Confederate flag was the flag of traitors

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The burden of proof remains on you, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass! Your racist, dumb fuck Yankee ass initially demanded a "Declaration of Secession of ANY of the Confederate states that is NOT consumed with the issue of slavery."

Read below and weep silly twat.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Well, you racist, dumb fuck Yankee jackass, here are TWO more that make no mention of slavery and they DO indict Lincoln for overstepping his constitutional authority and which serves as the 'cause' for those declarations stating those states were withdrawing from the Union:

Arkansas

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union now existing between the State of Arkansas and the other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."

Whereas, in addition to the well-founded causes of complaint set forth by this convention, in resolutions adopted on the 11th of March, A.D. 1861, against the sectional party now in power in Washington City, headed by Abraham Lincoln, he has, in the face of resolutions passed by this convention pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such States until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshaled to carry out this inhuman design; and to longer submit to such rule, or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas:

Therefore we, the people of the State of Arkansas, in convention assembled, do hereby declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the "ordinance and acceptance of compact" passed and approved by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas on the 18th day of October, A.D. 1836, whereby it was by said General Assembly ordained that by virtue of the authority vested in said General Assembly by the provisions of the ordinance adopted by the convention of delegates assembled at Little Rock for the purpose of forming a constitution and system of government for said State, the propositions set forth in "An act supplementary to an act entitled `An act for the admission of the State of Arkansas into the Union, and to provide for the due execution of the laws of the United States within the same, and for other purposes,'" were freely accepted, ratified, and irrevocably confirmed, articles of compact and union between the State of Arkansas and the United States, and all other laws and every other law and ordinance, whereby the State of Arkansas became a member of the Federal Union, be, and the same are hereby, in all respects and for every purpose herewith consistent, repealed, abrogated, and fully set aside; and the union now subsisting between the State of Arkansas and the other States, under the name of the United States of America, is hereby forever dissolved.

And we do further hereby declare and ordain, That the State of Arkansas hereby resumes to herself all rights and powers heretofore delegated to the Government of the United States of America; that her citizens are absolved from all allegiance to said Government of the United States, and that she is in full possession and exercise of all the rights and sovereignty which appertain to a free and independent State.

We do further ordain and declare, That all rights acquired and vested under the Constitution of the United States of America, or of any act or acts of Congress, or treaty, or under any law of this State, and not incompatible with this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect, in nowise altered or impaired, and have the same effect as if this ordinance had not been passed.

Adopted and passed in open convention on the 6th day of May, A.D. 1861.

You didn't read it carefully did you, tranny fucker?

When giving the reasons for seceding, the Ordinance states as follows:

"Whereas, in addition to the well-founded causes of complaint set forth by this Convention in resolutions adopted on the 11th of March, A.D. 1861, against the sectional party now in power at Washington City, headed by ABRAHAM LINCOLN, he has, ..."

So, the Ordinance is based on the "well founded causes of complaint" they had already voted on in the March meeting, plus the additional grounds stated in the Ordinance (i.e., Lincoln using force).

So, you may ask, "What were those other 'well founded causes of complaint' that caused Arkansas to secede"?

Well, I took the liberty of looking them up for you IBHankerwrong. Here is the link:

http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.ne. ..x?entryID=6304

Here are the "fun" quotes regarding the earlier March session:

"Other orators pictured a South whose slavery realm would eventually take in the entire Caribbean.

Governor Rector thought the single issue was slavery—“They believe slavery is sin, and we do not, and there lies the trouble”

—and the records of the first session reflect this, with each of the listed “causes of complaint on the part of the people of the southern states” being concerned with the preservation of slavery."

Yup, Arkansas was trying to preserve slavery, too. They were even hoping to expand the operation into the Caribbean. Redneck fuckers.

But here is a quote that has particular resonance with you, tranny fucker:

"Finally secessionist orators harped on Southern honor and manhood, and had a fine time denouncing Unionists as “submissionists,” a sexually loaded term."

Submissionists was a sexually loaded term. Got that? That meant that the Arkansas secessionists thought Unionists like to take it in the ass.

So, they would view you as a Unionist, tranny fucker.

Oh, the sweet irony.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Missouri

An act declaring the political ties heretofore existing between the State of Missouri and the United States of America dissolved.

Whereas the Government of the United States, in the possession and under the control of a sectional party, has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions; and

Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof: Now, therefore,

Be it enacted by the general assembly of the State of Missouri, That all political ties of every character new existing between the Government of the United States of America and the people and government of the State of Missouri are hereby dissolved, and the State of Missouri, resuming the sovereignty granted by compact to the said United States upon admission of said State into the Federal Union, does again take its place as a free and independent republic amongst the nations of the earth.

This act to take effect and be in force from and after its passage.

Approved, October 31, 1861.

Source: Official Records, Ser. IV, vol. 1, pp. 752-53.

[This act was passed by a rump legislature called into session in Neosho]

I see you doctored the end of the last line, you lying sack of shit.

