The Confederate Flag: Help this Canadian understand...

[Diogenes]

Imperialism doesn't apply to your country, idiot.

The Confederacy wasn't part of Lincoln's country any more than the independant colonies were part of King George's.

You revisionist Tory bitch.

[PSUFAN]

The Republican Party was not founded on economic opposition to the institution of slavery.

Perhaps not, but a great deal of support was secured for the Republican party from budding industrialists whose plans were better actuated by the free state model. I don't think it's a stretch at all to recognize that economics was a major driving force on the road to war.

[PSUFAN]

Sure, what was already happening was one thing...it was how the new territories of the west were to be situated that concerned them.

[Stanley Pickkkle]

[Stanley Pickkkle]

And of course....my favorite.

[Diogenes]

Best Pikkkle post ever.

Aside from the obvious, the not typing helps immensely.

[Diogenes]

And still none of the ignorant revisionist douches can point out why...

If Secession was (Madison and Jefferson to the contrary) illegal, why was Jeff Davis never tried for treason after being imprisoned for over two years (over a year without charges).

And if wrong in 1861, how much more so in 1776?

[Tom In VA]

Saw an interesting History Channel episode on the assination of Abe. About that whole "reconstruction" thing. Boothe really fucked up by killing Abe. His delusions were to be some sort of hero to the South, yet he was met with disdain and shunned, as fear set in that now with a merciful Abe out of the picture ... the harder line agenda would be pursued.

And it was.

If only he broke his leg BEFORE the attempt.

[Tom In VA]

On a side note and speaking of the "Enemy Camp", there was another show relating the stories of West Point in and around the time of the Civil War.

Heavy duty stuff man. The conclusion at the end was that if it wasn't for bonds formed at West Point the surrender of the Confederate soldiers would have been met with much harsher terms. That deals brokered to allow Confederate soldiers to keep a firearm and all that and able to keep some of their pride were due to bonds formed at West Point.

Something to be said for being able to knock that ring.

[Diogenes]

There was and is no legal basis for secession. That point isn't even arguable. The so-called Confederacy was in a state of armed insurrection against the duly constituted authority of the national government. Period. End of story.

The issue was not the legality of their actions but rather the success or failure of them. The Confederacy failed.

So the Founding Fathers were criminals who got over?

Jefferson and other Confederate officials were not prosecuted because Lincoln and Johnson did not believe it was in the best interests of the nation to do so.

Leave Lincoln out of it. Johnson only had him arrested (and imprisoned without charges)under the mistaken assumption he was backing Booth's conspiracy. It was when this proved to be crap they shifted to charging him with treason for secession.

And the reason why the Government "did not believe it was in the best interests of the nation (meaning said government) to do so" was because they only possible outcomes were martyrdom upon conviction or legitimizing the Confederacy upon acquittal.

[Diogenes]

WRONG. He was never imprisoned without charges.

Bullshit. He was imprisoned at Fortress Monroe on May 19, 1865. He wasn't charged with a crime until May 8,1866.

Pretty good book on the subject.

[Diogenes]

WRONG. He was never imprisoned without charges.

Bullshit. He was imprisoned at Fortress Monroe on May 19, 1865. He wasn't charged with a crime until May 8,1866.

Tough shit for him.

Tough shit for the Constitution.

You're still full of shit. And the only 'issues' to be sorted out were political, not jurisdictional.

[Diogenes]

Tough shit for the Constitution.

The Constitution was just fine. Davis & Co. asserted that it no longer applied to them.

The point is that the Federal government claimed that it did. And then violated it's protections in Davis' case. But then, they'd been using it for toilet paper throughout the war. Bottom line, even if you believe the Founding Fathers to be a bunch of lucky criminals, the Confederates believed in them and the precedent they set. Whereas the Feds didn't even believe their own propaganda, otherwise they would have proceeded to trial.

[LTS TRN 2]

Wrong, Avi. Your rabid Federalist interpretation is misguided and misleading. In fact Jefferson Davis would have been a fine U.S. president, uniting the mutual interests of south and north while allowing the pernicious institution of slavery to become obsolete (fifteen, twenty years tops), while avoiding the catastrophic war between the states.

The notion that Lincoln's Old Testament approach to a complicated modern political situation was somehow appropriate or successful is ludicrous. It was a disaster that could have been avoided.

[Diogenes]

The point is that the Federal government claimed that it did. And then violated it's protections in Davis' case.

Can there be any doubt that Jefferson Davis led an armed insurrection against the United States? Davis rejected the US Constitution in the most unequivocal way possible. You can't do that and then claim protection under the authority that you have renounced.

You Torys say traitors rebelling against the Crown, I say free Americans standing for their rights. And Davis never claimed Constitutional protection. It was the Federal Government that claimed he was under said authority, and then violated their own Laws.

[Diogenes]

You Torys say traitors rebelling against the Crown, I say free Americans standing for their rights.

I really don't give a pissfuck about their alleged right to own another human being as property.

Yeah, That's what the American Revolution was all about. Too bad your side lost, the Empire outlawed slavery in the 1830s. It could have saved a lot of hassle.

[Diogenes]

Stop trying to compare it to the Revolution. There is no valid comparison to be made.

I'm not trying to do shit, Bitch. I AM comparing the two, it IS valid and you have shown nothing to the contrary.

Admitting you think the Founding Fathers were nothing but a bunch of criminals with geography on their side is not a point in your favor, Douche.

