User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 12:52:29 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Next question, are we talking about the Civil War that was almost 150 years ago or the one that's coming up soon if Obuttfuck gets re-elected??? I thought we were talking about trying to keep the Bolsheviks from overthrowing the Petrograd government. FUCK YEAH KERENSKY!  Somewhere, my love. Quoted: Quoted: No because the Federal government has the power to suppress insurrections. So in that case, did the Union trample all over the states' powers? "Treason doth never prosper, and what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Secession is not treason. But taking up arms against the Federal Government is insurrection, at the very least. Like it or not, when the South started shelling Ft. Sumter they crossed a line that meant they had to either win the conflict or be subject to the mercies of their opponents. Of course, while the legal act of secession itself is not inherently treasonous or insurrectionist, the subsequent actions required for national sovereignty, including the ability to exercise exclusive control over one's territory, make it a de-facto act of insurrection. Once you're in you have to be willing and able to win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 12:52:59 PM EDT
[#2]
The irony is that the South's best (and perhaps only) chance to win the war would have been to liberate their slaves. The world's greatest military power –– the British Empire –– was a thoroughly abolitionist nation at the time and was also desperately hungry for Southern cotton to feed its main industry, textiles. The British were also keen to weaken their main military rival in the Western Hemisphere. The British navy would have swatted our navy like a bug, and proceeded to strangle Northern commerce via blockade, likely leading to a quick capitulation by the North. But of course the whole notion is absurd because regardless of what the apologists now want to say, it was about slavery.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 12:56:10 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Next question, are we talking about the Civil War that was almost 150 years ago or the one that's coming up soon if Obuttfuck gets re-elected??? I thought we were talking about trying to keep the Bolsheviks from overthrowing the Petrograd government. FUCK YEAH KERENSKY! Somewhere, my love. Quoted:
Quoted:
No because the Federal government has the power to suppress insurrections.
So in that case, did the Union trample all over the states' powers? "Treason doth never prosper, and what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Secession is not treason. But taking up arms against the Federal Government is insurrection, at the very least. Like it or not, when the South started shelling Ft. Sumter they crossed a line that meant they had to either win the conflict or be subject to the mercies of their opponents. Of course, while the legal act of secession itself is not inherently treasonous or insurrectionist, the subsequent actions required for national sovereignty, including the ability to exercise exclusive control over one's territory, make it a de-facto act of insurrection. Once you're in you have to be willing and able to win. Secession is not treason nor is it insurrection. It is the cleavage of political ties. For an independent state to fire upon what have become foreign forces inside of its territory is not insurrection. The national government may put down insurrection within the territory of the member States, but when States cease to be members, such authority ceases as well (as far as those former members are concerned). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 12:57:47 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
my allegiance goes as follows: my family my city my state my country. I will go with Alabama. Thats bullshit..... You can't really be from Alabama. I have never known a single person from Alabama that either Auburn or Bama wouldn't be WAY higher on that list....... 
Auburn is part of the family |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 12:58:22 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Secession is not treason nor is it insurrection. It is the cleavage of political ties. For an independent state to fire upon what have become foreign forces inside of its territory is not insurrection. The national government may put down insurrection within the territory of the member States, but when States cease to be members, such authority ceases as well (as far as those former members are concerned). When you lose, it's treason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 12:59:04 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I would not fight for wealthy people's right to own other humans. Good thing that wasn't the crux of the issue.  Well it kind of was. I know you will say the whole states rights issue. But it would not have ever come to conflict if the south did not want to retain slavery. Slavery was the underlying issue. We can talk about this forever but the fact will remain that the southern aristocrats wanted to keep their slaves. Eventually slavery would have been outlawed at the state level. The feds had no constitutional authority to pass such laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 1:00:31 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Secession is not treason nor is it insurrection. It is the cleavage of political ties. For an independent state to fire upon what have become foreign forces inside of its territory is not insurrection. The national government may put down insurrection within the territory of the member States, but when States cease to be members, such authority ceases as well (as far as those former members are concerned). When you lose, it's treason. Well, I'm not a relativist. It was not treason, and losing the war does make it so, either. Victors can't alter truth, even if they try their hardest to obfuscate it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 1:01:06 PM EDT
[#8]
Neither, since I know the ultimate outcome.
I don't agree that the southern states winning would have been good, because it would have fractured the nation. I don't agree that the north winning was good either, as it caused us to move in a direction I do not agree with. We could not have made it to where we have without a strong central government (superpower), but a strong central government leads to tyranny much faster and directly than a dispersed government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 1:02:12 PM EDT
[#9]
Union all the way!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 1:06:05 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Secession is not treason nor is it insurrection. It is the cleavage of political ties. For an independent state to fire upon what have become foreign forces inside of its territory is not insurrection. The national government may put down insurrection within the territory of the member States, but when States cease to be members, such authority ceases as well (as far as those former members are concerned). When you lose, it's treason. Well, I'm not a relativist. It was not treason, and losing the war does make it so, either. Victors can't alter truth, even if they try their hardest to obfuscate it. Not a relativist either, just a pragmatist. The fact is that the legal issue is ambiguous. And when something is ambiguous, both sides may not agree on it. And when reason fails, force prevails. We couldn't settle this one with words, so we used guns, and all the internet whining in the world ain't going to change the result. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 1:07:10 PM EDT
[#11]
If I had the choice the Confederates. I am pretty sure my family was on the other side though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 1:10:25 PM EDT
[#12]
States Rights!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 1:11:55 PM EDT
[#13]
Question. I do not mean any disrespect at all.
Would it be a correct assumption that folks who want to fight the Union side be, in fact, supporting ObamaCare? Outlawing slavery at a national level would be just as much of an overreach of federal power, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 1:12:13 PM EDT
[#14]
Well we have certainly seen how our country has turned out since Emancipation
So you know my Vote |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 1:15:30 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Quoted: Southern chicks are a little uglier but are usually up for anything. So I vote confederate nevermind. Yea, he knows we know |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 1:18:05 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Question. I do not mean any disrespect at all. Would it be a correct assumption that folks who want to fight the Union side be, in fact, supporting ObamaCare? Outlawing slavery at a national level would be just as much of an overreach of federal power, right? Are you referring to the Missouri Compromise? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 1:18:18 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Question. I do not mean any disrespect at all. Would it be a correct assumption that folks who want to fight the Union side be, in fact, supporting ObamaCare? Outlawing slavery at a national level would be just as much of an overreach of federal power, right? Since slavery was outlawed first under wartime powers of the President in those areas in insurrection, and later via a Constitutional Amendment, the two situations are entirely unrelated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 1:20:43 PM EDT
[#18]
My family fought for the U.S., before they fought against it.
I'd go South. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 1:22:14 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Question. I do not mean any disrespect at all. Would it be a correct assumption that folks who want to fight the Union side be, in fact, supporting ObamaCare? Outlawing slavery at a national level would be just as much of an overreach of federal power, right? I find your demeanor fascinating. We are not talking about illegalizing over 16 oz soft drinks. We are talking about subjugating humans and forcing them to work for free. Yea I think a federal law is reasonable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 1:26:48 PM EDT
[#20]
The Tide and the Tigers would join together in that fight...........
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
my allegiance goes as follows: my family my city my state my country. I will go with Alabama. Thats bullshit..... You can't really be from Alabama. I have never known a single person from Alabama that either Auburn or Bama wouldn't be WAY higher on that list.......
Auburn is part of the family |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 1:29:04 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
What about the next one? Bronwcoats for the win! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 1:41:26 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Johnny reb all the way! http://i1020.photobucket.com/albums/af328/nicCartel/eb95a481.jpg 42nd GA VOL INF (me before the battle of resaca, GA re-enactment 2012) had family that quartered Conf officers during the Atlanta campaign. Your powder horn is supposed to be stored on a leather sling around your upper torso, not stuffed down your pants. 15th Alabama Cavalry Regiment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 1:41:53 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Next question, are we talking about the Civil War that was almost 150 years ago or the one that's coming up soon if Obuttfuck gets re-elected??? I thought we were talking about trying to keep the Bolsheviks from overthrowing the Petrograd government. FUCK YEAH KERENSKY! Somewhere, my love. Quoted: Quoted: No because the Federal government has the power to suppress insurrections. So in that case, did the Union trample all over the states' powers? "Treason doth never prosper, and what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Secession is not treason. But taking up arms against the Federal Government is insurrection, at the very least. Like it or not, when the South started shelling Ft. Sumter they crossed a line that meant they had to either win the conflict or be subject to the mercies of their opponents. Of course, while the legal act of secession itself is not inherently treasonous or insurrectionist, the subsequent actions required for national sovereignty, including the ability to exercise exclusive control over one's territory, make it a de-facto act of insurrection. Once you're in you have to be willing and able to win. Secession is not treason nor is it insurrection. It is the cleavage of political ties. For an independent state to fire upon what have become foreign forces inside of its territory is not insurrection. The national government may put down insurrection within the territory of the member States, but when States cease to be members, such authority ceases as well (as far as those former members are concerned). It is if you lose. ETA: Which is my entire point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 1:56:08 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Johnny reb all the way! http://i1020.photobucket.com/albums/af328/nicCartel/eb95a481.jpg 42nd GA VOL INF (me before the battle of resaca, GA re-enactment 2012) had family that quartered Conf officers during the Atlanta campaign. Your powder horn is supposed to be stored on a leather sling around your upper torso, not stuffed down your pants. 15th Alabama Cavalry Regiment.    
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 1:58:23 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Which rights would those be? The right to not listen to Yankees.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 1:59:40 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Which rights would those be? The right to not listen to Yankees. If you listened to me you wouldn't be in the ER to have that Paki-taped Coke bottle removed from your trash can. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 2:00:51 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Wait, so the warrant was never served (which I knew)? So Lincoln wrote out an arrest warrant but did he ever issue it? How do you know what he was thinking? Perhaps he wrote it out and changed his mind and put it in his desk (where it was found after his death)? Not to mention that this is based off an account by a person who may or may not have seen the events of this warrant written years after the event took place. Quoted: Quoted: He never tried. Quoted: Hard to imagine I would ever fight for el presidente who arrested members of the media who didn't support his unconstitutional agenda and arrested the Maryland state legislature so they couldn't take a vote on secession... just sayin' Hell, when Lincoln's agenda became clear even New Yorker's didn't want to fight for him NY Draft Riots You forgot trying to arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to prevent him from ruling against him .... He damned sure did plan to do so - and the Federal Marshal for Washington D.C. at the time confirmed that Lincoln gave him orders to that effect. De wiki: "The single primary source document is a manuscript written in the 1880s by Ward Hill Lamon, Lincoln's friend, bodyguard, and United States Marshal for the District of Columbia during his administration. According to the manuscript, which is a brief history of Ex Parte Merryman by Lamon: After due consideration the administration determined upon the arrest of the Chief Justice. A warrant or order was issued for his arrest. Then arose the question of service. Who should make the arrest and where should the imprisonment be? This was done by the President with instructions to use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he should receive further orders from him. The warrant was never served, according to Lamon, for reasons that are not given. The manuscript dates from the 1880s and resides in the collection of Lamon papers at the Huntington Library." Not a lot of evidence there that you provided that says he actually tried to have the Chief Justice arrested.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 2:02:09 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: Since we all know that God only lets the righteous win in conflicts, the Union was the side that God wanted to win. If you consider the deaths of 3/4 a million men a win, then you and I have extremely different views of the word. The Union may have been successful in keeping the United States in one piece, but I do not believe anyone won. And if your God was really all that righteous, then there wouldn't have been a war to begin with that cost the lives of all those men. Do me a favor, go to any post office in the South and look up, let me know which flag is flying? If more than one is flying, list them all. Is Ol' Glory flying? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 2:02:34 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Johnny reb all the way! http://i1020.photobucket.com/albums/af328/nicCartel/eb95a481.jpg 42nd GA VOL INF (me before the battle of resaca, GA re-enactment 2012) had family that quartered Conf officers during the Atlanta campaign. Your powder horn is supposed to be stored on a leather sling around your upper torso, not stuffed down your pants. 15th Alabama Cavalry Regiment. meat gazer |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 2:02:57 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Better tell the Southern policy makers then that says it was.....Quoted: I would not fight for wealthy people's right to own other humans. Good thing that wasn't the crux of the issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 2:03:28 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Yes it is, they were rebelling against the legitimately elected government. Besides, we're talking about insurrection here. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Next question, are we talking about the Civil War that was almost 150 years ago or the one that's coming up soon if Obuttfuck gets re-elected??? I thought we were talking about trying to keep the Bolsheviks from overthrowing the Petrograd government. FUCK YEAH KERENSKY! Somewhere, my love. Quoted: Quoted: No because the Federal government has the power to suppress insurrections. So in that case, did the Union trample all over the states' powers? "Treason doth never prosper, and what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Secession is not treason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 2:04:52 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: Better tell the Southern policy makers then that says it was.....Quoted: I would not fight for wealthy people's right to own other humans. Good thing that wasn't the crux of the issue. Alexander Stevens didn't get the memo, I suppose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 2:06:22 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Question. I do not mean any disrespect at all. Would it be a correct assumption that folks who want to fight the Union side be, in fact, supporting ObamaCare? Outlawing slavery at a national level would be just as much of an overreach of federal power, right? Slavery was only outlawed by a Constitutional amendment. How is that an overreach of federal power? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 2:07:38 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: They weren't foreign forces and it wasn't an independent state, therefore it was an insurrection. Rebels fired on federal troops, on a federal base located next to a state of the union. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Next question, are we talking about the Civil War that was almost 150 years ago or the one that's coming up soon if Obuttfuck gets re-elected??? I thought we were talking about trying to keep the Bolsheviks from overthrowing the Petrograd government. FUCK YEAH KERENSKY! Somewhere, my love. Quoted: Quoted: No because the Federal government has the power to suppress insurrections. So in that case, did the Union trample all over the states' powers? "Treason doth never prosper, and what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Secession is not treason. But taking up arms against the Federal Government is insurrection, at the very least. Like it or not, when the South started shelling Ft. Sumter they crossed a line that meant they had to either win the conflict or be subject to the mercies of their opponents. Of course, while the legal act of secession itself is not inherently treasonous or insurrectionist, the subsequent actions required for national sovereignty, including the ability to exercise exclusive control over one's territory, make it a de-facto act of insurrection. Once you're in you have to be willing and able to win. Secession is not treason nor is it insurrection. It is the cleavage of political ties. For an independent state to fire upon what have become foreign forces inside of its territory is not insurrection. The national government may put down insurrection within the territory of the member States, but when States cease to be members, such authority ceases as well (as far as those former members are concerned). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 2:08:22 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Rebels can't alter the truth either. They were never not part of the United States, no matter how much the rebels said they were. Quoted: Quoted: Secession is not treason nor is it insurrection. It is the cleavage of political ties. For an independent state to fire upon what have become foreign forces inside of its territory is not insurrection. The national government may put down insurrection within the territory of the member States, but when States cease to be members, such authority ceases as well (as far as those former members are concerned). When you lose, it's treason. Well, I'm not a relativist. It was not treason, and losing the war does make it so, either. Victors can't alter truth, even if they try their hardest to obfuscate it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 2:11:55 PM EDT
[#36]
My ancestors that fought in the war of northern aggression, didn't own slaves... to poor. Couldn't afford them. I'm sure that was the case for most of the soldiers that fought and died for the south.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 2:23:53 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
My ancestors that fought in the war of northern aggression, didn't own slaves... to poor. Couldn't afford them. I'm sure that was the case for most of the soldiers that fought and died for the south. That is what I find so sad. They were used by an aristocracy in an attempt to retain a system that made them rich but did nothing for your family. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 2:24:38 PM EDT
[#38]
Neither. I would have done my best to bug out to the western territories.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 2:27:09 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
oh hell, is it the first of the month already? close enough STATES RIGHTS! Which rights would those be? The right to allow your residents to own other human beings? Yes, it was about slavery and states' rights was a PC vaneer to slap on it. Read the secession papers for many of the southern states, it was very much about slavery. An instituion that pre-dates the United States, was brought here before there was a United States, was specifically removed from any federal authority over it within the States, and over which the Federal governemnt had no say. A Federal governemnt overstepping its bounds is indeed a State's Rights issue - the States made the Fed, not the other way around. Endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights... Unless you were black and in shackles? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 2:30:10 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since we all know that God only lets the righteous win in conflicts, the Union was the side that God wanted to win. If you consider the deaths of 3/4 a million men a win, then you and I have extremely different views of the word. The Union may have been successful in keeping the United States in one piece, but I do not believe anyone won. And if your God was really all that righteous, then there wouldn't have been a war to begin with that cost the lives of all those men. Do me a favor, go to any post office in the South and look up, let me know which flag is flying? If more than one is flying, list them all. Is Ol' Glory flying? Did I state anywhere in my post that I sided with the South? I simply stated that if you (or the person I quoted) consider the deaths of 3/4 a million of OUR countrymen a win, then we have drastically different views of the word win. Granted, I was born, raised, and currently reside in the south, and I would have to support where my home is, but I'm trying to point out that I don't consider those deaths a win from either side. Had the south achieved their goal of secession, I would still feel the same way about using the word win in that context. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 2:33:09 PM EDT
[#41]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 2:41:04 PM EDT
[#42]
This Yankee ( born and raised ) would definitely side with the Confederacy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 2:56:56 PM EDT
[#43]
Considering how the government treats the population of slave descendants they have as welfare slaves to the state now I can't say the confederates could do any worse.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 2:59:52 PM EDT
[#44]
Smart enough to stay out of something that had nothing to do with me
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:04:14 PM EDT
[#45]
LOL aint looking good for the union
great great great grandfather was a volunteer in a south georgia infantry unit.... and our ladies are SOOOOO much hotter Don't make me lock...VA-gunnut |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:10:34 PM EDT
[#46]
Fuckin union. Bring it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:11:00 PM EDT
[#47]
south all the way, especially after seeing how things have worked out as of late....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:16:53 PM EDT
[#48]
Are you gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:19:38 PM EDT
[#49]
Honestly? Whichever side drafted me.
Most of the people on either side were not warrior poets fighting on the basis of philosophy. They were conscripts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2012 3:31:51 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Secession is not treason nor is it insurrection. It is the cleavage of political ties. For an independent state to fire upon what have become foreign forces inside of its territory is not insurrection. The national government may put down insurrection within the territory of the member States, but when States cease to be members, such authority ceases as well (as far as those former members are concerned). When you lose, it's treason. Well, I'm not a relativist. It was not treason, and losing the war does make it so, either. Victors can't alter truth, even if they try their hardest to obfuscate it. Not a relativist either, just a pragmatist. The fact is that the legal issue is ambiguous. And when something is ambiguous, both sides may not agree on it. And when reason fails, force prevails. We couldn't settle this one with words, so we used guns, and all the internet whining in the world ain't going to change the result. I'm not a pragmatist, either. I am opposed to the concept, philosophically speaking, but I think most people use it as being synonymous with practical or something like that, even though there is a lot more meaning to the term within the realm of ideas. Ultimately, might does not make right, it just affects the outcome and the perception thereof; force does not alter reality. Not any earthly force, in any case. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
