Assholes who fly rebel flag decals or flags on their pickups ...

The Law of Treason.

The law of treason is very important to the American people. Gardner's Institutes, a law work published by VOORHLIS in January, 1860 pp 2, 3, 33 to 35, 323, 382, 669, 695, 382, 383, furnishes the law on this subject. On these pages the following principles and the authorities supporting them are found:

1. That the President and Congress have the whole of the political, national and inter-state power of the Union, a perpetual Government making the people of the United States one nation, with the States municipal bodies with mere local sovereignty, and having no power to make compacts or agreements ot any kind without the consent of Congress.

2. That the States have no power to form a Confederacy within the Union composed of any of its States.

3. That no State or Confederacy has a right to organize an army or navy, or to make war, or to invade any other State by military power, or to seek to divice and disrupt the Union of our thirty-four States, or to change our Government, except by an amendment of the National Constitution in the mode pointed out by it. Any such act is rebellion -- it is treason.

4. That all attempts to defeat, by force or menace, the execution of any act of Congress in any of our thirty-four States, or to seize, for the use of any State, or the Southern Confederacy, any fort, Custom house, mint, or vessel of the Union, or to collect duties, except for the national treasury, and in pursuance of any act of Congress, and all efforts to break up the Union by menace or force, all those acts are, by our law, treason, whether done by private persons, or armed men, or officers of a Southern Confederacy, State Legislatures or State Conventions.

5. That all the above unlawful acts are not only illegal and subject the wrong-doers to the penalties of treason, but all persons who aid the existing Southern conspiracy in the disruption of our Union, by making, selling, or transporting arms, munitions of war, clothing or supplies of men, money, or anything for the rebel armies, are traitors, if done with knowledge.

6. That any persons who, by newspaper articles, or Governors' or Mayors' proclamations or messages, or by recommending the doing of any acts of treason, shall advise a rebellion, or any act of treason which shall be carried out by levying war upon the Union, is a traitor, as any aid given, or participation by parties remote from the place of the armed meeting, makes the same treasonable, if in the smallest degree it aids and encourages the treason by levying war at a remote point.

7. That the selling of vessels, or furnishing supplies, or acting as an agent to buy them, or to borrow money for the Southern Confederacy, is an act of treason in every person knowing the object.

8. That the President is authorized to call out the whole Militia, Military and Naval power of the United States, to put down insurrection and rebellion in any State and Territory of the Union.

9. That, as Supreme Executive, he has the power, and it is his duty to put down rebellion and preserve, in full force the national Constitution and the Union

10. That secession is treason, and that all who uphold it by menace or force, or by giving aid in any degree, or in any manner, are traitors, and legally subject to capital punishment.

https://www.nytimes.com/1861/04/21/archives/the-law-of-treason.html


The above article, which sites Gardner, was published on April 21, 1861. Pretty contemporaneous, I'd say.

Secession was TREASON and all who tried to uphold it by force were TRAITORS.

I am just a bit familiar with that particular article.  Been a long time since I'd heard of it, so had to go back and revisit it.  Ain't the internet great!  Historical research is sooooo much easier nowadays.   I wouldn't want to go back and live in 1860 ... or any point in history ... for anything in the world.

So ... to address your last post.  One (anonymous) lawyer's opinion in a newspaper article  ... basing his argument on segments of a book by someone named "Gardner."  So ... who was this Gardner guy?   Can you tell us that?     I'll help you .. Full name:  Daniel Gardner, lawyer from upstate New York and minor local politician who wrote on various international law topics in the mid 1800's.  

The particular book (https://www.lawbookexchange.com/pages/books/39414/daniel-gardner/a-treatise-on-international-law-and-a-short-explanation-of-the) the anonymous lawyer used portions of to substantiate his legal opinion in his NYT op-ed was the kind of book on legal philosophy you find on the shelves of law schools along with dozens of other books of legal philosophy.  That doesn't make it a widely settled concept ... more of a legal "food for thought" kind of thing. Kind of like "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution" (which I have read, btw) .. just less well known and less influential.

