Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Battle flag uproar

The sooner we dive into Mexico to straighten them out, the better.

Better just make that all of Latin America; but we should demand that Texas raise three regiments to invade Mexico first and then we can go through Mexico to all those other countries run by evil rich men in order to save the children.

Your logic is undeniable....

Game. set and match....

Here's the rub. Those "few people" were their elected leaders, who had held a lock grip on Southern policy and politics since before the original Revolution, and in terms of their Constitution defined who they collectively were to a degree far in excess of anything imposed by Presidential decree today.



If Obama and his clique had written all these things into the very Constitution I was called upon to defend, you might have a point.

Birdwatcher

A lot of Birdwatcher's disconnect with the rest of us on this thread is due to "research". A vantage point decades away from the time certain events occurred lends itself to a lot of fanciful "filling in the gaps".

For instance; In the mid 'nineties,I read a very thoughtful piece describing life in the 'fifties, a span of only forty years. As a youth coming of age in the time period described, I wouldn't have recognized where I was.

One big reason was that the devastating drought we were experiencing here in Texas dominated our collective thoughts and affected everything we did.

The academics who were setting down our history for posterity were immune from its effects and dismissed it with a paragraph or two.

It is presumptuous in the extreme to judge historical figures by the standards in vogue at any particular later time.

And it is egotistical beyond belief to think we would have reacted differently from the ordinary persons living in those times.

Some things , however, transcend time.

Invade my homeplace and I'll damn sure repel you with arms.

And...... if your invasion is successful, I'll expect my decedents to hate you in perpetuity.

Spot on. Judging past events/times from the current modern perspective without consideration of the then existing conditions is the fatal flaw that keeps people from ever understanding History and learning from it.

Right, the elected leaders. Always representative of their electorate. Check.




So what was exactly written in the US Constitution which allowed Lincoln to invade the south among other things?

The justification for the invasion of the south was spun with no less subterfuge than Øbama and his ilk spin the current state of affairs.

Sorry BW, but the slavery issue, like so many others, should have been dealt with in a societal arena not by force or legislature.

You agreeing with the actions of Lincoln certainly don't make both of you right. In fact, your willingness to superimpose yourself in that fight, given just the info you provide, is down right stupid.

You aren't advocating for the defense of the Constitution. You're advocating for the invasion of a sovereign, independent nation.

It's not like the folks across the pond had any history (or problem) with that.

You claim to have all this knowledge, yet you're not willing to contribute anything substantive here beyond a couple of WIKI link????

People, including me, have actually been learning things on this thread. YOu coulda blown this thread out of the water with new info.



My main three voting issues are in order 1) Pro-Life 2) Gun Rights and finally 3) The Environment (no, I don't think Global Warming is necessarily man-made).

I do wish all them mewling education "professionals" were just like me



?? How long have you been reading my posts on these boards??

I figure my own contributions here have been to get people to at least acknowledge the sheer size of the slave establishment and its profound effect on National and Southern politics and events.

For example: How many posters here do you suppose had ever read the Southern Constitution?

Actually the other big one IMHO was the uncovering of those "Declarations of Causes"... Why they secceeded in the words of the actual Southerners themselves, you may have no idea how much these revelatory documents are ignored in debates on this topic.

Taken as a whole, the Antebellum South didn't look much like what we would call American today.



The Indians had it exactly right; the worth of a man is not what he owns, but what he has done :cool

Sir, I am exceedingly proud of what I do. I teach in a big urban high school with all of is attendant problems. One of them places where most folks wouldn't go, or live. I do both.

I doubt that your own places of employment or residence are located in such a setting.

In actually do this in part because it has been the closest thing I can get to the Frontier. I'm going into my twenty-seventh year, same school. Prior to that I spent three years in a remote African village, same motivation, living at close to an 1860's technology level.

See, most EVERYBODY, possibly including yourself, runs from these places, and yet b&tch about them endlessly. I do not, because of my emotional drive I guess *shrug*

All of these claims I can back up, in spades

When I leave here, my two proudest possessions will be my thirty-year pin (I don't think I'll be able to make forty) and the written testimonials of former students.



The irony is that best describes the OTHER posters here.



This sounds familiar. Have we ever dated?

Birdwatcher

Those, and especially 2), are going to butt up rather harshly against the "for the children" and "rich people are evil" positions you harbor, though consistency has never been your strong suit.

Since the Feds have pushed gun control "for the children" and because firearms companies are run/owned by "evil rich people" who profit on "harm to children", you'd best lead by example and turn all your firearms in, else you'll be even further of a hypocrite to your own espoused beliefs.

This sounds familiar. Have we ever dated?

Birdwatcher [/quote]


More Bovine Scatology I see.

More Bovine Scatology I see. [/quote]

Actually, it may be fact. HBB, I know you've screwed some hard left, female "education majors" before. Birdwatcher's personal philosophies and the consistencies thereof are identical to the same.

Ya know, we really need an eye-roll emoticon here.

Where have a I ever said "rich people are evil"?

And OF COURSE its "for the children" you numbskull, most everything should be.

Nope, all true.

Terminally White Guilt Liberal then. Its still BS but maybe it will make you feel better.

Setting aside slavery for a bit, the Confederate Constitution was MUCH better than our current one and actually addressed most of the problems we have today which were becoming apparent then. That in and of itself shows that slavery was not the end all be all of the war.

Off the top of my head without going back and actually looking at it, the Confederate constitution decreed that someone must actually be a citizen to vote. It provided for a line item veto. It gave state legislatures the power to impeach federal officials and judges who operate solely within the confines of their state. It banned tariffs and governmental subsidies of industries. It limited federal spending on infrastructure to harbors and the like. It provided that the Confederate Post Office must turn a profit and pay for itself. (Here is a biggie)The Confederate Congress could only appropriate money in response to a specific request from the executive branch and only with a two thirds vote. Thus, none of the omnibus bills or any other spending that wasn't specifically detailed and voted on by Congress. Further, the spending was to be for an EXACT amount and could not be changed without another vote of Congress. Every bill before Congress could only relate to ONE subject and the subject had to be reflected in the title. Thus, none of these little riders that Congress loves to sneak into bills as almost an afterthought.

Just think if our constitution today had those provisions. Most of the runaway spending and federal power would be not be possible. That doesn't mean that federal power wouldn't have developed in other ways and that there wouldn't be other problems. But it does show that even by 1860 almost ALL the problems we see today were being seen or foreseen then and that the Confederate constitution sought to address them.

Well, I think we got it settled.

Good thread y'all.

If you guys are in the neighborhood, my field hand, Rochester, will be grilling burgers for the fourth.

Believe the kitchen girl, Jemima, will be making some of her special slaw and sweet tea.

Everyone's invited.

Here:





However, if we remove the "rich people are evil" bit from your summarized position, then we are left with the fact that you advocate the subjugation of American citizens, the abrogation of the Constitution, the suppression or elimination of the rights of self-determination and self-governance, and the armed invasion of sovereign nations SOLELY on the bases of "it's for the children".

That sums it up nicely, and thus a revision -

So, let's sum this up...

Birdwatcher has stated and agreed with the premise that a free people have the right to break away from a gov't that no longer represents them. That is a fundamental human right.

It has been established that the Southern states did exactly that, and for exactly that reason.

It has further been established that slavery - while undeniably odious - was both Constitutional under the U.S. Constitution and therefore legal as well.

It has even further been established that Lincoln had no authority whatsoever under the law or the Constitution to take any actions that he did; including arresting and detaining US citizens in MD and elsewhere, detaining and replacing the MD legislature and governor, turning cannons on the city of Baltimore, and/or invading the now free and independent Southern states or any states at all.

Birdwatcher has at least implicitly agreed with all of these established facts.

Yet, he continues to support the illegal, unconstitutional actions of Lincoln against the very premise of self-determination he says he supports. He even acknowledges that such support is illogical, yet remains steadfast in keeping such an illogical position. The justification for that has now devolved to "it's for the children".

Just stop and think about that for a second. Under Birdwatcher's justification of an illogical, illegal, unconstitutional series of actions, all that is needed is for the central Federal gov't to decide/decree that another free people's actions are "immoral" or "unethical" and that the Federal gov't decide that to overthrow them is best "for the children".

Under such a "moral Crusade", Birdwatcher would unabashedly endorse and support the subjugation of American citizens (MD example), including the arrest and detention of duly elected representative government, suspension of habeas corpus and all other rights, confiscation of firearms and other lawfully held personal property, and threat of military bombardment of a civilian population.

Moreover, under his same "Crusade", the same pitiful excuse is all that is needed in order to launch a full military campaign and invasion of another sovereign nation, complete with conscription of soldiers to fight said war; and tacit or explicit endorsement of "total war" (i.e., war against all parties in that now invaded nation, including against civilians).

Thus, when one distills out the remainder of Birdwatcher's position, the fundamental rights to freedom and self-determination are crushed under the boot heel of tyranny with no more justification than "it's for the children".

I have no doubt that Birdwatcher will be reminded of this here at every turn when those like Hussein, Clinton, Pelosi, Sarah Brady, Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi, Bloomberg, Soros, and all their ilk tell us what freedoms we need to give up because doing so is "for the children". Likewise, I know that Birdwatcher will be among the first to give up his freedoms, perhaps today, in support of those same "moral Crusades" to protect said children; here and abroad.

Furthermore, I hope Birdwatcher will rejoin us to let us all know which sovereign nations we should invade with such force of will as to reinstitute the draft and wage "total war" against because they, too, might be governed by a handful of "evil rich" and because such an invasion would be "for the children". I've no doubt such a list would be quite long and lead to an imperialist "moral Crusade" the likes of which the world has never known. Yet, it will be completely justifiable, according to Birdwatcher, because the "evil rich" must be vanquished "for the children". Perhaps Birdwatcher, as he said he would do were he alive in 1861, will be among the first to volunteer and lead such a "moral Crusade" to save all the world's children?