Confedferate Soldxiers are American Veterans by law.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/65/export-taxation-clause

 

They were treasonous bastards who took up arms against the US, in the name of the "country" that touted White Supremacy and human bondage as its Cornerstone. They are as worthy of respect as Benedict Arnold.

 

LOLOL. What do you think that proves?

OK, Einstein. Why don't you provide evidence of what, where and at that rate these Exports taxes you imagine happened in the run up to the war.

G'head.



Then tell us about how the rebs made a bunch a hay out of it as they pounded the drums for war.

This should be good.

 

Do you have the same hatred towards Native Americas like the Cherokee Nation ? Or just whites who happened to have lived south of the ‎36°30′ parallel line ?

 

I dislike traitors to the US and our Constitution, and those who are willing to take up arms against our country, especially in the worst of causes -- to preserve, protect and expand the despicable traffic and institution of human bondage.

You should too,

 

Glad to hear you didn't support John Kerry for President.

Go to page XV under the sub title of "Indian Slavery" It's the U.S. Census of 1860. -> ‎http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1860a-02.pdf

 

The sounds of gasping and floundering are loud, apy.

Quit while you're ahead.

(which you never were. lol)

 

And you failed to quote the rest. Which, to me, the jury is still out and I remain "undecided". I see both sides on this one. Which means, you will not be able to sway me in one direction or the other. Nice try though.

 

Hey, if you think taking up arms against the United States and stealing US property makes you a US veteran equal to those who took an oath to uphold our Constitution -- and fought *for* the country, then by all means --

carry on in your indecision.

 

I never stated that either. Go back, reread what I stated, and establish a new thought process. You are hung up on this debate, I am not. I am just stating I see both viewpoints, including yours in this, and I stand undecided on it.

 

Paperview seems to be on a hate binge, why I don't know why. The civil war, the war between the states, the "Great Rebellion" what ever it's being called today happened over 150 years ago.

Those who hate anyone who lives in the South today or 150 years ago or anyone who served in the Confederate army still refuse to comment when Lincoln said back in 1848 “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.” What caused Lincoln to flip flop in 1861 ?

Or when Lincoln said in 1860 “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Source -> http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/lincoln-secession-slavery

 

And I will state to you what I stated to him. I agree with your point of view as much as his or her point of view. You did draw a good point, at the beginning of this discussion, that left me stumped, to be honest.

 

She just spams, that's all. She's noted for that.

 

Lincoln also supported the passing of stronger Black Codes in Illinois and several mid-western states in the 1850's that made it impossible for a black person to make a legal living or buy property there. In the 1864 elections the Republicans made a huge effort of their opposition to black sufferage and racial equality, so yes, they were not in any way fighting an illegal war over anything but money.

AstroTurfing. Same reasons they launched a virulent racist campaign against Zimmerman for the crime of self-defense, and the BLM farce. It takes attention away from real issues, and demonizes southerners while deflecting from the failures of neo-liberalism and the Democratic Party's total reliance on identity politics over issues. They're racists who just hate white people and blame them for their failures. 'Guns and God Clingers' et al. Right wingers do the same with the FDR hate threads and other non-issues.

 

See, everyone? : Nothing. Still. Can't back up his claims. Lies and Ad homs are what he's reduced to because his neo-confederate bilge is catching up with him.

 

It has been commented on. Lincoln, as was stated, was referring to Revolution.

Revolution =/= Secession. Miss that?

Every one has seen that quote a million times.

Confederate sympathizers love to use it. And you are wrong again. That was said in his First Inaugural Address, March of 1861, not 1860. We know Lincoln had no plans to interfere with slavery where it existed.

Didn't matter to the Southerners. They had already seceded and had commenced hostilities before Lincoln ever stepped into office, committing Acts of War because they didn't want anyone interfering with their plans to expand slavery, or see any interference in it's trade of human beings as chattel. They knew how to read a map. And they could count.

Any republican being elected would be the last straw, and a threat to their human-bondage loving way of life.

They said so, four years earlier, when the first Republican was on the presidential ballot.

Fremont lost. If he hadn't, the Civil War would have started in 1856.

 

Mexico is a part of North America and Mexicans that served in the US - Mexican War between 1846 and 1848 are also "American War Veterans" but like members of the Confederacy they're not United States of America military war veterans. The OP's use of the word "American" is a nefarious misrepresentative because it does not relate to the United States of America.

In short the OP is completely dishonest in the very use of the word American. A far better term, which I've used, is that those that served as a member of the Confederate military are "American Traitors" because that's exactly what they were.

Playing word games and not expecting to be exposed for it is rather unintelligent IMHO.

 

I wouldn't honor a Nazi vet.

Nor would I honor a CSA vet.

They fought for evil to persist.

We should honor those who fight for good causes.

Not the worst of humanity.

 

^ Has to be one of the funniest lines in the whole thread.

 

as usual you are 100% spot on

 

I never met a Nazi vet but have known many German soldiers who served in the Weremacht.

Nazis tended to serve in the SS while the other over 90% of the German soldiers weren't Nazis and served in the Weremacht.

Every year American Marines veterans and Japanese soldiers vets who were veterans of the bloodiest battle of WW ll gather on Iowa Jima both honoring each other and those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

It's a soldier thing, if you never served in combat you wouldn't understand. It seems you never have.

You have thousands of American Vietnam vets returning to Vietnam and meeting those who they fought on the battlefields fifty years ago. It's a soldier thing.

 

Nine million southerners of which more than a third (3.5 million) were in bondage somehow accounted for most (!) of the revenue collected in the country (before the Civil War, the tariff the main source of pretty much all Federal revenue) of the goods that were imported -- not

not!...the 23 million who lived in the North.

OOOkkkay. lol.

Did consumers in the Northern states have a tariff discount card that we haven't heard about?

Think hard. Think real hard about that.

And your graph showing cotton prices and tariff rates from 1870-1945 is sooo illuminating in this discussion. ha ha.

For the readers: Strasser snipped that graph from a neoconfederate website that tells its readers (I kid you not):

"The institution of slavery was not the cause of the war. The tariff, a tax on imported goods, was the sole cause of the war. " http://civilwarcause.com/CWIntroduction.html

Hear that? The sole cause. Rich, innit?

Only to Lost Causers who wouldn't know an actual fact if it bit 'em in the arse.

 

Evidently the supremacy clause has yet to find its way into your consciousness.

Then you would do well to refrain from filling it with nonsense.

Clearly you think this has bearing on the propriety of the military response by the Union, so surely you won't have a problem saying why.

Well no. Lee resigned his commission, whereas Arnold used his as a vehicle for treason...

...and let's face it, John Kerry makes Arnold look like Audie Murphy by comparison.

Obviously the quote hearkens back to the DoI, wherein the principle is expressed correctly, whereas in the quote above it is not.

His oath of office, would be my guess.

The problem being...?

 

He resigned his commission, and then took up arms against the United States, in the name of the "country" that touted White Supremacy and human bondage as its Cornerstone.

 

In that Amnesty Proclamation I referred to before [President Johnson's Amnesty Proclamation] in May of 1865, not long after he stepped into office after Lincoln had been assassinated, you may note Lee and other Confederate leaders and officers were specifically exempted.

It's noteworthy the language of the Pardon refers to the "pretended Confederate Government."

On Christmas Day in December of 1868, Johnson made another Proclamation - for all those who fought for the Confederacy

[Proclamation 179 - Granting Full Pardon and Amnesty for the Offense of Treason Against the United States During the Late Civil War ]

<snip>

Still, Lee was never pardoned, [14th A. created some issues] and was not granted full citizenship rights the rest of his life.

He did finally get a formal and official pardon, and restored citizenship.

Know when?

In 1976.

President Gerald Ford restored them.

[General Robert E. Lee's Parole and Citizenship ]