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

Just messing with you. I haven't been that way for decades.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

quote:

---

oneusairman

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

Please enlighten us with your view of the war.

quote:

---

Please enlighten us with your view of the war.

---

Its already been explained.

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.