• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House votes to restrict Confederate flag in national cemeteries[W:707]

ARealConservative said:
right or wrong doesn't matter to liberals, but it matters to me.

it was wrong to kill people that wanted a divorce.
Click to expand...

Yet another conservative who wants to say "the South was right"...and yet wonders why it is that the minorities have deserted the GOP.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Yet another conservative who wants to say "the South was right"...and yet wonders why it is that the minorities have deserted the GOP.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the south was right. slavery is wrong, but how the north went about it was also wrong.

hindsight being 20/20, the best move would of been to allow a succession and allow the south to evolve naturally, and not through intimidation.
 
ARealConservative said:
I did no such thing.

this fight was not over how the United States would operate. it was a rebellion. The South already left- they formed their own country and fought for that country.

at no point did they fight to force the North to govern in a certain way.
Click to expand...

You added this:
fighting over control of the government
Click to expand...
 
azgreg said:
You added this:
Click to expand...

I didn't add that, I opened with it.

your own link has a rather length debate on the same point.

what you fail to accept is the south had no interest in being a citizen and civil is latin for citizen.

they already left the country and formed a new one.
 
Last edited:
ARealConservative said:
I didn't say the south was right. slavery is wrong, but how the north went about it was also wrong.

hindsight being 20/20, the best move would of been to allow a succession and allow the south to evolve naturally, and not through intimidation.
Click to expand...

Really? The North was wrong to outlaw slavery? So much for "all men are created equal". And if you'll recall, who attacked first? And "the best move would of {sic} been to allow a succession {sic}"???? Um, no. Being part of a nation is NOT a "come and go as you please" kind of affair. Besides, if you'd check my reply #31, you'd see that Jefferson Davis was talking war against the North three years before it even started.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Really? The North was wrong to outlaw slavery? So much for "all men are created equal". And if you'll recall, who attacked first? And "the best move would of {sic} been to allow a succession {sic}"???? Um, no. Being part of a nation is NOT a "come and go as you please" kind of affair. Besides, if you'd check my reply #31, you'd see that Jefferson Davis was talking war against the North three years before it even started.
Click to expand...

the north was wrong by not living up tho the ideal of the declaration of independence.

What does your reply #31 have to do with anything? He wasn't a dictator, the people decided.
 
ARealConservative said:
the north was wrong by not living up tho the ideal of the declaration of independence.

What does your reply #31 have to do with anything? He wasn't a dictator, the people decided.
Click to expand...

The ideal of the Declaration of Independence? Like the part that said, "all men are created equal"?

And if you'd actually READ Jefferson Davis' speech - and his VP's "cornerstone speech", and the declarations of secession by the several Confederate states, you'd find that when it comes to "the people deciding for war", they followed a pattern described by Herman Goering during an interview in a jail cell in Nuremberg:

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Come to think of it, the same pattern was followed in Bush 43 dragging us into invading a nation that posed zero threat to us....
 
ARealConservative said:
the north was wrong by not living up tho the ideal of the declaration of independence.

What does your reply #31 have to do with anything? He wasn't a dictator, the people decided.
Click to expand...

Lol, the South didn't live up to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. Do you not remember the words "all men are created equal"?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
The ideal of the Declaration of Independence? Like the part that said, "all men are created equal"?

And if you'd actually READ Jefferson Davis' speech - and his VP's "cornerstone speech", and the declarations of secession by the several Confederate states, you'd find that when it comes to "the people deciding for war", they followed a pattern described by Herman Goering during an interview in a jail cell in Nuremberg:

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Come to think of it, the same pattern was followed in Bush 43 dragging us into invading a nation that posed zero threat to us....
Click to expand...


it takes a special person to call into question ideas that are considered axiomatic at the time.

If we went back in time, you would of likely agreed with the state, and theGoverness would of liked every one of your posts as you defended the state. Meanwhile, people like me would of been siding with Spooner.
 
ARealConservative said:
it takes a special person to call into question ideas that are considered axiomatic at the time.

If we went back in time, you would of likely agreed with the state, and theGoverness would of liked every one of your posts as you defended the state. Meanwhile, people like me would of been siding with Spooner.
Click to expand...

No, you would have been defending the state - albeit a different state, one that as part of their constitution declared that an entire race of people should be enslaved for the color of their skin. You're not standing up for any individual - you're standing up for a state...and the wrong state at that.
 
ARealConservative said:
it takes a special person to call into question ideas that are considered axiomatic at the time.

If we went back in time, you would of likely agreed with the state, and theGoverness would of liked every one of your posts as you defended the state.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they didn't have online forum posts back in 1861, buddy. [emoji12]
 
Glen Contrarian said:
No, you would have been defending the state - albeit a different state, one that as part of their constitution declared that an entire race of people should be enslaved for the color of their skin. You're not standing up for any individual - you're standing up for a state...and the wrong state at that.
Click to expand...

actually, I am just arguing rule of law. nullification was the law, and the south had a right to leave the union. armed violent conflict was not necessary.

that we didn't allow this issue to resolve naturally is still holding us back. like it or not, the best legal minds in this country can't agree on how to incorporate, making reconstruction a mess that leads to so many 5-4 decisions.
 
TheGoverness said:
Pretty sure they didn't have forum posts back in 1861, buddy. [emoji12]
Click to expand...

pretty sure time travel isn't possible either, but hey, way to make the best point you have ever made on these forums.
 
ARealConservative said:
actually, I am just arguing rule of law. nullification was the law, and the south had a right to leave the union. armed violent conflict was not necessary.

that we didn't allow this issue to resolve naturally is still holding us back. like it or not, the best legal minds in this country can't agree on how to incorporate, making reconstruction a mess that leads to so many 5-4 decisions.
Click to expand...

The South had ZERO "right" to leave the Union, just as neither New York nor California today have a "right" to leave the Union. The only "right" they have is in your mind alone.

But I get it - you're trying so hard to get sympathy for those poor, trampled-on white men who were oh-so-innocently trying to peacefully carry on with their slave-owning lives...until, of course, they attacked Fort Sumter.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: House votes to restrict Confederate flag in national cemeteries

Well this happened. Can still place small flags at individual graves on Memorial day and Confederates Memorial Day but if passes the Senate the bill would block large Confederate flags from flying at all on VA cemeteries.
Click to expand...

This is a bit of a head-scratcher. Frankly, I am astounded the Republican controlled house passed this bill. Must be collectively worried about its chances in the 2016 elections.
 
Last edited:
ARealConservative said:
actually, I am just arguing rule of law. nullification was the law, and the south had a right to leave the union. armed violent conflict was not necessary.

that we didn't allow this issue to resolve naturally is still holding us back. like it or not, the best legal minds in this country can't agree on how to incorporate, making reconstruction a mess that leads to so many 5-4 decisions.
Click to expand...

Well, here in the US we know the South didn't have the right to leave the Union. We even had to fight a war to settle the issue.
 
ARealConservative said:
actually, I am just arguing rule of law. nullification was the law, and the south had a right to leave the union. armed violent conflict was not necessary.

that we didn't allow this issue to resolve naturally is still holding us back. like it or not, the best legal minds in this country can't agree on how to incorporate, making reconstruction a mess that leads to so many 5-4 decisions.
Click to expand...

"Nullification means insurrection and war; and the other states have a right to put it down."

Andrew Jackson
 
BitterPill said:
Well, here in the US we know the South didn't have the right to leave the Union. We even had to fight a war to settle the issue.
Click to expand...

yes and might makes right

/sarcasm
 
ARealConservative said:
yes and might makes right

/sarcasm
Click to expand...

There is no mechanism for secession in our Constitution, so our Constitution would need to be amended before any state can secede. That principle was fought for, and your side lost. Of course, if you want to secede without recourse to our Constitution, we already know how it will end, so I encourage you to do so.

There is one caveat: After the last war peace terms were rather generous, overly so in my opinion. I doubt they will be so generous next time.
 
BitterPill said:
There is no mechanism for secession in our Constitution
Click to expand...

of course there is

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom