Both sides committed treason, however committing treason is practically written into our ideals.
Bullshit of the highest magnitude. The Union and Confederacy were not morally equivalent on any level. You weren't taught the "neutral" version if that's what was instilled in you.
Laying a wreath at this godforsaken monument does not legitimize slavery, it does not promote war, it sends a message that people are sorry that it ever had to happen and that we recognize people that went through horrific times and deaths paid for our country's current status with their blood, no matter which side they were on.
Confederate soldiers didn't pay for our countries status with their blood, they took our country's soldier's blood in payment for their treason.
Why does it matter if the state was treasonous or not? It's completely irrelevant when you're talking about honoring the lowest level of the military, the soldier. Yes, the rich white people were traitors fighting to keep their profit margins high, I think that's pretty understandable.
But if you're Jim Bob, a soldier for the USA and then your state leaves the Union and now you're given a grey uniform and told to fight fo your state?
Then what? Is Jim Bob really a traitor, or is he doing like soldiers are conditioned to do, and just following orders?
The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory.
The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory.
The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent.
The legal Government is "obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military."
At times, the term "traitor" has been levelled as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. In a civil war or insurrection, the winners may deem the losers to be traitors.
First, those are not the requirements for a Civil War, those are the requirements for an "armed conflict not of an international character.
Second, nothing you just included has any relevance. Not only was the Geneva Convention not written in 1860, but nothing in that contradicts in any way the idea that the Confederates were traitors. It explicitly allows for charging insurgents, even those taking part in "an armed conflict not of an international character" with crimes and punishing them.
Both sides committed treason, however committing treason is practically written into our ideals.
Bullshit of the highest magnitude. The Union and Confederacy were not morally equivalent on any level. You weren't taught the "neutral" version if that's what was instilled in you.
Laying a wreath at this godforsaken monument does not legitimize slavery, it does not promote war, it sends a message that people are sorry that it ever had to happen and that we recognize people that went through horrific times and deaths paid for our country's current status with their blood, no matter which side they were on.
Confederate soldiers didn't pay for our countries status with their blood, they took our country's soldier's blood in payment for their treason.
'Our' country?
We took 'our' country's soldier's blood in payment to keep the states from ultimately forming their own country. Neither side has the moral high ground. "But he hit me first!" doesn't put you into auto-moral-authority mode, that only works with 4 year olds.
Or we could just go to Lincoln's address asking for a declaration of war and war funding. Opening paragraph.
It might seem at first thought to be of little difference whether the present movement at the South be called "secession" or "rebellion." The movers, however, well understand the difference. At the beginning they knew they could never raise their treason to any respectable magnitude by any name which implies violation of law.
or later
Great honor is due to those officers who remained true despite the example of their treacherous associates; but the greatest honor and most important fact of all is the unanimous firmness of the common soldiers and common sailors. To the last man, so far as known, they have successfully resisted the traitorous efforts of those whose commands but an hour before they obeyed as absolute law. This is the patriotic instinct of plain people. They understand without an argument that the destroying the Government which was made by Washington means no good to them.
Neither of those instances is contextually defined the way you're defining the Confederacy as treason. Just because Lincoln used the word in vague reference to something to do with the secession doesn't mean he viewed the act as an act of treason.
Both sides committed treason, however committing treason is practically written into our ideals.
Bullshit of the highest magnitude. The Union and Confederacy were not morally equivalent on any level. You weren't taught the "neutral" version if that's what was instilled in you.
Laying a wreath at this godforsaken monument does not legitimize slavery, it does not promote war, it sends a message that people are sorry that it ever had to happen and that we recognize people that went through horrific times and deaths paid for our country's current status with their blood, no matter which side they were on.
Confederate soldiers didn't pay for our countries status with their blood, they took our country's soldier's blood in payment for their treason.
'Our' country?
We took 'our' country's soldier's blood in payment to keep the states from ultimately forming their own country. Neither side has the moral high ground. "But he hit me first!" doesn't put you into auto-moral-authority mode, that only works with 4 year olds.
First, shocking that a patriotic holiday would treat our country different than other countries.
Second, there's a little thing called slavery that says hello.
Neither of those instances is contextually defined the way you're defining the Confederacy as treason. Just because Lincoln used the word in vague reference to something to do with the secession doesn't mean he viewed the act as an act of treason.
Yes just because he called the secession treason and the Confederates traitors doesn't mean he thought either of those things.
Your knowledge of what historians think is frankly non-existent. Both contemporaneously and generally historians view the attempted secession of the Confederacy as treason. Reconstruction was largely fought around reconciliation and the idea that the "reward of treason will be an increased representation"
Your definition of a "historian" is frankly ridiculous.
Henry Wilson (February 16, 1812 – November 22, 1875) was a Senator from Massachusetts and the 18th Vice President of the United States. He was a leading Republican who devoted his enormous energies to the destruction of what he called the Slave Power, that is the conspiracy of slave owners to seize control of the federal government and block the progress of liberty.
Your knowledge of what historians think is frankly non-existent. Both contemporaneously and generally historians view the attempted secession of the Confederacy as treason. Reconstruction was largely fought around reconciliation and the idea that the "reward of treason will be an increased representation"
Your definition of a "historian" is frankly ridiculous.
Henry Wilson (February 16, 1812 – November 22, 1875) was a Senator from Massachusetts and the 18th Vice President of the United States. He was a leading Republican who devoted his enormous energies to the destruction of what he called the Slave Power, that is the conspiracy of slave owners to seize control of the federal government and block the progress of liberty.
An unbiased source if ever there was one!
Hilarious.
Being a wealthy, powerful, share holding Northern politician, I wonder how much of a hand he had in the vast, unchecked, corporate slavery that existed in the industrialized North.
Neither of those instances is contextually defined the way you're defining the Confederacy as treason. Just because Lincoln used the word in vague reference to something to do with the secession doesn't mean he viewed the act as an act of treason.
Yes just because he called the secession treason and the Confederates traitors doesn't mean he thought either of those things.
No, in the first case he's calling the notion that the Southern politicians used of any state being able to lawfully secede traitorous to the constituency of the South. In the second case, he's calling the soldiers who had already been commissioned into the Union Army traitorous when they broke ranks and joined the Confederate Army.
Your knowledge of what historians think is frankly non-existent. Both contemporaneously and generally historians view the attempted secession of the Confederacy as treason. Reconstruction was largely fought around reconciliation and the idea that the "reward of treason will be an increased representation"
Your definition of a "historian" is frankly ridiculous.
Henry Wilson (February 16, 1812 – November 22, 1875) was a Senator from Massachusetts and the 18th Vice President of the United States. He was a leading Republican who devoted his enormous energies to the destruction of what he called the Slave Power, that is the conspiracy of slave owners to seize control of the federal government and block the progress of liberty.
An unbiased source if ever there was one!
Hilarious.
Being a wealthy, powerful, share holding Northern politician, I wonder how much of a hand he had in the vast, unchecked, corporate slavery that existed in the industrialized North.
I don't even care about that part as much as the fact that, were you looking to find the most rabid anti-Postwar-South loon utterly bent on destroying every particle of the Confederacy, you couldn't find anyone further in the fringe than this guy.
Your knowledge of what historians think is frankly non-existent. Both contemporaneously and generally historians view the attempted secession of the Confederacy as treason. Reconstruction was largely fought around reconciliation and the idea that the "reward of treason will be an increased representation"
Your definition of a "historian" is frankly ridiculous.
Henry Wilson (February 16, 1812 – November 22, 1875) was a Senator from Massachusetts and the 18th Vice President of the United States. He was a leading Republican who devoted his enormous energies to the destruction of what he called the Slave Power, that is the conspiracy of slave owners to seize control of the federal government and block the progress of liberty.
An unbiased source if ever there was one!
Hilarious.
Being a wealthy, powerful, share holding Northern politician, I wonder how much of a hand he had in the vast, unchecked, corporate slavery that existed in the industrialized North.
Wow your high school history teacher did a number on you. Damn Northerners with their armies of slaves. Protip: Massachusetts outlawed slavery in 1790 as it violated "all men are created equal" under the Massachusetts Constitution. Also, Henry Wilson was a noted abolitionist. But yeah he was awash in his shoemaking fortune from those tides of slaves that existed in the North. I mean granted there were slaves as close to his home as New Jersey were there where over 200!
With the notable exceptions of Maryland and Kentucky, two border states, nearly all slaves in the United States by 1850 resided in the South and those Western territories that had not outlawed slavery. The false equivalency bullshit is tired and contemptible
Your knowledge of what historians think is frankly non-existent. Both contemporaneously and generally historians view the attempted secession of the Confederacy as treason. Reconstruction was largely fought around reconciliation and the idea that the "reward of treason will be an increased representation"
Your definition of a "historian" is frankly ridiculous.
Henry Wilson (February 16, 1812 – November 22, 1875) was a Senator from Massachusetts and the 18th Vice President of the United States. He was a leading Republican who devoted his enormous energies to the destruction of what he called the Slave Power, that is the conspiracy of slave owners to seize control of the federal government and block the progress of liberty.
An unbiased source if ever there was one!
Hilarious.
Being a wealthy, powerful, share holding Northern politician, I wonder how much of a hand he had in the vast, unchecked, corporate slavery that existed in the industrialized North.
Wow your high school history teacher did a number on you. Damn Northerners with their armies of slaves. Protip: Massachusetts outlawed slavery in 1790 as it violated "all men are created equal" under the Massachusetts Constitution. Also, Henry Wilson was a noted abolitionist. But yeah he was awash in his shoemaking fortune from those tides of slaves that existed in the North. I mean granted there were slaves as close to his home as New Jersey were there where over 200!
With the notable exceptions of Maryland and Kentucky, two border states, nearly all slaves in the United States by 1850 resided in the South and those Western territories that had not outlawed slavery. The false equivalency bullshit is tired and contemptible
He's not talking about literal slaves. He's talking about the industrialized sweatshops in the North at the turn of the 20th century.
Wow your high school history teacher did a number on you. Damn Northerners with their armies of slaves. Protip: Massachusetts outlawed slavery in 1790 as it violated "all men are created equal" under the Massachusetts Constitution. Also, Henry Wilson was a noted abolitionist. But yeah he was awash in his shoemaking fortune from those tides of slaves that existed in the North. I mean granted there were slaves as close to his home as New Jersey were there where over 200!
With the notable exceptions of Maryland and Kentucky, two border states, nearly all slaves in the United States by 1850 resided in the South and those Western territories that had not outlawed slavery. The false equivalency bullshit is tired and contemptible
You're silly and funny.
Outlawing something doesn't mean it didn't exist.
Go read The Jungle. Or read up on Wage Slavery. Or Scrips and the Truck System, which was highly prevalent, and overlooked, in the industrialized North.
Or we could just go to Lincoln's address asking for a declaration of war and war funding. Opening paragraph.
It might seem at first thought to be of little difference whether the present movement at the South be called "secession" or "rebellion." The movers, however, well understand the difference. At the beginning they knew they could never raise their treason to any respectable magnitude by any name which implies violation of law.
or later
Great honor is due to those officers who remained true despite the example of their treacherous associates; but the greatest honor and most important fact of all is the unanimous firmness of the common soldiers and common sailors. To the last man, so far as known, they have successfully resisted the traitorous efforts of those whose commands but an hour before they obeyed as absolute law. This is the patriotic instinct of plain people. They understand without an argument that the destroying the Government which was made by Washington means no good to them.
Neither of those instances is contextually defined the way you're defining the Confederacy as treason. Just because Lincoln used the word in vague reference to something to do with the secession doesn't mean he viewed the act as an act of treason.
But you Democrats are for the Union; and you greatly fear the success of the Republicans would destroy the Union. Why ? Do the Republicans declare against the Union? Nothing like it. Your own statement of it is that if the Black Republicans elect a President, you "won't stand it." You will break up the Union. If we shall constitutionally elect a President, it will be our duty to see that you submit. Old John Brown has been executed for treason against a State. We cannot object, even though he agreed with us in thinking slavery wrong. That cannot excuse violence, bloodshed, and treason. It could avail him nothing that he might think himself right. So, if we constitutionally elect a President, and therefore you undertake to destroy the Union, it will be our duty to deal with you as old John Brown has been dealt with. We shall try to do our duty. We hope and believe that in no section will a majority so act as to render such extreme measures necessary.
Go read The Jungle. Or read up on Wage Slavery. Or Scrips and the Truck System, which was highly prevalent, and overlooked, in the industrialized North.
Yes there were untold thousands of secret slaves! Yeah that's just the ridiculous invention you need to create a moral equivalency. To the make-shit-up-mobile! But then what do I know? I'm just a slave with a white collar, just like those slaves that Lincoln freed.
You do know you're spouting the exact rhetoric used to defend slavery right?
Go read The Jungle. Or read up on Wage Slavery. Or Scrips and the Truck System, which was highly prevalent, and overlooked, in the industrialized North.
Yes there were untold thousands of secret slaves! Yeah that's just the ridiculous invention you need to create a moral equivalency. To the make-shit-up-mobile! But then what do I know? I'm just a slave with a white collar, just like those slaves that Lincoln freed.
You do know you're spouting the exact rhetoric used to defend slavery right?
I find it strange that you come to this conclusion.
You mean straws like dredging up a speech Lincoln made when he was still campaigning for the Republican nomination in order to prove how Lincoln felt about the Confederacy after the secession?
Maybe you should read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address instead? You know, the one where the words "traitor, treason, traitorous, and treasonous" appear exactly zero times.
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Go read The Jungle. Or read up on Wage Slavery. Or Scrips and the Truck System, which was highly prevalent, and overlooked, in the industrialized North.
Yes there were untold thousands of secret slaves! Yeah that's just the ridiculous invention you need to create a moral equivalency.
On the one hand, the Civil War was about slavery (though more the political implications than the moral), and glorifying those who fought for slavery is kind of a bad thing; on the other hand, a small chunk of the Confederates were drafted, and it's not as if everybody in the South loved slavery and everyone in the North hated it. Was Obama right to deny the petition? Is it good politics? Good policy? Should maybe the next president stop doing it?
Note: I will cut the first person who compares the Confederates to the Nazis.
Not all Confederates fought for Slavery. Some argue that most didn't.
The officer class who owned the plantations? Yeah, GEN Benning outright said he was doing it for that reason. The Lords didn't want to give up their serfs, it would seem. Well, tough shit, this isn't 12th century Europe. No sympathy for those guys here.
The common soldiers, however, mostly just didn't like Yankees telling them what to do and with the North having more states and people, and thusly controlling the House/Senate, Southerners felt like they had no real say in the government anyways.
That being said, it's disengenuous in the extreme to claim to be fighting for freedom while keeping slavery leagal in your new country.
That's an interesting piece of alternative history; what if Jefferson Davis had issued the Emancipation Proclemation instead of Lincoln?
The fact that he didn't, however, shows how important the C.S.A. felt slavery was and how tainted by that evil it became. If it was about independance, why not remove the Cassus Belli for the North with one stroke of then pen? Slavery is more important than your independance?
To the CAS's leaders, it was yes. To a lot of soldiers, it may have been no.
As for Obama's wreath laying, it's probably good policy and politics.
Old wounds need to be healed, not reopened, and, frankly, it's not fair to keep treating Southerners as racist, ignorant hicks because of the sins of their fathers, like some "progressive" people do (to include a previous moderator here) so it's a good gesture on his part to help heal a current wound.
Obama won because he got some Southern states. You can't win with just CA and the NE U.S.A. He's more cunning than people give him credit for and he gets that as well.
The common soldiers, however, mostly just didn't like Yankees telling them what to do and with the North having more states and people, and thusly controlling the House/Senate, Southerners felt like they had no real say in the government anyways.
"I think you're confusing tyranny with losing... .See, now you're in the minority. It's supposed to taste like a shit taco." -Jon Stewart.
Obama won because he got some Southern states. You can't win with just CA and the NE U.S.A. He's more cunning than people give him credit for and he gets that as well.
Obama won because he got more than 269 electoral votes. He won three Southern states, but he would have had more than enough votes without any of them. If Kerry had won Ohio, he would have been elected without having the support of any Southern state.
Go read The Jungle. Or read up on Wage Slavery. Or Scrips and the Truck System, which was highly prevalent, and overlooked, in the industrialized North.
Yes there were untold thousands of secret slaves! Yeah that's just the ridiculous invention you need to create a moral equivalency. To the make-shit-up-mobile! But then what do I know? I'm just a slave with a white collar, just like those slaves that Lincoln freed.
You do know you're spouting the exact rhetoric used to defend slavery right?
I find it strange that you come to this conclusion.
That the north had "wage slaves" morally equivalent to the actual slaves of the South was a core defense of slavery in the antebellum period.
You mean straws like dredging up a speech Lincoln made when he was still campaigning for the Republican nomination in order to prove how Lincoln felt about the Confederacy after the secession?
I've provided quotes by Lincoln saying secession was treason, the Confederates were traitors and the attempted succession by the Confederacy was treason. I could keep going
An insurrection has broken out in several of the States of this Union, including Virginia, designed to overthrow the Government of the United States. The executive authorities of that State are parties to that insurrection, and so are public enemies. Their action in seizing or buying vessels to be employed in executing that design, is not merely without authority of law, but is treason. It is treason for any person to give aid and comfort to public enemies. To sell vessels to them which it is their purpose to use as ships of war, is to give them aid and comfort. To receive money from them in payment for vessels which they have seized for those purposes, would be to attempt to convert the unlawful seizure into a sale, and would subject the party so offending to the pains and penalties of treason, and the Government would not hesitate to bring the offender to punishment.
I mean an entire era is named after a document whose premise is
Whereas, a rebellion now exists whereby the loyal state governments of several states have for a long time been subverted, and many persons have committed, and are now guilty of, treason against the United States; and
Now you'll complain that he only meant people he explicitly named, but its just not the case. Those people were the ones he didn't pardon for treason and those he included those who "directly or by implication, participated in the existing rebellion" - which certainly includes soldiers
I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, do proclaim, declare, and make known to all persons who have, directly or by implication, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, that a full pardon is hereby granted to them
..
The persons excepted from the benefits of the foregoing provisions are all who are, or shall have been, civil or diplomatic officers or agents of the so-called Confederate government; all who have left judicial stations under the United States to aid the rebellion; all who are, or shall have been, military or naval officers of said so-called Confederate government above the rank of colonel in the army or of lieutenant in the navy; all who left seats in the United States congress to aid the rebellion; all who resigned commissions in the army or navy of the United States and afterwards aided the rebellion; and all who have engaged in any way in treating colored persons, or white persons in charge of such, otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war, and which persons may have been found in the United States service as soldiers, seamen, or in any other capacity.
I know what you're referring to. Its bullshit and frankly its shitty to compare poor working conditions with slavery. Irish need not apply and company towns don't compare to lacking recognition as a person, no protection under the law, and being owned by another person.
Go read The Jungle. Or read up on Wage Slavery. Or Scrips and the Truck System, which was highly prevalent, and overlooked, in the industrialized North.
Yes there were untold thousands of secret slaves! Yeah that's just the ridiculous invention you need to create a moral equivalency. To the make-shit-up-mobile! But then what do I know? I'm just a slave with a white collar, just like those slaves that Lincoln freed.
You do know you're spouting the exact rhetoric used to defend slavery right?
I find it strange that you come to this conclusion.
That the north had "wage slaves" morally equivalent to the actual slaves of the South was a core defense of slavery in the antebellum period.
No reality makes it untrue. Slavery != poor working conditions. Its sociopathic bullshit.
Of course it's not as bad as legal, institutionalized slavery. But if you ask me, the sociopathic thing is calling the truck system "poor working conditions".
No reality makes it untrue. Slavery != poor working conditions. Its sociopathic bullshit.
You haven't read about any of that, have you?
Never heard the lyrics "Saint Peter don't call me 'Cause I can't go... I owe my soul to the Company Store".
Just because it isn't called slavery, doesn't mean that it isn't.
You're being ridiculously naive.
Under a truck system you didn't have a home and you didn't have belongings, and any food you bought you bought not with money that you earned, but with scrips that weren't worth the paper they were printed on, and you used them to buy products inflated to ridiculously high prices.
And if you didn't do what you were told to do, you suffered consequences.
But nah. They don't call it slavery. That's just a poor working condition. That uneducated fella should just pack up and move if he don't like it.
Go read The Jungle. Or read up on Wage Slavery. Or Scrips and the Truck System, which was highly prevalent, and overlooked, in the industrialized North.
Yes there were untold thousands of secret slaves! Yeah that's just the ridiculous invention you need to create a moral equivalency. To the make-shit-up-mobile! But then what do I know? I'm just a slave with a white collar, just like those slaves that Lincoln freed.
You do know you're spouting the exact rhetoric used to defend slavery right?
I find it strange that you come to this conclusion.
That the north had "wage slaves" morally equivalent to the actual slaves of the South was a core defense of slavery in the antebellum period.
You mean straws like dredging up a speech Lincoln made when he was still campaigning for the Republican nomination in order to prove how Lincoln felt about the Confederacy after the secession?
I've provided quotes by Lincoln saying secession was treason, the Confederates were traitors and the attempted succession by the Confederacy was treason. I could keep going
An insurrection has broken out in several of the States of this Union, including Virginia, designed to overthrow the Government of the United States. The executive authorities of that State are parties to that insurrection, and so are public enemies. Their action in seizing or buying vessels to be employed in executing that design, is not merely without authority of law, but is treason. It is treason for any person to give aid and comfort to public enemies. To sell vessels to them which it is their purpose to use as ships of war, is to give them aid and comfort. To receive money from them in payment for vessels which they have seized for those purposes, would be to attempt to convert the unlawful seizure into a sale, and would subject the party so offending to the pains and penalties of treason, and the Government would not hesitate to bring the offender to punishment.
I mean an entire era is named after a document whose premise is
Whereas, a rebellion now exists whereby the loyal state governments of several states have for a long time been subverted, and many persons have committed, and are now guilty of, treason against the United States; and
Now you'll complain that he only meant people he explicitly named, but its just not the case. Those people were the ones he didn't pardon for treason and those he included those who "directly or by implication, participated in the existing rebellion" - which certainly includes soldiers
I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, do proclaim, declare, and make known to all persons who have, directly or by implication, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, that a full pardon is hereby granted to them
..
The persons excepted from the benefits of the foregoing provisions are all who are, or shall have been, civil or diplomatic officers or agents of the so-called Confederate government; all who have left judicial stations under the United States to aid the rebellion; all who are, or shall have been, military or naval officers of said so-called Confederate government above the rank of colonel in the army or of lieutenant in the navy; all who left seats in the United States congress to aid the rebellion; all who resigned commissions in the army or navy of the United States and afterwards aided the rebellion; and all who have engaged in any way in treating colored persons, or white persons in charge of such, otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war, and which persons may have been found in the United States service as soldiers, seamen, or in any other capacity.
No, all that said was that some people had committed treason during the rebellion, not that the secession itself was treason (though some Republicans in Congress made that distinction, which the amnesty was also intended to address). None of this semantic bullshit is getting you any closer to proving that the Confederate soldiers who fought in the Civil War were traitors.
No reality makes it untrue. Slavery != poor working conditions. Its sociopathic bullshit.
You haven't read about any of that, have you?
Never heard the lyrics "Saint Peter don't call me 'Cause I can't go... I owe my soul to the Company Store".
Just because it isn't called slavery, doesn't mean that it isn't.
You're being ridiculously naive.
And I've heard people bitch about they live their life for their mortgage. It wasn't fucking slavery.
They couldn't rape you with no repercussions.
They couldn't murder you with no repercussions.
They couldn't sell your children with no repercussions.
They couldn't whip you with no repercussions.
They couldn't force you to work with no compensation.
You can quit under the truck system. You'd be poor and probably fucked since they weren't paying you legal tender, but in the end its free, if unfair, labor.
You're referring to a song that was written in 19-fucking-46, a hundred years removed from the Civil War and using it as a reference to why the North was morally equivalent in some way to the South.
No, all that said was that some people had committed treason during the rebellion, not that the secession itself was treason (though some Republicans in Congress made that distinction, which the amnesty was also intended to address). None of this semantic bullshit is getting you any closer to proving that the Confederate soldiers who fought in the Civil War were traitors.
What a joke. Lincoln's ghost could be giving you a handjob while telling you it was treason and the soldiers were traitors and you'd still say that he meant some other guys. I quoted from a speech called "The Treason of Secession" and you claim he didn't mean it. When he said
An insurrection has broken out in several of the States of this Union, including Virginia, designed to overthrow the Government of the United States. The executive authorities of that State are parties to that insurrection, and so are public enemies. Their action in seizing or buying vessels to be employed in executing that design, is not merely without authority of law, but is treason. It is treason for any person to give aid and comfort to public enemies.
You somehow claim that the Confederate soldiers fighting for the executive authorities of the State, ie public enemies, aren't "giv[ing] aid and comfort to public enemies." When Lincoln pardons the Confederates of treason, except for those that were high up in government, you somehow think he means some other people.
The Confederate soldiers levyied war against the United States. That is the Constitutional definition of treason. There is no way around it unless you presume that the Confederacy was legitimate. If that is the case, a) you're wrong and b) you've admitted that Obama should not be honoring these soldiers who were not of the United States.
PantsB not comprehending what I'm asking him to do
Again, I'm gonna ask you to read some of the information I've given you.
You're referring to a song that was written in 19-fucking-46, a hundred years removed from the Civil War and using it as a reference to why the North was morally equivalent in some way to the South.
I never once said the North was morally equivalent.
I just find it hilarious that you, on your high horse and your need to hate an entire third of your country, think that things like sexual exploitation and physical abuse didn't exist in institutions where it ran rampant. I'm just trying to educate you that A> You're wrong and B> The rich treating the poor and uneducated horribly isn't something that existed only in the South.
You say "They couldn't force you to work with no compensation" yet, with the truck system, that's exactly what they did. If you didn't do it, you and your family didn't starve to death.
But, since it's not called slavery, it's not as bad, huh?
Honestly, its like some people here have been arguing the slavery = evil = CSA issue to defend themselves as being not racist. Its not that simple and trying to declare it as such is disingenuous to the victims of slavery and their decedents (me!).
As far as the treasonous aspects of southern cession, the people above tossing out quotes from President Lincoln are not including timelines with their statements, what the President felt at the beginning changed as the war and army progressed. The feelings he held regarding the southern states would have changed after he walked from one end of the Gettysburg battle to the other without touching the ground (squish, squish, squish).
Concerning the truck system, Chuck Norris called it slavery in an episode of "Walker: Texas Ranger"
But in all seriously, I cite the judgement of a judge in a recent rape case, "You raped this woman as surely as if you had held a gun to her head. You used the position of authority to control and force this woman into sexual compliance." I am sorry that I do not have the specific case but I use this to declare that without using the tools of African Slavery, you can enforce a system of slavery into people.
I should also point out that Irish Americans were conditioned into hating black people so that they would not become a common body politic. Thankfully, some of them still got it on and subsequently products a lot of attractive women.
No, all that said was that some people had committed treason during the rebellion, not that the secession itself was treason (though some Republicans in Congress made that distinction, which the amnesty was also intended to address). None of this semantic bullshit is getting you any closer to proving that the Confederate soldiers who fought in the Civil War were traitors.
What a joke. Lincoln's ghost could be giving you a handjob while telling you it was treason and the soldiers were traitors and you'd still say that he meant some other guys. I quoted from a speech called "The Treason of Secession" and you claim he didn't mean it. When he said
An insurrection has broken out in several of the States of this Union, including Virginia, designed to overthrow the Government of the United States. The executive authorities of that State are parties to that insurrection, and so are public enemies. Their action in seizing or buying vessels to be employed in executing that design, is not merely without authority of law, but is treason. It is treason for any person to give aid and comfort to public enemies.
You somehow claim that the Confederate soldiers fighting for the executive authorities of the State, ie public enemies, aren't "giv[ing] aid and comfort to public enemies." When Lincoln pardons the Confederates of treason, except for those that were high up in government, you somehow think he means some other people.
The Confederate soldiers levyied war against the United States. That is the Constitutional definition of treason. There is no way around it unless you presume that the Confederacy was legitimate. If that is the case, a) you're wrong and b) you've admitted that Obama should not be honoring these soldiers who were not of the United States.
No, it says that the executive authorities of the Confederate state are public enemies and it's treason to give aid and comfort to them. He also says seizing or buying vessels to be employed in executing the secession is treason. Nowhere does he say that everyone involved in the Confederacy is engaging in treason. Nowhere.
the people above tossing out quotes from President Lincoln are not including timelines with their statements, what the President felt at the beginning changed as the war and army progressed. The feelings he held regarding the southern states would have changed after he walked from one end of the Gettysburg battle to the other without touching the ground (squish, squish, squish).
No, that's pretty much only Pants_B, who keeps tossing out fragments from Lincoln's campaign speeches, his speech to get war funding from the Congress and his Amnesty speech.
The only speech of Lincoln's I quoted was his Second Inaugural, where he basically said that we need to honor all of the dead and their widows and orphans in order to heal the nation.
the people above tossing out quotes from President Lincoln are not including timelines with their statements, what the President felt at the beginning changed as the war and army progressed. The feelings he held regarding the southern states would have changed after he walked from one end of the Gettysburg battle to the other without touching the ground (squish, squish, squish).
No, that's pretty much only Pants_B, who keeps tossing out fragments from Lincoln's campaign speeches, his speech to get war funding from the Congress and his Amnesty speech.
The only speech of Lincoln's I quoted was his Second Inaugural, where he basically said that we need to honor all of the dead and their widows and orphans in order to heal the nation.
I am rusty on my history, was this after the war?
edit: Okay I checked the wiki, The battle at Gettysburg had just been won and been so bloody that it shrunk the size of the Union army by a significant portion and undermined the Union war effort. Lincoln had changed by this point in his career because, like President George Walker Bush at the start of his second term, he was loosing popular support to to rising troop casualties.
the people above tossing out quotes from President Lincoln are not including timelines with their statements, what the President felt at the beginning changed as the war and army progressed. The feelings he held regarding the southern states would have changed after he walked from one end of the Gettysburg battle to the other without touching the ground (squish, squish, squish).
No, that's pretty much only Pants_B, who keeps tossing out fragments from Lincoln's campaign speeches, his speech to get war funding from the Congress and his Amnesty speech.
The only speech of Lincoln's I quoted was his Second Inaugural, where he basically said that we need to honor all of the dead and their widows and orphans in order to heal the nation.
I am rusty on my history, was this after the war?
He was shot before the war ended, so no. It was Lincoln's Second Inaugural from March, 1865. Probably the best speech ever given by an American.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
That's called me humoring you. Things I type in jest to make fun of your position, which is apparently a position of whining about "Romanticist Revisionism of the South" while believe that the "North was some Great Force of Equality and Freedom sent down to Spur the Evil South" should not be taken seriously.
Also when you call things slavery that aren't slavery.
Being forced to live on a company funded farm (a plantation if you will), without any personal posessions, with all of your "wages" garnished and being forced to live off of food that the company provides you with, with your only other option being to quit and you and your family die from starvation. If you were lucky enough to quit, since many companies wouldn't allow it since working for them actually incurred irreversible debt.
Sounds alot like slavery to me.
But, I guess since it happened in the North then it's not.
Posts
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
But if you're Jim Bob, a soldier for the USA and then your state leaves the Union and now you're given a grey uniform and told to fight fo your state?
Then what? Is Jim Bob really a traitor, or is he doing like soldiers are conditioned to do, and just following orders?
I'd side with the latter, but that's me.
This is hilarious and proof that you're just wanting something to be hateful about.
First, those are not the requirements for a Civil War, those are the requirements for an "armed conflict not of an international character.
Second, nothing you just included has any relevance. Not only was the Geneva Convention not written in 1860, but nothing in that contradicts in any way the idea that the Confederates were traitors. It explicitly allows for charging insurgents, even those taking part in "an armed conflict not of an international character" with crimes and punishing them.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
'Our' country?
We took 'our' country's soldier's blood in payment to keep the states from ultimately forming their own country. Neither side has the moral high ground. "But he hit me first!" doesn't put you into auto-moral-authority mode, that only works with 4 year olds.
Neither of those instances is contextually defined the way you're defining the Confederacy as treason. Just because Lincoln used the word in vague reference to something to do with the secession doesn't mean he viewed the act as an act of treason.
First, shocking that a patriotic holiday would treat our country different than other countries.
Second, there's a little thing called slavery that says hello.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Yes just because he called the secession treason and the Confederates traitors doesn't mean he thought either of those things.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Your definition of a "historian" is frankly ridiculous.
An unbiased source if ever there was one!
Hilarious.
Being a wealthy, powerful, share holding Northern politician, I wonder how much of a hand he had in the vast, unchecked, corporate slavery that existed in the industrialized North.
No, in the first case he's calling the notion that the Southern politicians used of any state being able to lawfully secede traitorous to the constituency of the South. In the second case, he's calling the soldiers who had already been commissioned into the Union Army traitorous when they broke ranks and joined the Confederate Army.
What a difference a little context makes.
I don't even care about that part as much as the fact that, were you looking to find the most rabid anti-Postwar-South loon utterly bent on destroying every particle of the Confederacy, you couldn't find anyone further in the fringe than this guy.
With the notable exceptions of Maryland and Kentucky, two border states, nearly all slaves in the United States by 1850 resided in the South and those Western territories that had not outlawed slavery. The false equivalency bullshit is tired and contemptible
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
He's not talking about literal slaves. He's talking about the industrialized sweatshops in the North at the turn of the 20th century.
You're silly and funny.
Outlawing something doesn't mean it didn't exist.
Go read The Jungle. Or read up on Wage Slavery. Or Scrips and the Truck System, which was highly prevalent, and overlooked, in the industrialized North.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Yes there were untold thousands of secret slaves! Yeah that's just the ridiculous invention you need to create a moral equivalency. To the make-shit-up-mobile! But then what do I know? I'm just a slave with a white collar, just like those slaves that Lincoln freed.
You do know you're spouting the exact rhetoric used to defend slavery right?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I find it strange that you come to this conclusion.
Maybe you should read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address instead? You know, the one where the words "traitor, treason, traitorous, and treasonous" appear exactly zero times.
Go read what I asked you to.
Not all Confederates fought for Slavery. Some argue that most didn't.
The officer class who owned the plantations? Yeah, GEN Benning outright said he was doing it for that reason. The Lords didn't want to give up their serfs, it would seem. Well, tough shit, this isn't 12th century Europe. No sympathy for those guys here.
The common soldiers, however, mostly just didn't like Yankees telling them what to do and with the North having more states and people, and thusly controlling the House/Senate, Southerners felt like they had no real say in the government anyways.
That being said, it's disengenuous in the extreme to claim to be fighting for freedom while keeping slavery leagal in your new country.
That's an interesting piece of alternative history; what if Jefferson Davis had issued the Emancipation Proclemation instead of Lincoln?
The fact that he didn't, however, shows how important the C.S.A. felt slavery was and how tainted by that evil it became. If it was about independance, why not remove the Cassus Belli for the North with one stroke of then pen? Slavery is more important than your independance?
To the CAS's leaders, it was yes. To a lot of soldiers, it may have been no.
As for Obama's wreath laying, it's probably good policy and politics.
Old wounds need to be healed, not reopened, and, frankly, it's not fair to keep treating Southerners as racist, ignorant hicks because of the sins of their fathers, like some "progressive" people do (to include a previous moderator here) so it's a good gesture on his part to help heal a current wound.
Obama won because he got some Southern states. You can't win with just CA and the NE U.S.A. He's more cunning than people give him credit for and he gets that as well.
Margaret Thatcher
Obama won because he got more than 269 electoral votes. He won three Southern states, but he would have had more than enough votes without any of them. If Kerry had won Ohio, he would have been elected without having the support of any Southern state.
That the north had "wage slaves" morally equivalent to the actual slaves of the South was a core defense of slavery in the antebellum period.
I've provided quotes by Lincoln saying secession was treason, the Confederates were traitors and the attempted succession by the Confederacy was treason. I could keep going
I mean an entire era is named after a document whose premise is Now you'll complain that he only meant people he explicitly named, but its just not the case. Those people were the ones he didn't pardon for treason and those he included those who "directly or by implication, participated in the existing rebellion" - which certainly includes soldiers
ed
I know what you're referring to. Its bullshit and frankly its shitty to compare poor working conditions with slavery. Irish need not apply and company towns don't compare to lacking recognition as a person, no protection under the law, and being owned by another person.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Which obviously makes it less true.
No reality makes it untrue. Slavery != poor working conditions. Its sociopathic bullshit.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Of course it's not as bad as legal, institutionalized slavery. But if you ask me, the sociopathic thing is calling the truck system "poor working conditions".
You haven't read about any of that, have you?
Never heard the lyrics "Saint Peter don't call me 'Cause I can't go... I owe my soul to the Company Store".
Just because it isn't called slavery, doesn't mean that it isn't.
You're being ridiculously naive.
Under a truck system you didn't have a home and you didn't have belongings, and any food you bought you bought not with money that you earned, but with scrips that weren't worth the paper they were printed on, and you used them to buy products inflated to ridiculously high prices.
And if you didn't do what you were told to do, you suffered consequences.
But nah. They don't call it slavery. That's just a poor working condition. That uneducated fella should just pack up and move if he don't like it.
No, all that said was that some people had committed treason during the rebellion, not that the secession itself was treason (though some Republicans in Congress made that distinction, which the amnesty was also intended to address). None of this semantic bullshit is getting you any closer to proving that the Confederate soldiers who fought in the Civil War were traitors.
And I've heard people bitch about they live their life for their mortgage. It wasn't fucking slavery.
They couldn't rape you with no repercussions.
They couldn't murder you with no repercussions.
They couldn't sell your children with no repercussions.
They couldn't whip you with no repercussions.
They couldn't force you to work with no compensation.
You can quit under the truck system. You'd be poor and probably fucked since they weren't paying you legal tender, but in the end its free, if unfair, labor.
You're referring to a song that was written in 19-fucking-46, a hundred years removed from the Civil War and using it as a reference to why the North was morally equivalent in some way to the South.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
What a joke. Lincoln's ghost could be giving you a handjob while telling you it was treason and the soldiers were traitors and you'd still say that he meant some other guys. I quoted from a speech called "The Treason of Secession" and you claim he didn't mean it. When he said You somehow claim that the Confederate soldiers fighting for the executive authorities of the State, ie public enemies, aren't "giv[ing] aid and comfort to public enemies." When Lincoln pardons the Confederates of treason, except for those that were high up in government, you somehow think he means some other people.
The Confederate soldiers levyied war against the United States. That is the Constitutional definition of treason. There is no way around it unless you presume that the Confederacy was legitimate. If that is the case, a) you're wrong and b) you've admitted that Obama should not be honoring these soldiers who were not of the United States.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Again, I'm gonna ask you to read some of the information I've given you.
I never once said the North was morally equivalent.
I just find it hilarious that you, on your high horse and your need to hate an entire third of your country, think that things like sexual exploitation and physical abuse didn't exist in institutions where it ran rampant. I'm just trying to educate you that A> You're wrong and B> The rich treating the poor and uneducated horribly isn't something that existed only in the South.
You say "They couldn't force you to work with no compensation" yet, with the truck system, that's exactly what they did. If you didn't do it, you and your family didn't starve to death.
But, since it's not called slavery, it's not as bad, huh?
No when it isn't slavery it isn't as bad.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
As far as the treasonous aspects of southern cession, the people above tossing out quotes from President Lincoln are not including timelines with their statements, what the President felt at the beginning changed as the war and army progressed. The feelings he held regarding the southern states would have changed after he walked from one end of the Gettysburg battle to the other without touching the ground (squish, squish, squish).
Concerning the truck system, Chuck Norris called it slavery in an episode of "Walker: Texas Ranger"
But in all seriously, I cite the judgement of a judge in a recent rape case, "You raped this woman as surely as if you had held a gun to her head. You used the position of authority to control and force this woman into sexual compliance." I am sorry that I do not have the specific case but I use this to declare that without using the tools of African Slavery, you can enforce a system of slavery into people.
I should also point out that Irish Americans were conditioned into hating black people so that they would not become a common body politic. Thankfully, some of them still got it on and subsequently products a lot of attractive women.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
No, it says that the executive authorities of the Confederate state are public enemies and it's treason to give aid and comfort to them. He also says seizing or buying vessels to be employed in executing the secession is treason. Nowhere does he say that everyone involved in the Confederacy is engaging in treason. Nowhere.
No, that's pretty much only Pants_B, who keeps tossing out fragments from Lincoln's campaign speeches, his speech to get war funding from the Congress and his Amnesty speech.
The only speech of Lincoln's I quoted was his Second Inaugural, where he basically said that we need to honor all of the dead and their widows and orphans in order to heal the nation.
I am rusty on my history, was this after the war?
edit: Okay I checked the wiki, The battle at Gettysburg had just been won and been so bloody that it shrunk the size of the Union army by a significant portion and undermined the Union war effort. Lincoln had changed by this point in his career because, like President George Walker Bush at the start of his second term, he was loosing popular support to to rising troop casualties.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
He was shot before the war ended, so no. It was Lincoln's Second Inaugural from March, 1865. Probably the best speech ever given by an American.
"My name is Sanchez"
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
That's called me humoring you. Things I type in jest to make fun of your position, which is apparently a position of whining about "Romanticist Revisionism of the South" while believe that the "North was some Great Force of Equality and Freedom sent down to Spur the Evil South" should not be taken seriously.
Being forced to live on a company funded farm (a plantation if you will), without any personal posessions, with all of your "wages" garnished and being forced to live off of food that the company provides you with, with your only other option being to quit and you and your family die from starvation. If you were lucky enough to quit, since many companies wouldn't allow it since working for them actually incurred irreversible debt.
Sounds alot like slavery to me.
But, I guess since it happened in the North then it's not.
Any rational person would call that slavery.