Meanwhile in Alabama
- Thread starter anon_xl72qcu5isp39
- Start date
It’s apparently located on private land where the Battle of Spanish Fort took place.
More kernels...because context is kind of important sometimes....
http://www.scvsemmes.org/memorial-statue-at-ft-mcdermott.html
https://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2015/04/reclamation_project_turning_ci.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Spanish_Fort
I’m a direct descendant of a Missouri farm boy that fought to preserve the Union and got thrown in the hell of Andersonville for his trouble...he was lucky enough to survive and live to a ripe old age, thankfully. I don’t harbor any sympathy for the leadership of the confederacy or their cause....just to get that out of the way,
More kernels...because context is kind of important sometimes....
http://www.scvsemmes.org/memorial-statue-at-ft-mcdermott.html
https://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2015/04/reclamation_project_turning_ci.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Spanish_Fort
I’m a direct descendant of a Missouri farm boy that fought to preserve the Union and got thrown in the hell of Andersonville for his trouble...he was lucky enough to survive and live to a ripe old age, thankfully. I don’t harbor any sympathy for the leadership of the confederacy or their cause....just to get that out of the way,
Did Confederate soldiers not fight for their independence? Were they fighting to become part of the Union? Fighting to take over France? Fighting for free chips and salsa? Do we need to rewrite or omit history so nobody knows anything about It?
Help me out here. What's your point?
By the way, President Andrew Johnson was a dictator, despot, or whatchamacallit. He had a military parade that was 2 days long and involved more than 150,000 Union soldiers in the spring of 1865.
Just wanted to leave that kernel of history here since this is the official kernel of history leaving thread.
Just wanted to leave that kernel of history here since this is the official kernel of history leaving thread.
Two thoughts here....
First, there is a difference between remembering and celebrating.
Second, what you celebrate is indicative of who you are and what you want to be.
First, there is a difference between remembering and celebrating.
Second, what you celebrate is indicative of who you are and what you want to be.
Just seeing who would gratuitously defend a new confederate memorial.
Someone help me here. Am I comprehending this correctly? A private group built and maintains a memorial on private land. And that same land used to be a Fort used by the soldiers the memorial is honoring?
Unless I am misunderstanding something I really don’t remotely see any issue here. Unless, of course, someone just doesn’t like history.
Unless I am misunderstanding something I really don’t remotely see any issue here. Unless, of course, someone just doesn’t like history.
Ahhh, right. One of those "gotcha" things where you will ignore the context of anything posted in favor of screeching RATHITHS! CONFEDERITHS! CONTHERVATIFTHS! becauth thath your thang.
So, besides the usual thythterkine stuff, were Confederate soldiers not fighting for their independence?
Damn. That means Clinton Scott is a killer. Somebody should probably go Dexter on him before it gets bad.
Actually, it is hard to say why individual Confederate soldiers fought, since there were numerous reasons why each soldier fought. Which is true with any war.
However, regardless of why they fought (or the rationales preached to them by their leaders), they were involved in an insurrection against our country. Their political and military leaders led that insurrection in order to protect the institution of slavery and hence their way of life. These leaders committed treason.
That is debatable. They definately participated in insurrection though against our country.
Yes they did. They were victorious though and were officially recognized by the state they rebelled against. And we now live in the country they gave birth to.
Why? Your original question has been answered. Plus, the overall context has been given.
If you want to defend the insurrection against this country that sought to protect the institution of slavery, go right ahead. I won't.
Another kernel of history: Andrew Johnson was the first President to be impeached.
Hmmm. You said it was debatable. I offered to debate. I have no idea how that then led to "defend the insurrection.."
But that's also a good topic to debate. Was it actually an insurrection on the part of the South? Who was the aggressor in the Civil War? If it was the South, even with what they claimed as their legal basis for secession, I might agree. But what if the aggressor was the North? Would aggression toward the state governments and people of the South not be insurrection? An insurrection is by definition a violent uprising against an authority or government.
And? Is commissioning a military parade an impeachable offense? Was that what he was impeached for?
Yes.
The Confederacy. It started with South Carolina when they voted on December 20, 1860 to secede over the insitution of slavery. Other southern states then followed SC's lead.
You mean this type of "aggression":
"But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution." (Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Succession of South Carolina from the Federal Union, December 24, 1860).
No, the hostility to the institution of slavery was not an insurrection.
Just giving a historical note as you did.
You want to try to compare Trump to Andrew Johnson, go right ahead. Don't see how that would really benefit Trump though haha.
