Started By
Message

re: Ole Miss student senate votes to remove state flag.

Posted on 10/22/15 at 7:19 pm to
Posted by Roger Klarvin
DFW
Member since Nov 2012
46651 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 7:19 pm to
quote:

Counter intuitive. Abolish slavery - free up tons of jobs that now demand a wage and the young confederates that didn't die in the most stupid war ever fought get the jobs over the former slaves.


You miss the point
Posted by Porter Osborne Jr
Member since Sep 2012
41279 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 7:32 pm to
Just messing with you. I haven't been that way for decades.
Posted by Diamondawg
Mississippi
Member since Oct 2006
33524 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 7:44 pm to
quote:

You miss the point
Point? There hasn't been a point to this nonsensical circular argument in 12 pages or so.
Posted by BamaChick
Terminus
Member since Dec 2008
21393 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 8:09 pm to
Man, you have gotten owned nine ways from Sunday in this thread.

And I have decided that CJWs are just as bad as SJWs.

Y'all hate each other so much because y'all are just alike.

Two sides of the same coin and both sides need a fricking enema.
Posted by Mullet Flap
Lysdexia
Member since Jun 2015
4208 posts
Posted on 10/22/15 at 9:51 pm to
quote:

You don't need a degree or an understanding of macroeconomics to understand not being at the bottom of the social ladder


This

Even our governor wants to say "the students just got emotional" when they voted to remove this flag. Seriously? This is a time to step up and be a leader even when most of the state sees no problem with a flag that represents the oppression of a race of people.

This isn't about "bending to the PC crowd", liberals or any other scenario people want to formulate. It's about doing the right thing for ALL Mississippians and taking down an antiquated symbol.

My state is past that and people who still hold prejudiced views are falling by the wayside every year.

I'm damn proud to be from Mississippi and always will be despite our rough past
Posted by oneusairman
somewhereville
Member since Apr 2009
568 posts
Posted on 10/23/15 at 3:55 am to
quote:

You do realize the South literally fired the first shots of the war, right?


Tell me something if someone is on your property and is armed. You ask them to leave and provide them safe passage back to there home and they refuse to leave. Who is the aggressor?

On April 19, 1861, shortly after the outbreak of hostilities at Charleston Harbor, US President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a blockade of ports in the seceded states. On April 27, after Virginia and North Carolina had also passed ordinances of secession, the blockade was extended to include their ports also.

April 12–14, 1861 was the engagement at Ft. Sumter followed by a blockade command by Lincoln a week later. Had Lincoln left the south alone there would not have been a war.
Posted by oneusairman
somewhereville
Member since Apr 2009
568 posts
Posted on 10/23/15 at 4:20 am to
quote:

Man, you have gotten owned nine ways from Sunday in this thread.


Do you have anything relevant to add to the conversation?

Care to elaborate on exactly how the Civil War was not about state rights? I mean we are pretty much in a straw man here. These guys think the war was all about slavery and I think the scope was much more boarder than that. I mean you can go back in history and see that the North didn't care a damn about slaves themselves. Some states did but as a whole had the civil war not happened not much would have changed during that particular time. Lincoln never liked slavery in general but he wasn't going to go to war over it until after the states decided to succeed hence why the Emancipation Proclamation came 3 years after the war started. That proclamation was not only aimed at the Rebels, however—it was designed to force the moral factor of slavery into the forefront before Britain (which had banned the slave trade in 1831) and France—both of which had been considering recognizing the Confederacy. In doing this, Lincoln turned a battle that on the tactical level had been an unsatisfying marginal victory for the North into a major strategic victory.

See the problem I have with people saying the civil war was all about slavery. Slavery didn't even enter into the picture of the war until Lincoln emancipation proclamation. That was used as a tool for boarder support in the war and a brilliant strategy to do so as well. Sure you can find documents were the South defends there rights to have slaves but that was apart of the other rights they had as well which was mention in those documents. Those rights of course would include trade, economics, the right for the states to govern themselves and slavery. Also the South wanted there own Nation and President. See the main issue with this war was that the Confederacy wanted the freedom to govern themselves.
This post was edited on 10/23/15 at 4:25 am
Posted by TbirdSpur2010
ALAMO CITY
Member since Dec 2010
134050 posts
Posted on 10/23/15 at 8:25 am to
quote:

if someone is on your property and is armed. You ask them to leave and provide them safe passage back to there home and they refuse to leave. Who is the aggressor?


Jesus Christ. That was US soil. That fort had been there. The federal government was under no obligation to leave any southern post just because secessionists decided to go rogue.

YOU are the aggressor in this scenario. To suggest otherwise is poppycock and, frankly demonstrates a remarkably poor grasp of national sovereignty.
Posted by Roger Klarvin
DFW
Member since Nov 2012
46651 posts
Posted on 10/23/15 at 8:41 am to
quote:

Tell me something if someone is on your property and is armed. You ask them to leave and provide them safe passage back to there home and they refuse to leave. Who is the aggressor?

On April 19, 1861, shortly after the outbreak of hostilities at Charleston Harbor, US President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a blockade of ports in the seceded states. On April 27, after Virginia and North Carolina had also passed ordinances of secession, the blockade was extended to include their ports also.

April 12–14, 1861 was the engagement at Ft. Sumter followed by a blockade command by Lincoln a week later. Had Lincoln left the south alone there would not have been a war.


The south attacked a United States military position which the troops were under no obligation to abandon simply because the southern states decided to secede. The Fort was not the property of the Confederacy just because they said so you halfwit.

By firing on Fort Sumter, a US military position, the Confederacy declared war on the United States.
Posted by oneusairman
somewhereville
Member since Apr 2009
568 posts
Posted on 10/23/15 at 8:43 am to
quote:

Jesus Christ. That was US soil. That fort had been there. The federal government was under no obligation to leave any southern post just because secessionists decided to go rogue.


Now your entering into a whole other debate in regards to if the states had a right to secede from the Union.


Both the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781, and the United States Constitution, ratified in 1789, established a union of sovereign states under the governance of a federal system. This union was widely understood by both the states and the federal government to be voluntary, and the Constitution was interpreted to reinforce this perspective. At the same time, the founding fathers, particularly Thomas Jefferson, recognized the states' right to secede. Although he did not advocate the exercise of that right, he acknowledged that the entitlement remained with the states and was a right that continued throughout the initial drafts of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

However, in 1869 after the Civil War The Supreme Court ruled states didn't have a right to secede from the Union. So did they have a right according to the original Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence to secede? Obviously yes they did. That in itself is a heavily debated argument. However, lets simplify it. If Lincoln removed his troops from South Carolina and did not blockade ports due to succession there would not have been a war.
Posted by oneusairman
somewhereville
Member since Apr 2009
568 posts
Posted on 10/23/15 at 8:47 am to
quote:

The south attacked a United States military position which the troops were under no obligation to abandon simply because the southern states decided to secede.


Southern leaders of the Civil War period placed the blame for the outbreak of fighting squarely on Lincoln. They accused the President of acting aggressively towards the South and of deliberately provoking war in order to overthrow the Confederacy. For its part, the Confederacy sought a peaceable accommodation of its legitimate claims to independence, and resorted to measures of self-defence only when threatened by Lincoln's coercive policy. Thus, Confederate vice president, Alexander H. Stephens, claimed that the war was "inaugurated by Mr. Lincoln." Stephens readily acknowledged that General Beauregard's troops fired the "first gun." But, he argued, the larger truth is that "in personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict." Rather, the true aggressor is "the first who renders force necessary."
Stephens identified the beginning of the war as Lincoln's order sending a "hostile fleet, styled the 'Relief Squadron'," to reinforce Fort Sumter. "The war was then and there inaugurated and begun by the authorities at Washington. General Beauregard did not open fire upon Fort Sumter until this fleet was, to his knowledge, very near the harbor of Charleston, and until he had inquired of Major Anderson . . . whether he would engage to take no part in the expected blow, then coming down upon him from the approaching fleet . . . When Major Anderson . . .would make no such promise, it became necessary for General Beauregard to strike the first blow, as he did; otherwise the forces under his command might have been exposed to two fires at the same time-- one in front, and the other in the rear." The use of force by the Confederacy , therefore, was in "self-defence," rendered necessary by the actions of the other side.

Jefferson Davis, who, like Stephens, wrote his account after the Civil War, took a similar position. Fort Sumter was rightfully South Carolina's property after secession, and the Confederate government had shown great "forbearance" in trying to reach an equitable settlement with the federal government. But the Lincoln administration destroyed these efforts by sending "a hostile fleet" to Sumter. "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors," Davis argued, "is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun."

From Davis's point of view, to permit the strengthening of Sumter, even if done in a peaceable manner, was unacceptable. It meant the continued presence of a hostile threat to Charleston. Further, although the ostensible purpose of the expedition was to resupply, not reinforce the fort, the Confederacy had no guarantee that Lincoln would abide by his word. And even if he restricted his actions to resupply in this case, what was to prevent him from attempting to reinforce the fort in the future? Thus, the attack on Sumter was a measure of "defense." To have acquiesced in the fort's relief, even at the risk of firing the first shot, "would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired."
Posted by Roger Klarvin
DFW
Member since Nov 2012
46651 posts
Posted on 10/23/15 at 8:55 am to
Again, NONE of that matters. What the Confederacy thought and wanted is irrelevant, the FACT is that they attacked a US military position which the US had had no legal obligation to abandon.
Posted by Russvegas Dan
Member since Nov 2012
1185 posts
Posted on 10/23/15 at 8:56 am to
quote:

oneusairman

Is there a term that describes the kind of willful ignorance this guy has?
Posted by Roger Klarvin
DFW
Member since Nov 2012
46651 posts
Posted on 10/23/15 at 8:58 am to
quote:

Now your entering into a whole other debate in regards to if the states had a right to secede from the Union.



They didn't, because the Union said they didn't and then went out and won the war over the disagreement. The SC then retroactively said they did not have the legal right to secede.

So as a pertinent matter of fact, the Confederacy did NOT have any right to secede. They just didn't know it yet.
Posted by oneusairman
somewhereville
Member since Apr 2009
568 posts
Posted on 10/23/15 at 9:13 am to
quote:

Is there a term that describes the kind of willful ignorance this guy has?


Please enlighten us with your view of the war.

Posted by oneusairman
somewhereville
Member since Apr 2009
568 posts
Posted on 10/23/15 at 9:27 am to
quote:

So as a pertinent matter of fact, the Confederacy did NOT have any right to secede. They just didn't know it yet.


So your saying contrary to the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. At that time they did not have a right to secede. Well like I said it’s a heavily debated subject.

Posted by Russvegas Dan
Member since Nov 2012
1185 posts
Posted on 10/23/15 at 9:33 am to
quote:

Please enlighten us with your view of the war.


Its already been explained.
Posted by TbirdSpur2010
ALAMO CITY
Member since Dec 2010
134050 posts
Posted on 10/23/15 at 9:42 am to
quote:

What the Confederacy thought and wanted is irrelevant, the FACT is that they attacked a US military position which the US had had no legal obligation to abandon.


Bingo.

"But....but...but....the South didn't want war. We were just 'skirmishing' with armed 'intruders.' Never mind that they were there the whole time, didn't fire the first shot, nor were under any obligation to abandon their station."

Posted by sms151t
Polos, Porsches, Ponies..PROBATION
Member since Aug 2009
140067 posts
Posted on 10/23/15 at 9:46 am to
A US instillation in a foreign country. If you want to be technical about it.


The flag represents a pride and value of the past, meanings are different to others. Sometimes a vocal minority is more powerful than a majority. I think that people not in the state or situations opinions intentionally only do things to inflame and do not understand what the issue truly is and refuse to see both sides.
This post was edited on 10/23/15 at 9:49 am
Posted by Roger Klarvin
DFW
Member since Nov 2012
46651 posts
Posted on 10/23/15 at 9:48 am to
That is correct, though you are exagerrating the supposed enumerations of the rights of secession in those documents. Nowhere is such a right explicitly given, at best you could argue it is implicit.
first pageprev pagePage 14 of 16Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter