Author Topic: The battle of Charlottesville: A continuing discussion thread about the War between the States  (Read 32408 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,071
Not one chance in hell. How old are you,anyhow,3?

I am old enough to recognize ad hominem when I see it.  Can't say that I am fond of non-rational persuasion, but it seems to be your forte.


Lee's legacy has been dragged through the mud ever since the day he resigned from Mr.Lincoln's Army and came home to lead the Army of Virginia. I have heard his described as a "traitor and rebel" my whole damn life.

In case nobody has ever splained this to you,the winners get to write the history books.


As someone who was schooled in the Commonwealth, I was taught more about the American Revolution and the War of Secession than you could ever hope to know.  And no, Robert E. Lee was never described as either "traitor" or "rebel".  Lee fought for Virginia and Virginia alone against Northern invaders.  His battles were fought exclusively in Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.  So I don't know where you live where Lee was referred to in such despicable terms, but it certainly isn't in the Commonwealth of Virginia or any other Southern state for that matter.  If Lee's name was really thought of in these terms, then there wouldn't be a Lee park in Charlottesville to begin with, much less a Robert E. Lee high school 40 miles to the west or a Monument Street in the former Confederate capital 70 miles to the east.

Of course none of this has a thing to do with you defending white supremacists who are trampling on Lee's good name in order to thrust themselves into the spotlight.   (See:  'Non-rational Persuasion' above)

The bottom line here is that you don't know a damn thing about Virginia, Southern history, or the hijacking of War of Secession symbols by white racist scumbags who have trampled on the graves of true Southern patriots.  Which is why you defend the racist marchers instead of Robert E. Lee.


That's the ticket,Bubba! Bring Trump into it because you have nothing else.

It was Trump's response that we were discussing.  Try to keep up.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 10:18:08 AM by Hoodat »
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-

Offline don-o

  • Worldview Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,107
  • FR Class of '98
Interesting.  I sure wish she had said what she thought she was going to.  What was it she was attending and why?  Who had the permit?

Unite the Right had the permit. Antifa evidently forgot to get a permit to hurl urine into the permitted assembly.

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Interesting.  I sure wish she had said what she thought she was going to.  What was it she was attending and why?  Who had the permit?

Though she didn't directly say it, the group Unite The Right had the permit.  They were protesting the planned removal of the Robert E. Lee statue in Emancipation Park.  They petitioned to have the protest there because it's the location of the monument and until recently, the area was called Robert E. Lee Park.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,071
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,071
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,655
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
"but there was never a war to overthrow the government of this country"
Well, actually, if you declare yourselves to an independent country and fire upon the soldiers of the country which had been your country, you have effectively overthrown that previous government.
Nope, there was zero attempt to overthrow the duly-elected government of the United States.

That is a bald-faced lie.

History is not your strong suit, is it?
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline catfish1957

  • Ultra-Conservative in exile.
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,751
I don't know why Southern preservationists only seem to focus in on the Civil War.

A rebellion against the US and its Constitution.

Where did I say I only focused on the civil war?  It's a huge piece, but not the only one.
I display the Confederate Battle Flag in honor of my great great great grandfathers who spilled blood at Wilson's Creek and Shiloh.  5 others served in the WBTS with honor too.

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
There was no 'Civil War' in this country.

Call it a War Between the States or a War Against Union Aggression if you like, but there was never a war to overthrow the government of this country, which is a Civil War.

Factually incorrect.  The simplest definition of a civil war is armed conflict between factions of the same state.  The Confederacy never achieved formal recognition from the US government or foreign nations.  Therefore, they were still part of the United States, despite efforts to secede.

It is correct the goal was not to conquer the north and overthrow the government in Washington, but that's more in line with being a coup or revolution.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,071
I don't know why Southern preservationists only seem to focus in on the Civil War.

We don't.   But at the moment, no one is taking away our collards, black-eyed peas, and barbeque.


A rebellion against the US and its Constitution.

Uh, no.  Not a rebellion.  Virginia simply opted out.  No one tried to overthrow Washington, DC or any of the other states.  Let's keep in mind on whose territory the battle of Manassas was fought.  Which one was the invading army?
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-

Oceander

  • Guest
We don't.   But at the moment, no one is taking away our collards, black-eyed peas, and barbeque.


Uh, no.  Not a rebellion.  Virginia simply opted out.  No one tried to overthrow Washington, DC or any of the other states.  Let's keep in mind on whose territory the battle of Manassas was fought.  Which one was the invading army?

Oh yeah, wasn't that the zeroth amendment to the constitution, the "Opt Out Clause"?

:facepalm2:

Offline kevindavis

  • Cat Mod
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,425
Here is what Andrew Jackson said about succession.


But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union.  To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure
"If we die, we want people to accept it. We're in a risky business, and we hope that if anything happens to us it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life."

Gus Grissom

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,071
Oh yeah, wasn't that the zeroth amendment to the constitution, the "Opt Out Clause"?

@Oceander

You must be thinking of the 'right to vote' clause.  Oh wait, that doesn't exist either.

So according to your logic, Virginia can't secede because there is no explicit clause saying they can.  And you can't vote because there is no explicit clause saying you can.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,071
Here is what Andrew Jackson said about secession.

Do you know what Andrew Jackson said about ignoring Supreme Court orders?
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-

Offline kevindavis

  • Cat Mod
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,425
Do you know what Andrew Jackson said about ignoring Supreme Court orders?


I know about that and that was wrong for him to do it. He is right in this case.
"If we die, we want people to accept it. We're in a risky business, and we hope that if anything happens to us it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life."

Gus Grissom

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,655
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Factually incorrect.  The simplest definition of a civil war is armed conflict between factions of the same state.
  So by your definition any fight between anybody in a country is a civil war.  You better rethink that line as it don't hold mustard.
Quote
The Confederacy never achieved formal recognition from the US government or foreign nations.  Therefore, they were still part of the United States, despite efforts to secede.
Ever read about how Lincoln went to such great lengths to prevent that, so much he was willing to risk war with the British by taking one of its ships at sea?  https://history.state.gov/milestones/1861-1865/trent-affair

I know, you won't call that Union Agression either, will you?
[/quote]
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,071

I know about that and that was wrong for him to do it. He is right in this case.

His inductive statement may be logically strong, but it is legally baseless.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-

Offline ABX

  • Technical
  • ****
  • Posts: 994
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.


Offline dfwgator

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,638

Oceander

  • Guest

Offline Suppressed

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,939
    • Avatar
Factually incorrect.  The simplest definition of a civil war is armed conflict between factions of the same state.  The Confederacy never achieved formal recognition from the US government or foreign nations.  Therefore, they were still part of the United States, despite efforts to secede.

It is correct the goal was not to conquer the north and overthrow the government in Washington, but that's more in line with being a coup or revolution.

If they were still part of the US, then the US operated illegally, not having quorum in Congress.
+++++++++
“In the outside world, I'm a simple geologist. But in here .... I am Falcor, Defender of the Alliance” --Randy Marsh

“The most effectual means of being secure against pain is to retire within ourselves, and to suffice for our own happiness.” -- Thomas Jefferson

“He's so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent.” --Foghorn Leghorn

Offline ABX

  • Technical
  • ****
  • Posts: 994
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Exactly.  Ignore them.    But noooooooooo.   

I was thinking more like he is doing his job protecting those even though they hate him.

Offline dfwgator

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,638
Cavities in ones teeth don't go away if ignored.

Oh, please.  These idiots are no threat.   99.9% of the country think think they're idiots.  Let them have their little circle jerk.

Oceander

  • Guest
If they were still part of the US, then the US operated illegally, not having quorum in Congress.

I believe they managed a quorum in a good parliamentarian fashion. 

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,071
I believe they managed a quorum in a good parliamentarian fashion.

I especially liked the film clip where one of them was punching a girl.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf