Is Confederate flag a symbol of hate?

These are awesome!!!!!!

 

You now if you people freak out over the confederate flag, the Apartheid flag must be like the skull and bones when it was raised during the 16th century in the Caribbean.

Apartheid flag of course now banned, but white South Africans are not too fussed, they've always preferred the Vierkleur, the flag before the Boer Republics were forced by the British to unify with the black tribal lands so they can exploit the whole lot

 

There never was a confederate nation. There were several states that went against the constitution and decided to go to war against the USA, but never a nation. You claimed to take an oath to protect the USA against enemies, foreign and domestic.
You defend the states that went to war against the USA. That goes against the oath you claim to have taken.

Take over the entire Nation? They agreed to the constitution when the joined the nation.
Somewhere in some document it says, 'All Men Are Created Equal'. Owing black people and giving them 3/5 human status is hardly equal. That goes against the constitution you claimed to take an oath to defend.

 

You seem to continue to struggle with this. The first part has to do with the social contract between we, the people and that entity called government. The Preamble to the Constitution reads:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Within months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, the federal legislature fulfilled its duty to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" pursuant to Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. That law reads in part:

"United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record..."

Now, regardless of how many posts you make on this board, the laws are unequivocally clear. The social contract was between we, the people and the entity we call government. Only whites could become citizens. The term "our Posterity" was limited to members of the white race. Slavery aside, non-whites were not part of the contract. Chief Justice Taney of the United States Supreme Court spent the equivalent of 20 pages reciting the laws and court rulings to show why the blacks could not become citizens under the Constitution in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case. You should spend some time educating yourself as to exactly what the law was:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/60/393

The North agreed to the terms of the Constitution and the law was clear. The North had no more right to outlaw slavery than a future president hopeful can extend citizenship to 11 million undocumented foreigners if he were to be elected to the office of president. The "equal" part of your argument applies to unalienable Rights as per the Declaration of Independence and that does not apply to citizenship, which is a privilege - which is relative to the 3/5ths rule in the Constitution in Article I Section 2 to which you allude.

No matter how you try to slice it, dice it, or cut it the Union was clearly in violation of the Constitution. The legal status of non-whites had been determined as a matter of law - whether you agree with the law or not and whether you like the law or not. That was the law, plain and simple. So, while slavery was the pretext for the War of Northern Aggression, the issue of slavery was solely dependent upon a state's right to conduct its business pursuant to the confines of the Constitution. Since slavery was legal within the states and since the Constitution did not challenge the legality of slavery, your objections have NO merit. Furthermore the right or wrong of slavery had been determined as a matter of law, determined to be legal, AND the Constitution prohibits the federal government from passing ex post facto laws (See Article I Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States).

Had the government passed the 13th Amendment BEFORE presuming to have the authority to outlaw slavery, there would have been NO War of Northern Aggression, plain and simple. The North violated the terms of the social contract called the Constitution of the United States. That is beyond debate. So, the only issue left for you is deciding whether the South had a right to rebel. From 1775 to 1783 the colonists engaged in what is now known as the War of Independence. In 1776, Thomas Jefferson penned a document called the Declaration of Independence. Of that document, he said that it was the "fundamental charter of the Rights of man." Some historians claim that the Declaration of Independence was a Declaration of War. Either way, that document laid out what our forefathers were fighting for. It established a framework of right and wrong when trying to articulate when people have a Right to rebel. Allow me to quote a section of that document for you:

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The South exercised their Right - the Right that colonists fought and died to secure in the Treaty of Paris of 1783. Here we are 155 years later and the race issue is just as divisive as it was then. In Alexis De Tocqueville's book Democracy in America (published in 1835) he predicted:

“…it will readily be understood that there are but two alternatives for the future; the negroes and the whites must either wholly part or wholly mingle: (p. 432). Following this statement, he goes on to declare that “I do not imagine that the white and black races will live in a country upon an equal footing” (p. 433).

Today, you cannot see your way clear for whites to retain their history, culture, customs or beliefs. Perhaps it is ignorance or prejudice or maybe bigotry that motivates you, but all your filibustering and posting fails to change the bottom line. You're wrong and if you take a little time to educate yourself, you will want to spend less time trying to get posters to buy into an argument where you have to conflate different concepts in order to reach an erroneous presupposition.

 

and this is why many folks says MAGA is racism

 

"All men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, being Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

 

The US constitution clearly states that involuntary servitude is illegal but military conscription has been used many times in the US.

Words on a page mean little in the real world.

 

What I understand now is that the left will never be satisfied until all whites are dead. Only that can satisfy them.