What you've quoted there is an opinion by one (anonymous) lawyer, drawing his opinion from a work of legal philosophy by another lawyer (Daniel Gardner),  and published in a major northern newspaper to sway public sentiment towards the cause of the war.   This particular article you are quoting from was published for a northern audience.  Why do you think they felt it necessary to do that?  I'll tell you why ... it's essentially a propaganda piece. An op-ed.  Just like there were propaganda pieces and op-eds in many southern papers on the topic at the time .. often drawing their opinions on the  matters of secession, slavery, States' sovereignty, Federalism, etc from the opinions found in other books/authors of legal philosophy.  If you are interested in knowing more you might want to google:

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1AVNE_enUS717US717&ei=1QcpW4ynCYq3zwKQ5JSIDA&q=civil+war+newspaper+propaganda&oq=civil+war+newspaper+propaganda&gs_l=psy-ab.3...7615.10729.0.11350.12.12.0.0.0.0.166.922.11j1.12.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.4.288...0j0i13k1j0i8i7i30k1j0i13i30k1j0i67k1j0i7i30k1.0.Ckdate21ryY

And don't think there wasn't significant opposition to the war in various northern locales ... as just one particularly notable example you might want look up if you don't know about it is the New York City draft riots (1863, I think)  It went on for three or four days.  Over a hundred people killed as I recall ... ten or twenty blacks were actually lynched in the streets.  Blacks were run out of the city wholesale.   They had to bring the military in to rain artillery down on the civilian population in one part of the city to put it down.

The election of Lincoln himself in 1860 was as much of a political anomaly as that of Donald Trump, I think. Though he was undoubtedly a much more wise and learned man than the orange ignoramus ... he was not necessarily widely popular everywhere at the time of the election  .. even in some northern locales.  Those two elections make a very interesting sociopolitical comparison I think, particularly in terms of fractured political parties  ... something I might delve into sometime with my reading.

The fact that op-ed article (basing it's arguments on portions of Gardner's work) was published in the NYT (attributed to an anonymous author) in 1861 only further illustrates there were a wide variety of legal opinions on the Constitutionality of secession at the time.  They were trying to "convince" the public to support the war.  The Northern public specifically.  It's essentially a propaganda piece.  (not too unlike what we might see/hear today on FoxNews, CNN, etc on various contemporary topics of political or social controversy)

My previous quote on the matter was a year or so earlier by a President of the United States (not to mention former Secy of State) ... James Buchannan.  I could go dredge up 100 "opinions" for you on both sides of that debate, some of them by learned men, some not so much (that go back, on-and-off, all the way back to the founding of this country) if I cared to bother.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that secession of any State without the consent of the US Congress is, in this day and time, lawful or Constitutional.  But of course it's not ... today.  That matter was finally settled by SCOTUS in 1969 (Texas v White.)   My whole point was that the right of a State or States to secede from the union of States was a matter of much legal (and popular) debate at that time.  (had been actually for decades previous)   By persons North & South ... included those learned in the law and Constitution.

So can we can agree there was much debate in the legal community (not to mention the general populace) at the time as to the unconstitutionality of secession?  (Go back & read what Buchanan had to say about it.  I gave you a link in my previous post)  Lots of other things I could have cited, but I used that one because I think it perfectly illustrates what I'm trying to tell you regarding the unconstitutionality of secession not having been a well-settled concept at the time of the outbreak of the civil war.  And if you will recall I only brought that up to counter your charge of "traitors" as regards my southern ancestors.  And that's the only point I was trying to get across to you ... that one man's war of rebellion is another man's war of independence; one man's traitor is another man's freedom fighter; one man's "treason" is another man's patriotic defense of home/family.   There were people in the deep south even who did not support the idea of secession  (didn't stop them from being victims of Sherman's murderous March-To-The-Sea .. an event, btw, that, in it's ultimate effect, resulted in the deaths of many thousands of civilians black and white via starvation, disease, etc)  It was a terrible time. Slavery was a terrible thing. The whole damn thing was terrible. You'll have no argument from me on that count. Point being, you have to look at the historical context of people's perceptions at the time before you go judging them in terms of contemporary values.

But, hey .... good on you for bringing something of substance to this discussion (which has strayed fairly far off-topic, but that's okay IMO)

(btw .. don't get me wrong.  I'm not absolutely obsessed with civil war history in particular.  I probably was at one time, I really haven't been much into it of late.  In fact, gave a lot of my books a few years ago to a young fellow who was. One of those books I kind of wish I hadn't given away was a book of surviving letters by soldiers in the civil war and by the folks-back-home, north and south, that provides some interesting insights into people's thinking at the time. Fascinating. I had just gotten tired of lugging boxes of books around the country with me every time I moved.   I just had a particular interest in CW history due to that personal connection I mentioned in my previous posts.  Although some (particularly my wife ) might say I'm obsessed with history in general.   All the way from ancient Egyptian history to recent American history.  I think I'm a little more well-read-up on he civil rights movement even than your average bear, in fact.   As to historical obsessions, I will confess the past couple of years I've probably been a bit obsessed with the Pre-Norman history of Britain ... Bede, Nennius, the Anglo Saxon Chronicles, Gildas, etc and subsequent authors who draw from those sources.  Kinda been dipping my toes in Native American history/culture of late too.)

Gee, I thought I was pretty civil. Oh well. But if I'm gonna have to listen to whining anyway, I can ditch that. I've got a low tolerance for hissies out of grown-ups.

Somebody who "doesn't really care that much about the flag" and "isn't really obsessed" is throwing a category-5 snit and whining a bunch of "ya'll gone make me vote for Trump!" 'cuz he got disagreed with. Jeez, if I'd known simple disagreement and a lack of reverence for a "heritage" (which anybody with enough pocket-change to buy a bandana could literally wipe their ass with) could MAKE people do things, I'd have tried to maneuver you into dancing like a baby bird instead of changing your voting. At least that might've been entertaining. More so than "how I spent my summer vacation at Nanih Waiya" stories, anyway. I'll take hopping-and-peeping over that any day.


Your responsibility for your behavior is your own. If the lack of approval of a handful of strangers on an obscure message board can "make" you abandon whatever principles you have, then you aren't much of anybody. Of all the attempts at being manipulative that humans pull, that's probably my least favorite, because it's so gutless and pre-natal. Do what you want to fucking do, but don't whine that we "made you do it." I'd rather the people who pull that kind of bitch-move were on the other side, anyway. Can not stand that shit. Done with it.

You wanna wave the same snotrag that Nazis wave and trust that long boring lectures to every passerby who thinks you're an asshole for doing it is going to convince 'em that it's all really okay, fine. You do you. Good luck with that. If somebody's impatient boot compromises your braincase in the middle of your history lesson, though, I'm gonna laugh.


I've got Shelby Foote's 3 volumes and the Library of America 4-volume set, as well as Commager's Blue and the Gray and a Harper's book ya gotta do a couple bench-presses before you try to read, and I've got the Ken Burns deal on DVD, and even read that The South Was Right bullshit (the Kennedy brothers are lyyyyyyying-ass motherfuckers), so if I need to learn anything about the Civil War, I'm already well-equipped, and you can spare me.

Don't faaaaacking caaaarrrrre.

Boring, boring, borrrrrrrr-RINNNG.

Okay, 'Z' ... most of that discussion on my part was as to the claims of "treason" and people's perception of the legality/illegality of State secession at the time ... and why one really can't adjudge them as having been "traitors", not with any kind of intellectual honesty, IMO. That's a topic 'Deuce' and I had strayed/digressed into. Go back and look at how the discussion developed/evolved if you need to.

My wall of words the past couple of posts wasn't about the "flag" topic specifically. I stated my opinion on that specific topic early on in this thread. You can look to my first post for that. I really don't have much else to say about the stupid flag thing in particular.

Fact is .. there were only a very few persons charged with or convicted of "treason" following the civil war. Some of the Lincoln assassination conspirators, some guy in New Orleans who they hung for pulling down a flag,
maybe a few other isolated cases I'm not aware of ... but it was certainly not really considered a "thing." Why do you think that was? There were calls for it at the time. And of course part of it was political ... but part of it is that it would have been a very controversial once you got to court on it. It's generally accepted that it took Texas v White to really settle it once and for all in terms of American jurisprudence.

btw .... nah, I really probably wouldn't vote for Donald Trump next time around. Didn't vote for or support him this time. I might likely not even vote for the first time since I came of age? Not voting can in a way be a vote too ... or so some people say. But then again, who knows? Will have to wait & see what the parties offer up to us next time around. Not that they gave me any kind of palatable choice last time.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've had enough coffee this morning, my riding mower needs some repair/attention, and I've a lot of other stuff to get done today. Been blathering on here a bit too much ... I excuse myself for that though because the weather's been kind of crappy. Hated all that overcast yesterday.

But I do stand by my statement as to ... piss on my history/ancestry, and you can kiss my *ss.  

I don't come here to get personal with people and trade insults (well maybe I engage in it just a little from time to time) But get personal with me, and I'm gonna jump right back at ya!

This is too easy, it's like kicking a three-legged dog.

My dad's side of the family is 100% German, the "merger" of 2 German immigrant families. But I don't sport a swastika.

Anybody who posts a swastika does not deserve to be taken seriously. Hate is alive and well on this forum. Rationalizing hate by unknown relatives who fought in the War to remove the stain of slavery from this great nation, and thinking that hate in 1860 or 1960 begins and ends with a sense of entitlement based on your skin color.........My experience with Alabama and my family is after 200 years in breeding the most ignorant immigrants to enter this nation with no real diversity came from Scotland. I am Scotch Irish German, and every day I get on my knees and thank god for German relatives. Am I generalizing and being racist......I guess I am being truthful about my family....thank God my mother found a German husband, or I probably too would be telling you absurd facts to justify my hate.

Y'know, Seaoat is right. Anybody who posts a swastika -- even as a "joke" -- doesn't deserve any respect. You said:

I don't piss on anybody else's history/background/culture/identity

but then you post that thing and prove yourself full of shit, because, dude, that's a fucking swastika. Are you really made grumpy enough to tag that onto your name? C'mon now.

Anyway, I'm not Jewish, but I've got some Jewish friends who would want me to not let that slide, even in jest. And I like them better than I like you.

So, two can play the avatar game, childish as it is.

So, there we go. Wanna make me look at a goddamn swastika? Then you can look at your "heritage" getting pissed on. Which, by the way, is my heritage, too, so I can piss on it, spit in its face, whatever. I'm not too weak, or too stupid, to say my ancestors fought the wrong fight. You can appreciate your ancestors without embracing every goddamn mistake they made. My granddaddy was a bigot. I loved him, but I hated that part of him. Made sure he knew it, too. Like Floridatexan pointed out, you don't have to co-sign on a bad idea just because it was in your family history.

Change your avi, I'll change mine. Otherwise, enjoy the view.

zsomething wrote:
....  
Change your avi, I'll change mine.   Otherwise, enjoy the view. ....  

Doesn't bother me in the least 'Z'  ... keep it up there as long as you like.  I only put my current avi up to make a point.  Apparently you missed it.  Now look at all the faux outrage I've created .... but hey, what an opportunity for more virtue signalling !! 

Like I said, I'm really not all that passionate about the Confederate flag issue, one way or the other. I said most of what I had to say about it in my very first post.   Apparently you've not bothered to take much care to actually read/comprehend what I've said in my later posts on this topic.  If people want to display it ... for whatever reason, for whatever it meaing they ascribe to it ...  (and it's not always for "hate" reasons, it's not usually for "hate" reasons) .. well, have at it I say.  Let your freak flag fly ... or Confederate flag.   It's not the flag we should be offended at with regard to these white supremacists/nationalist idjits ... it's the ideology, and that's what should be countered.  Making that flag an issue is a total distraction, and giving them a lot of attention that tiny (relative to the entire US population) number of people deserve.  They like to fly a lot of Christian symbols as well, but nobody takes issue with that, do they?  

Bottom line is, it's all so much faux outrage ... and really in the grand scheme of things very low on the list of issues of importance or things to be outraged about in this country.  People who think it's such a big f'ing deal suffer from some serious tunnel vision if you ask me.

Now calling my ancestors who fought for the South "traitors" .... well, I have to take issue with that.  Misguided?  Wrong? Okay .. I have no problem with either of those ... but "traitor", well no ...  because A. I have a personal connection with those people, and B. from a legal and historical perspective it's total BS .. as I've clearly demonstrated in my posts on that issue.  I note you've not attempted to counter on any of that.  If you're not knowledgeable/read up on it enough to speak on it with a a background of any actual knowledge and intellectual honesty, well that's fine & I excuse you.  We can't expect everybody to know the ins-and-outs of everything.  I certainly don't.  But things I do have some particular knowledge about .. yeah, I'll speak on them.

You know ... it doesn't really even bother me to see protesters in the US burning the United States flag over something they're po'd about.  I've had that discussion with some of my more conservative  Mer'ca! trumpaloopa friends/relatives who like to virtue signal their patriotism at any/every opportunity.  Freedom of speech, baby!  That's all I see when I see somebody burning the US flag.  Kinda makes me a little proud of our country in a way.

