Another city could furl state flag with Confederate emblem (Liberty: house, gated)

[annie_himself]

Originally Posted by Desert kid

A colony is really nothing more than a glorified territory. They still adhere to the mother country's laws and customs, and the people therein are subjects to the throne and Empire of the mother country.

Our founding fathers were rightful British subjects. They turned their backs against their country. They were traitors.

The founders of the Republic of Texas were Mexican citizens west of the Sabine River. They were rightfully Mexicans. They rebelled and committed treason. They were traitor too.

But the Confederates? Nah, nope, they's just traitors, tunnel vision on them, can't deviate from the narrative with pesky facts.

Aren't you infatuated with Confederate history? This post seems contradictory to your thread in the Louisiana forum.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by JacksonPanther

A colony fighting against its ruling country is not treason.

The South fighting against its own country, is treason.

That's the point.

Actually, a colony, state, province, or any other subject entity fighting against its ruling country is treason (except in a case of a foreign conqueror).

The difference between traitors and freedom fighters is who won the war. Unsuccessful rebels are traitors, successful rebels are freedom fighters. So had the Founding Fathers lost their war for independence, yes they would not only be traitors but we'd actually have been taught as schoolchildren they were traitors. They 13 colonies may have been just that, colonies, but they still affirmed loyalty to the British Crown prior to 1776. Thus, technically the Founding Fathers did commit treason.

[viverlibre]

The issue is that the appropriate governing/law enforcement agency at the time is the organization that can charge and prosecute crimes. That body chose not to charge confederates with treason; therefore, no one was convicted of treason and cannot now be retroactively charged and convicted, no matter our personal opinion.

Think of it in terms of OJ, the vast majority think he is criminally guilty of murder, but the appropriate governing body found him not guilty. We cannot now say he is criminally guilty of murder, even though most think he is.

[annie_himself]

Originally Posted by viverlibre

The issue is that the appropriate governing/law enforcement agency at the time is the organization that can charge and prosecute crimes. That body chose not to charge confederates with treason; therefore, no one was convicted of treason and cannot now be retroactively charged and convicted, no matter our personal opinion.

Think of it in terms of OJ, the vast majority think he is criminally guilty of murder, but the appropriate governing body found him not guilty. We cannot now say he is criminally guilty of murder, even though most think he is.

And yet he is treated as such, rightfully so. Just as Confederates are. So is Ray Lewis.

[snatale1]

Originally Posted by viverlibre

You do realize you are writing about the United States, a country that started out as part of Great Brittian?

REALLY? Please point me in the direction of information that shows the UNITED STATES was ever a country that was part of Great Britain.

[snatale1]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

They 13 colonies may have been just that, colonies, but they still affirmed loyalty to the British Crown prior to 1776. Thus, technically the Founding Fathers did commit treason.

I see where your going with that, but the determining factor is the country wasn't owned by the Brits, they may have been fighting them, but not on their soil and our founding fathers weren't brits, they were born HERE! So they were natives fighting a foreign army, that's a VERY different situation than the civil war.

[snatale1]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

They 13 colonies may have been just that, colonies, but they still affirmed loyalty to the British Crown prior to 1776. Thus, technically the Founding Fathers did commit treason.

I see where your going with that, but the determining factor is the country wasn't owned by the Brits, they may have been fighting them, but not on their soil and our founding fathers weren't brits, they were born HERE! So they were natives fighting a foreign army, that's a VERY different situation than the civil war.

[Desert kid]

Originally Posted by snatale1

I see where your going with that, but the determining factor is the country wasn't owned by the Brits, they may have been fighting them, but not on their soil and our founding fathers weren't brits, they were born HERE! So they were natives fighting a foreign army, that's a VERY different situation than the civil war.

They were British subjects who still swore fealty to the Union Jack, to the King, fought in his wars under his flags not a decade prior, and payed taxes on tea imported from the mother country.

They committed treason.

[sammyreynolds1977]

Originally Posted by Desert kid

They were British subjects who still swore fealty to the Union Jack, to the King, fought in his wars under his flags not a decade prior, and payed taxes on tea imported from the mother country.

They committed treason.

Desert Kid is correct.

[viverlibre]

Interesting about George Washington is that one of his main goals was to get a commission in the regular British Army, but that offer never came. He was a Major in the Virginia Militia (under the British) and is credited with starting the French and Indian War (British against the French).