A vote is aggression? So every time congress votes on something we don't agree with, it's considered an act of aggression? Should we be proactive and invade California for discussing secession?
You're new here, right? If so, you probably don't know about the inside joke about military parades between syskatine and I. That's what my post was about, not a comparison of Trump and Johnson.
Voting to secede from the Union without the permission of the United States government is aggression. Especially when it is followed up with taking over the United States' forts and other property. And bombing a United States' fort.
Has California voted for secession without the permission of the US government? Has it created another government? Has it proceeded to take over United States property and bomb United States military posts?
Again, the Confederacy was the aggressor and led an insurrection to protect the institution of slavery.
Last edited:
Ok.
btw, as I am sure you know, there was also a military parade in 1991 under President H.W. Bush. That was of course after a war though, just like Johnson's parade followed a war.
Voting to secede was aggression? Was it illegal to secede from the Union? Did the Constitution prohibit It?
But after the the results of the last time states seceded, shouldn't we take proactive measures to prevent it? Nip it in the bud before words become action?
Is there a rule that military parades can only follow a war? Hasn't the US been involved in several military conflicts of late?
The American Revolution was an Insurrection against King George.
Again, I'll repeat what I posted above:
Voting to secede from the Union without the permission of the United States government is aggression. Especially when it is followed up with taking over the United States' forts and other property. And bombing a United States' fort.
What the Constitution create?
Also, I'd recommend...
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/
Well we kinda have, but if you are asking whether or not we should take military action, no.
With all that said, what are you getting at here? Are you trying to argue that the Confederacy was not the aggressor and did not lead an insurrection to protect the institution of slavery?
Last edited:
Yes it was. And as I posted above when this was previously noted, they were victorious and were officially recognized by the state they rebelled against. And we now live in the country they gave birth to.
Your point?
"Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it’s evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.1Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government." - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Paris, January 30, 1787.
Ok. This seems at least you can acknowledge that the Confederacy engaged in an insurrection and rebellion against our country.
Next up . . . do you believe it is right (or something we should honor today) to engage in rebellion to protect the institution of human slavery?
I, and many others, have non-slaveholding ancestors who fought in that war not for the preservation of slavery but for southern Independence. Yes, I am for honoring their memory. Having said that, I am glad the north won that war. But I am for any statue or symbol that pisses the modern-day left off and keeps them in a state of rage. Carry on.
I do too. My great-great-great grandfather fought for the Confederacy and was injured in the war. May have had other ancestors as well, he is the only one I know of at this time.
But in reality, they were fighting for the preservation of the institution of slavery.
I honor my grandfather's memory. That doesn't mean though I have to (or do) honor the cause he was involved in or what his leaders (military and political) were seeking to accomplish.
I agree, I am glad the United States won that war. As for your second statement, sorry to hear that.
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
Lincoln fought his fellow countrymen in order to preserve the union, not abolish slavery.
Lincoln fought his fellow countrymen in order to preserve the union, not abolish slavery.
Sure, Lincoln fought to preserved the Union. And who was he fighting against? Against men who were leading an insurrection to destroy that union so they could protect the institution of human slavery!
btw, I know Lincoln wasn't perfect. He was a politician of his time. So I don't need to all the "lost cause" material on Lincoln. I've read it and I am familiar with it (I've lived in the south most of my life). We are talking about the Confederacy here though, not Lincoln.
Shifting gears for a moment, just cause I'm curious about something, do you support those who kneel during the national anthem Guns? Or does that peaceful protest anger you?
The Constitution created the federal government. But that does nothing to support any argument you've made. The States wrote and ratified the Constitution as a legal document that gave the federal government specific powers. And it also distintly states that any power not specifically granted to the federal government was reserved for the States. The Constitution created a ""more perfect Union," but there was no intent by the Framers or ratifiers that it was a consolidating document. The 10th Amendment makes that clear.
Did the federal government have time traveling capabilities in 1860? Texas vs White (the link you provided) was argued in 1869, nearly 9 years after the first State seceded in 1860. Unless time travel existed, you proved my point of...
There was nothing, nada, zilch in the Constitution or in any penal code that prohibited secession by a state. Since you claim to be a lawyer or work in law, I'm going to assume you are familiar with nulla poena sine lege. How could anyone, state or individual, be punished by the federal government for a law that did not exist? Based on that basic principle, one could easily argue that Fort Sumter was legally self defense, an opposition to a tyrannical federal government.
Last edited:
Similar threads