As to your Jewish friends .... lol !!    You think that particular flag is not offensive to some people?  I can assure you it is.   (and here in the USA, personally I would tell them they just need to get over it)    Or are you a supporter of the idea of a"Jewish" State ... a country based solely upon the interests of people of a certain religion/ethnicity .. to the detriment of all other peoples in that land?   Personally, I disagree with the way the US supports that country.  A country formed from lands forcibly or coercively taken from the non-Jewish peoples living there (so some say.)   Are you aware of some of the things that have been done, and still being done in the name of that "Jewish" flag?  You okay with that?  How about if we put a big Christian cross on the US flag?   You'd be okay with that?  If your answer is "no" ... well then I might have to say to you .... "Hypocrite, much?"    

btw .. I'm sorry you come from a family of bigots. That's a family background we don't share.   Don't worry though, I won't call you white trailer trash or anything like that for it (as somebody on here did me in this thread, then deleted before I could quote them.)  

But I digress .. What can I say? I've just somehow acquired over the years the ability to type nearly as fast as I can think.

Uh oh!

EmeraldGhost wrote:(as somebody on here did me in this thread, then deleted before I could quote them.)  

You mean the way you deleted your "Magic Negro" post?

Deus X wrote:

EmeraldGhost wrote:(as somebody on here did me in this thread, then deleted before I could quote them.)  

You mean the way you deleted your "Magic Negro" post?

Did I say "Magic Negro" somewhere?  You'll have to remind me of the thread ... I don't recall it.   If I did, (and if you say I did I wouldn't try & deny it) and subsequently deleted it, the deletion would have been for some other reason .. not for my use of that particular term.  

The term "Magic Negro" refers to  a certain literary/cinematic device.  It best known as a reference to a certain cinematic stereotype ... but you can find it in books too.  The use of that particular term is not a racial pejorative.   Rather it's descriptive of a racial stereotype used in books and movies.


  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro[/url

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Magical_Negro_occurrences_in_fiction

Remind me of the thread so I can tell you the context ... if you don't get it already after reading the link.  Sorry if you misunderstood.  That's perfectly understandable if one is not familiar with it.  You should have called me out on it at the time and I would have been happy to explain the reference then.  I have no problem with anyone calling me out on something at any time.  I welcome it, in fact.  Keeps us all intellectually honest and prevents misperceptions/misunderstandings.

Like I said, I don't recall the thread specifically.  Must have been some time ago.  We were probably, most likely,  talking about Obama ... and I was probably responding to something someone else said or inferred to the effect that his being black (or bi-racial, rather) endowed Obama with some special characteristics or qualities as President.  A man is a man, a President is a President, IMO.  Having black, brown, yellow, white, whatever skin does not, in and of itself, lend any special credibility/abilities/qualities to them in that regard.  To think that it does with regard to someone having African ancestry is ignorantly buying into the "Magic Negro" stereotype.

Personally, I have a mixed view of Obama's performance as President ... he was a pretty good President in some respects, and a not so good President in others, IMO.  I believe history will eventually adjudge him the same.   (Full disclosure .. I didn't vote for him either time.  But that certainly had nothing to do with him being bi-racial.)


Calling someone "white trash" OTOH is a direct racial pejorative.  Not a known reference to a recognized cinematic/literary device.

Are we done talking about flags now? I think we've quite beat that dead horse well beyond it's expiration date.

EmeraldGhost wrote: Apparently you've not bothered to take much care to actually read/comprehend what I've said in my later posts on this topic.  

Well, you're right about that much. I don't read everything in your posts, because you're very long-winded (not finding fault with that because we obviously have that much in common ) and, bluntly, you bore me. Maybe others like long lectures about stuff they already know but you, due to some amusing insecurity, feel a need to show off that you know. (Psst! We alll get Wikipedia!) So, I just skim you, when I bother at all. If it's mutual, that's fine.

I'm just saying what I actually think. So you can stick "virtue signalling" in your ass. What, I'm out to anonymously impress a half-dozen other anonymous people I'll never meet? I think you've got a wrong idea why people do things. I know it seems weird, but some people actually don't like assholish stuff, and they say so. It's not always an attempt to earn a good-guy-badge.

I'm not overly fond of a lot of what Israel does, but neither are most of my Jewish friends. The government is not the people, so, sorry, not gonna bite at that other flag. If you want to associate yourself with things like that, it's up to you.

