of the USA be called Confederates? Southern Americans?
If the South had won the War Between The States and there was an independent CSA, I do not think the people would call themselves "Southern Americans" ... too confusing, sounds like you're from South America. Perhaps they would call themselves "American Southerners." It seems to me that in those times Southerners had great loyalty to their home states as Virginians, Georgians, Floridians, etc. Maybe that is how they would identify themselves. During that era I have also encountered, in songs and poetry, people from the South identifying themselves as "Southrons" which is a legitimate old word - often centuries ago Scots would refer to the English as such.
Yes, but the South had a legal right to secede, yet the North totally ignored that.
In a previous thread in this History Forum (of which the thread title escapes me), the question of the legality of the South's secession was discussed at great length by several knowledgeable posters. While I do not remember all the details of that discussion, what I took away from it was that is a a very ambiguous situation which can be argued either way with some justification. The central fact is that the Constitution is silent on the matter.
Yes, but the South had a legal right to secede, yet the North totally ignored that.
In that the Constitution was silent on the issue of secession, it cannot be established as legal or illegal, only argued.
Further, even if we concede a legal right of secession, there remains no way to determine if the manner in which the South went about it, unilateral declaration, was the proper legal process for it. Is there not merit to the idea that since it took a national ratification process to make the Union, the same sort of process would be required to unmake it?
In pragmatic terms, the legality of a revolution is always an ex post facto dynamic. If you win, then you are free to retroactively proclaim your actions legal. If you fail, you remain subordinate to the laws of the prevailing authorities, and they will have always regarded the revolution as illegal.
Thus the American Revolution was legitimized when Great Britain was defeated. The Texas Revolution became legal after San Jacinto.
Unfortunately for the Confederates, they never achieved that legality establishing victory. Regardless of any legal arguments you wish to advance, in practical terms it is a dead issue.
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.
Perhaps so, but this is not entirely clear.