 

(*Sigh!*) Once again, Dairy, you forget that the oath is to the CONSTITUTION -- not to any particular political faction that has gained temporary power through our endless cycles of elections! And it was the CONSTITUTION that Lincoln and his cronies crushed into the dirt when, without any legal ability to do so, they thrust central, federalized power into the affairs of individual states without any constitutional justification! Again, Dairy -- RE-READ THE CONSTITUTION!

Next, you refuse to understand the REALITY of 1800's and the belief of nearly all Americans, Europeans, etc., etc., that negroes were NOT EQUAL to other races!

We can be horrified and swoon at such suggestions now, from the convenient distance of the 21st-century, but the TRUTH is that AT THE TIME, negroes were considered to be little more evolved as a race than apes! Moreover, the negroes that Americans and Europeans bought were already slaves to begin with -- taken into slavery after conquests by other negroes in endless inter-tribal warfare that had wracked Sub-Saharan Africa for millennia before America was even a colony!

Want to be really horrified? Read some of what Abraham Lincoln HIMSELF wrote about negroes and maybe, perhaps for the first time, you'll begin to understand the North didn't care a hell of a lot about 'negroes', per se, but rather about inflicting Northern will on their competitors in the South.

P. S. -- Lincoln didn't like the Irish, either....

 

I struggle with nothing.
You seem to always make your posts about the other posters.

I posted the secession documents.
I've posted the history of the civil war.

I understand that all the seceding states had slavery as a main issue in starting a war against the USA.
I understand that very clearly and am not struggling with that at all.

 

The oath is to the constitution of the USA. The confederate states were traitors to the USA. They went to war against the USA.

 

Have it your way, Dairy... I'm tired of beating a dead horse -- a horse that NEITHER of us can 'ride to the finish line', obviously.

Oh, by the way, did you happen to find any of Lincoln's commentaries about negroes...? If you like surprises, you'll love what Lincoln REALLY thought about them.... Hint: he wanted them to be gotten OUT of the country....

Now, have a lovely delusional day!

 

Not if they are creating a public disturbance or threatening someone or their property.

 

The South tried to secede so that they could protect human slavery.

what a disgusting, evil, hateful reason to secede.

 

soldiers are compensated fairly for their labor, plus free room & board.

 

Compensation is not nor has it ever been the issue.
By this logic, it’s ok to force people to serve provided you pay them. (Room and board were given to slaves as well if you think about it.)
Regular field soldiers in the US are paid peanuts.
So one can be ripped from a much better paying job and be forced into a situation that could easily take their life at the discretion of their field commander without their consent at any step.
No matter how one dices it up, it is servitude that is involuntary. Actually the 13th amendment reads:
“Neither slavery NOR (emphasis mine) involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
So what crime has the conscriptee committed to warrant being drafted?
The US constitution is followed until it becomes inconvenient to government interests.
Also remember that GI stands for government issue. This presupposes government ownership.

 

I'm not a part of MAGA so you cannot blame them. I'm someone that has read history, worked in the legal arena, and knows how not to be swayed by emotion laden buzz words.

 

My response was to you, not about you. It set forth facts you've chosen not to consider. It's easier to dodge, deflect and deny than for you to admit that the South was well within their legal rights.

 

The South seceded the Union as they had every legal right to do so. Slavery is a fact of life. We slap lipstick on that pig every day and then the masses go out and vote for more slavery. Sometimes they accept it because they like the new masters - whether they are super rich or maybe the government. If people thought slavery were evil, disgusting, or hateful they would not find Liberty and Freedom anathema to their way of life.

 

What does his statement have to do with treason? HINT; not a thing.

 

I have not dodged nor deflected.
I provided links and copy/paste of the secession documents.
I provide links and copy/paste of Civil War History.

It is know by most all, the south went to war against the USA. Slavery was a big reason. Those are the facts.

 

Slavery was legal in the United States even after the war ended.

 

So I take it you are not voting for Biden who voted to reinstate the citizenship the President of the Confederacy and the General of the Confederate Army you falsely proclaim are traitors?

 

Yes and slavery continued to exist in two northern states even after being outlawed in the south until the passage of the 13th amendment. When asked why Lincoln did nothing about this during the war his answer was “I’d like to have God in my side but I NEED Kentucky”.
Anti Slavery became a useful 19th century version of PC mostly to keep Europeans from recognizing the confederacy and to mobilize northern support and it is a convenient catch all to describe the reason for the civil war but the real causes are far more complicated..

 

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

This is the engine on which the confederate support for the civil war ran.

The Union was of course well aware of this but it was an inconvenient truth.

They had the men, the resources and might makes right.

And one should never forget that history is written by the winners of wars.