I will say for somebody who spends so much time assuring everyone they don't really get offended by slights against Confederate symbols, you sure do seem to get fired up about it. Maybe it's because that thing about your ancestors being traitors actually hits a nerve. The way true things do. Anyway, that's how it looks. Don't really care, though.

A lot of my family is white trailer trash. One of 'em would still be in prison if his daddy hadn't bribed Trent Lott to get him out. Fuck 'em. I don't associate with 'em, they're not me, so I couldn't care less what anyone thinks about 'em. Blood means nothing - you choose your own real family. Sometimes that's blood, sometimes it isn't. Which is why it seems odd that you're touchy about ancestors you never even met. How do you even know you'd like these fucks?

Anyway, too much digression: a deal's a deal - you got rid of the swastika, so I ditched Calvin.

zsomething wrote: ....  

A lot of my family is white trailer trash.

But are they trash because they are "white" and live in "trailers"?   Think about that for just a moment.

In my personal experience, "trash" comes in all skin tones, ethnicities, and occurs within all neighborhoods and socioeconomic groups. Some of the trashiest people I ever knew lived in million dollar houses.  (We've got at least one living rent-free in an expensive government house in DC right now ... though not full time of course.)  So  I won't put someone down, not to mention a whole demographic, simply due to their race, how much money they got, or what kind of house they live in.

zsomething wrote:

Anyway, too much digression: a deal's a deal - you got rid of the swastika, so I ditched Calvin.  

 

The deal was your offer ... and not anything I agreed to or even cared about taking you up on.  I told you I could care less, that it didn't bother me in the least, and it don't.  So, you didn't have to do that just for 'lil ole me ... you made that particular contract with yourself so far as I'm concerned.   Put her back up or similar, I don't care.  As I like to say ... "Free speech, baby!!!")    Maybe I'll put some swastika or something back up just for you for a bit?  Get you all excited over it again.  

Try and characterize my family as "traitors" though ... and I'm gonna educate you on that.  With facts. (I know quite a lot about my family, btw. My Dad's side anyway. There's a well documented historical record, we have letters written by many and published writings by a few, and a substantial oral history. How those documents got saved from Sherman's march-to-the-sea is an interesting story in itself, as the family land was smack dab in the middle of that heinous event.)


(btw ...  it's neither here nor there, but my Dad knew Trent Lott personally.  Masonic brothers.  Sonny Montgomery, too.  Never joined that particular fraternity myself ... but I guess I wouldn't be supposed to say it out-loud public if I did     )

EmeraldGhost wrote:

But are they trash because they are "white" and live in "trailers"?   Think about that for just a moment.

In my personal experience, "trash" comes in all skin tones, ethnicities, and occurs within all neighborhoods and socioeconomic groups. Some of the trashiest people I ever knew lived in million dollar houses.  (We've got at least one living rent-free in an expensive government house in DC right now ... though not full time of course.)  So  I won't put someone down, not to mention a whole demographic, simply due to their race, how much money they got, or what kind of house they live in.

Nah, it's got nothing to do with their race or their economic standing. Several of them actually have a hell of a lot of money (the one who bought off Trent Lott is a multi-millionaire). They're just dumb and a few of 'em are criminally-bent. And right-wing Southern Baptist.

I know plenty of poor white people who aren't trashy at all, and plenty of rich ones who are, so, it's definitely not that.

 

The deal was your offer ... and not anything I agreed to or even cared about taking you up on.  I told you I could care less, that it didn't bother me in the least, and it don't.  So, you didn't have to do that just for 'lil ole me ... you made that particular contract with yourself so far as I'm concerned.

I know, but, I honor it none the less. I'm glad to take the avatar down -- offending for the sake of offending isn't a game I enjoy, anyway.



 

Put her back up or similar, I don't care.  As I like to say ... "Free speech, baby!!!")    Maybe I'll put some swastika or something back up just for you for a bit?  Get you all excited over it again.  

If spite of me is enough to make you associate your name with a swastika, good luck not being made a fool of by life.


[quote(I know quite a lot about my family, btw. My Dad's side anyway.  There's a well documented historical record, we have letters written by many and published writings by a few, and a substantial oral history.  How those documents got saved from Sherman's march-to-the-sea is an interesting story in itself, as the family land was smack dab in the middle of that heinous event.)[/quote]

It's nice that it's of interest to you - and it should be - but you've got to realize that me and 99.99999999% of the rest of the planet absolute could care less whether they were traitors, whether they were heroes, whether they split the atom or suck-started goats on a breeding farm. You care 'cuz they're your kin. You can't expect the same concern from anyone else. If anybody calls them traitors, they're just trying to get a rise out of you. They're long-dead and nobody really gives a hell one way or another.

Example: My dad was a Hungarian diplomat and he lived in Berlin during World War II. He used to have to shovel British incendiaries off his roof in the middle of the night. Once he drove his car into the woods because he got strafed by a plane. He had to stick a gun in an SS officer's face because the guy wanted to commandeer his car and Dad wasn't havin' it. He was an American prisoner-of-war because they considered him a security threat just because he'd been working in Germany, but he got out because a Colonel (who used to live in Pensacola) needed him as a translator because he spoke five languages. All of this is of interest to me 'cuz it's my family, but I don't expect you to give a damn 'cuz, why would you? Nothing to do with you, so what you'd think of it wouldn't really matter, doesn't change any facts.

Anyway, I'm glad you like your family history, I'm not knocking it, but don't let it get you het-up enough to post swastikas and shit, that's just silly.

(btw ...  it's neither here nor there, but my Dad knew Trent Lott personally.  Masonic brothers.  Sonny Montgomery, too.  Never joined that particular fraternity myself ... but I guess I wouldn't be supposed to say it out-loud public if I did     )

Sonny Montgomery is cool, especially for what he did for veterans, but Trent Lott's a bribe-taking scumbag.

[quote="zsomething"] 

Example: My dad was a Hungarian diplomat and he lived in Berlin during World War II.  He used to have to shovel British incendiaries off his roof in the middle of the night.  Once he drove his car into the woods because he got strafed by a plane.  He had to stick a gun in an SS officer's face because the guy wanted to commandeer his car and Dad wasn't havin' it.  He was an American prisoner-of-war because they considered him a security threat just because he'd been working in Germany, but he got out because a Colonel (who used to live in Pensacola) needed him as a translator because he spoke five languages.  

[quote]

I find that history quite fascinating. Curious did was he there when the Russians came into Berlin? And did he ever get back to Hungary after the war?

I think it's a damn shame when these kind of personal histories just die with the people who know them.

EmeraldGhost wrote:

Now calling my ancestors who fought for the South "traitors" .... well, I have to take issue with that.  Misguided?  Wrong? Okay .. I have no problem with either of those ... but "traitor", well no ...  because A. I have a personal connection with those people, and B. from a legal and historical perspective it's total BS .. as I've clearly demonstrated in my posts on that issue.  I note you've not attempted to counter on any of that.  If you're not knowledgeable/read up on it enough to speak on it with a a background of any actual knowledge and intellectual honesty, well that's fine & I excuse you.  We can't expect everybody to know the ins-and-outs of everything.  I certainly don't.  But things I do have some particular knowledge about .. yeah, I'll speak on them.

Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.


Your ancestors levied war against the U.S. when they seized forts and armories in South Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana before the first shot was ever fired and then fired the first shots by bombarding Fort Sumter after seizing Forts Moultrie and Johnson in Charleston.

That was certainly treason, ergo the Confederates were traitors. Q.E.D.

I may have skimmed a page or two of history myself, Sport.

EmeraldGhost wrote:

zsomething wrote: 

Example: My dad was a Hungarian diplomat and he lived in Berlin during World War II.  He used to have to shovel British incendiaries off his roof in the middle of the night.  Once he drove his car into the woods because he got strafed by a plane.  He had to stick a gun in an SS officer's face because the guy wanted to commandeer his car and Dad wasn't havin' it.  He was an American prisoner-of-war because they considered him a security threat just because he'd been working in Germany, but he got out because a Colonel (who used to live in Pensacola) needed him as a translator because he spoke five languages.  

I find that history quite fascinating.  Curious did was he there when the Russians came into Berlin?  And did he ever get back to Hungary after the war?

I think it's a damn shame when these kind of personal histories just die with the people who know them.

He was still in the Berlin area when the Russians came. He got out of the city itself, because pretty much everyone who could, did. For a long time he didn't go back to Hungary because he was afraid they'd make him stay there, but later in his life, when the "coast was clear," he did visit some family there.

What the hell does any of the above have to do with the FUNK?

Lets burn this mother down!!!

Deus X wrote: ....
That was certainly treason, ergo the Confederates were traitors..

Ah, c'mon Deuce .. we've done this already. It's gotten really boring. Already countered every argument you've brought to the table.   I'm right, you're wrong.  Let that dead horse rest.

EmeraldGhost wrote:

Deus X wrote: ....
That was certainly treason, ergo the Confederates were traitors..

Ah, c'mon Deuce .. we've done this already. It's gotten really boring. Already countered every argument you've brought to the table.   I'm right, you're wrong.  Let that dead horse rest.

You haven't--and can't--counter the Article III argument. The Confederacy, starting with Fort Sumter, waged war on the Federal government and that was TREASON.

Deus X wrote:

EmeraldGhost wrote:

Deus X wrote: ....
That was certainly treason, ergo the Confederates were traitors..

Ah, c'mon Deuce .. we've done this already. It's gotten really boring. Already countered every argument you've brought to the table.   I'm right, you're wrong.  Let that dead horse rest.

You haven't--and can't--counter the Article III argument. The Confederacy, starting with Fort Sumter, waged war on the Federal government and that was TREASON.

One country making war (defensive, offensive, or somewhere in-between) upon another country can't be guilty of treason.  Of course the victors write the rules on that I suppose ... but I also note no Confederate military or political leaders were convicted of or even charged with "treason."  Although there were calls for it from some corners .. better legal and political minds prevailed on that count.  Much less the common foot soldiers ... many of whom were in it in for simple-minded ideas of defense of home and State. (misguided perhaps, in hindsight of course) And many who fought for the US side were not necessarily in it for reason of abolition ... that's another historical fact. So .. there ya go.

Look at how many highly educated men, military leaders, politiicians, academics and the like; educated in the law, the Constitution, ethics etc struggled with that decision.   Men with great ideas of personal honor.   Lee himself in fact, for just notable  one ... but certainly not the only one.   There were many, many others.  Some went one way, others reached another conclusion on the matter.  On both sides .. I've read what many of them wrote about it .. north and south.  Like I said ... secession of a State or States and the relationship of State sovereignty vs Federal sovereignty was not a Constitutionally settled thing at that time, as previously explained.   The country was yet relatively young and concepts like that were evolving.  And the memory of the American colonies rightfully  throwing off what they perceived to be s tyranny of their central government was not that far off in their minds.  

And yeah .. of course, ideas about slavery was a huge factor too.  But that was a political disagreement more than anything ... one that underpinned the Federalism disagreement.  That's undeniable.  But there were many in the north who were not necessarily in favor of abolition either.  Many Union officers and soldiers, even.  Lincoln himself never set out to abolish slavery, he was morally opposed to it of course ... but politically?  Uh, uh.  Read his writings on it.  Even at the outbreak of the war he was not a strident abolitionist.  It was never even a campaign issue for him except as regards how it should be managed with regard to new territories joining the Union as States.  His ideas were to contain it to the existing places until it could eventually be done away with.

But, "treason"?  Nah, not when you put it in any kind of factual historical context.

EmeraldGhost wrote:
One country making war (defensive, offensive, or somewhere in-between) upon another country can't be guilty of treason.

Just claiming you're a country doesn't make you a valid nation-state. They were never recognized as an independent nation by any other country. It was merely a failed secession--like Biafra--despite all the Jesuitical sophistry that followed.

The reasons no one was charged with treason were A) because of Lincoln's "With malice toward none..." speech and B) because Andrew Johnson--a Southerner and a vicious racist--issued a general pardon and amnesty, if the rebels swore allegiance to the U.S.  

If the Generals etc. who accepted Johnson's pardon were not guilty of treason, why would they need a pardon? Even they knew what they had done.

Deus X wrote:

EmeraldGhost wrote:
One country making war (defensive, offensive, or somewhere in-between) upon another country can't be guilty of treason.

Just claiming you're a country doesn't make you a valid nation-state. They were never recognized as an independent nation by any other country. It was merely a failed secession--like Biafra--despite all the Jesuitical sophistry that followed.

The reasons no one was charged with treason were A) because of Lincoln's "With malice toward none..." speech and B) because Andrew Johnson--a Southerner and a vicious racist--issued a general pardon and amnesty, if the rebels swore allegiance to the U.S.  

If the Generals etc. who accepted Johnson's pardon were not guilty of treason, why would they need a pardon? Even they knew what they had done.

Maybe because Gen. Sherman marched through the South destroying everything in his path. The South had suffered enough.