[Tom In VA]

STOP

Don't you see what Marty is doing ? C'mon fellas, even the Pentagon is getting wise to this so called "Canada" neighbor of ours.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091203/D9CBN7OG1.html

How much does the U.S. government really trust Canada? Maybe less than you think.

Espionage warnings from the Defense Department caused an international sensation a few years ago over reports of mysterious coins with radio frequency transmitters, until they were debunked. The culprit turned out to be a commemorative quarter in Canada.

A "quarter" yeah sure. We're wise to you Marty and we need your water -- check that we need OUR water.

[Diogenes]

The simple fact of the matter is that the Founders had no legal basis for their actions and neither did the Confederates. You can't even make a bad argument in their legal defense.

It isn't a legal matter, dipshit, it's a historical one. The Founders may have operated without precedent, but they were the precedent for the Confederacy.

And the fact of the matter is, even the Federals couldn't make a legal or moral argument why the South should not have been allowed to secede in peace. Which is why they couldn't afford to try Davis. Just conscription of the non-seceding slave states (forcing them to secede), invasion and war.

And no, who fired the first shot is just as irrelevant as it was at Bunker Hill. After all, you're the one preaching might makes right.

[PSUFAN]

Your rabid Federalist interpretation

The troll typed that to mvscal?

[BSmack]

Wrong, Avi. Your rabid Federalist interpretation is misguided and misleading. In fact Jefferson Davis would have been a fine U.S. president, uniting the mutual interests of south and north while allowing the pernicious institution of slavery to become obsolete (fifteen, twenty years tops), while avoiding the catastrophic war between the states.

The notion that Lincoln's Old Testament approach to a complicated modern political situation was somehow appropriate or successful is ludicrous. It was a disaster that could have been avoided.

Absolute fucking rubbish. The south was not going to give up their free labor supply save at the point of a gun. Their behavior during and after reconstruction should have solved that riddle for you.

[Tom In VA]

Absolute fucking rubbish. The south was not going to give up their free labor supply save at the point of a gun. Their behavior during and after reconstruction should have solved that riddle for you.

That's absolutely not true. There were intelligence reports they were phasing out slavery but Abe only cherry picked the intelligence that showed they were never going to give it up. Had the South been given the proper amount of time, they would have let the abolishinists in and gave them free reign to show the South the errors of their ways.

In the end Abe did the right thing though, only thing he could do. Appeasement and empty promises from the South had worn thin.

[BSmack]

Absolute fucking rubbish. The south was not going to give up their free labor supply save at the point of a gun. Their behavior during and after reconstruction should have solved that riddle for you.

That's absolutely not true. There were intelligence reports they were phasing out slavery but Abe only cherry picked the intelligence that showed they were never going to give it up. Had the South been given the proper amount of time, they would have let the abolishinists in and gave them free reign to show the South the errors of their ways.

In the end Abe did the right thing though, only thing he could do. Appeasement and empty promises from the South had worn thin.

Your pathetic attempt to draw an equivalency between the US Civil War and the clusterfuck known as Iraq has been noted.

[Tom In VA]

Your pathetic attempt to draw an equivalency between the US Civil War and the clusterfuck known as Iraq has been noted.

Tongue in cheek my friend, tongue in cheek.


And that clusterfuck got a bit less clustered after the surge.


So much so, they're trying it again ... not sure it will work in Afghanistan though ... which is probably why it wasn't tried to begin with.

[BSmack]

Your pathetic attempt to draw an equivalency between the US Civil War and the clusterfuck known as Iraq has been noted.

Tongue in cheek my friend, tongue in cheek.

And that clusterfuck got a bit less clustered after the surge.

So much so, they're trying it again ... not sure it will work in Afghanistan though ... which is probably why it wasn't tried to begin with.

So what? We never should have been in Iraq to begin with. We had Saddam totally contained and utterly powerless to wage aggressive war. We should have allowed him and the Bathists to cling to what little power they had until at least after we had brought bin Laden to heel.

As for Afghanistan, any hope for that mess depends on our ability to engage Pakistan as an ally against the Taliban.

[smackaholic]

So what? We never should have been in Iraq to begin with. We had Saddam totally contained and utterly powerless to wage aggressive war. We should have allowed him and the Bathists to cling to what little power they had until at least after we had brought bin Laden to heel.

kinda like we have the iranians contained, huh, bri?

what a fukking tool.

what the fukk does bin laden have to do with anything? would it be nice to see him dead? sure. but so long as he's cowering in the corner of a cave with his favorite goat somewhere, he is as good as dead. leaving saddam in place, fully in control of a very wealthy country would have been idiotic.

[Diego in Seattle]

As for Afghanistan, any hope for that mess depends on our ability to engage Pakistan as an ally against the Taliban.

Unfortunately, Pakistan is as much our ally against the Taliban/bin Laden as Mexico is in the war against drugs.

[titlover]

The simple fact of the matter is that the Founders had no legal basis for their actions and neither did the Confederates. You can't even make a bad argument in their legal defense.

It isn't a legal matter, dipshit, it's a historical one. The Founders may have operated without precedent, but they were the precedent for the Confederacy.

If Secession was (Madison and Jefferson to the contrary) illegal, why was Jeff Davis never tried for treason after being imprisoned for over two years (over a year without charges).

Here you clearly imply that secession was legal. You're done.

where in teh Constitution does it say it's illegal...at teh end of teh document it doesn't say 'this agreement is forever and ever and ever'

[smackaholic]

HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111 YOU FUCKERS JUST WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS!!!!!!!!!!1111 IT'S GONNA HAPPEN AGAIN, MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111

gonna do what?

get beat the fukk down?