Here is the ordinance (scroll down to Missouri):

http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordi..._secession.htm

And here is the complete last line:

[This act was passed by a rump legislature called into session in Neosho, by Gov. C.F. Jackson (who had been removed from office by the State Convention)]

So, a governore removed from office calls together a bunch of other secessionists and they form a rump legislature to draft a phony ordinance of secession.

Because the real legislature did not pass one, right?

That's like the Texas Tea Party holding a rally and drafting an ordinance of secession over Obamacare. And it has the same validity.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Read below and weep silly twat.

You didn't read it carefully did you, tranny fucker?

When giving the reasons for seceding, the Ordinance states as follows:

"Whereas, in addition to the well-founded causes of complaint set forth by this Convention in resolutions adopted on the 11th of March, A.D. 1861, against the sectional party now in power at Washington City, headed by ABRAHAM LINCOLN, he has, ..."

So, the Ordinance is based on the "well founded causes of complaint" they had already voted on in the March meeting, plus the additional grounds stated in the Ordinance (i.e., Lincoln using force).

So, you may ask, "What were those other 'well founded causes of complaint' that caused Arkansas to secede"?

Well, I took the liberty of looking them up for you IBHankerwrong. Here is the link:

http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.ne. ..x?entryID=6304

Here are the "fun" quotes regarding the earlier March session:

"Other orators pictured a South whose slavery realm would eventually take in the entire Caribbean.

Governor Rector thought the single issue was slavery—“They believe slavery is sin, and we do not, and there lies the trouble”

—and the records of the first session reflect this, with each of the listed “causes of complaint on the part of the people of the southern states” being concerned with the preservation of slavery."

Yup, Arkansas was trying to preserve slavery, too. They were even hoping to expand the operation into the Caribbean. Redneck fuckers.

But here is a quote that has particular resonance with you, tranny fucker:

"Finally secessionist orators harped on Southern honor and manhood, and had a fine time denouncing Unionists as “submissionists,” a sexually loaded term."

Submissionists was a sexually loaded term. Got that? That meant that the Arkansas secessionists thought Unionists like to take it in the ass.

So, they would view you as a Unionist, tranny fucker.

Oh, the sweet irony.


I see you doctored the end of the last line, you lying sack of shit.

Here is the ordinance (scroll down to Missouri):

http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordi..._secession.htm

And here is the complete last line:

[This act was passed by a rump legislature called into session in Neosho, by Gov. C.F. Jackson (who had been removed from office by the State Convention)]

So, a governore removed from office calls together a bunch of other secessionists and they form a rump legislature to draft a phony ordinance of secession.

Because the real legislature did not pass one, right?

That's like the Texas Tea Party holding a rally and drafting an ordinance of secession over Obamacare. And it has the same validity.

Did read both documents very carefully, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.

1. Slavery is never mentioned in either document; hence, both documents pass the threshold of the ignorant requirement you stipulated, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, and 'two' such documents is one more than your ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass stipulated. Hence, you've been demonstrably proved wrong again, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.

2. Your ignorant racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass also chose to ignore that Arkansas's 'March' convention referenced in it's 'May' Ordinance of Secession voted to abstain from secession in March. Arkansas did not vote to secede until AFTER Lincoln made his call to arms in April. So 'slavery' was not the decisive factor that you say it is in driving Arkansas into secession -- it was overreaching Federal belligerency that drove Arkansas into secession.

3. Further, your ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass also chose to ignore the other issues discussed at the March convention: "James Totten, the secessionist delegate from Arkansas County, advanced the view that Southerners, the descendants of the English cavaliers, could never co-exist with the Puritan Northerners. Another argument was economic." And your ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass also chose to ignore how "Governor Rector had long been seen as incompetent by both [Unionist and Secessionist] factions"; so says your source, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.

http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.ne...x?entryID=6304

4. Missouri is represented by a star on the "Stars and Bars", so your ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass attempt to dismiss its government in exile and the combat units Missouri fielded for the Confederate cause is disingenuous, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. Hence, you've been demonstrably proved wrong again, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by lostincypress

And after all the hamburger and fried chicken startups we got Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and untold application winners whose beginnings were more than humble. Somehow, someway, they were able to navigate all the contentious paperwork on the bumpy road to billionairehood. As I gaze out the windows of my automobile I see countless "new" and "small" businesses sprouting up from the wilderness......that only a few short years ago harbored deer and other wildlife.....refusing to allow their entrepreneurial spirit to be diminished by the crushing bureaucracy laboring to prevent their birth. Starting a business in Texas requires a Texas Tax ID......now, if you want to dump pollutants into the waterways, pump noxious and harmful particles into the air I breathe, build a pipeline across my property, sell counterfeit merchandise, or toxic products.......well, you might have a problem. If you want to use child labor, subject your employees to unsafe working conditions, defraud your customers, withhold wages, prepare food in unsanitary conditions......you might have a point.

The top tax rate in 1948 when McDonald's began was over 80% but it didn't deter them..........

What was the minimum wage when Ray Kroc started McDonalds? That is what I mean by government interference, the government telling someone how much to pay their employees around the country. New York is the same as Oklahoma to these idiots.

[Yssup Rider]

Cunt.

.for a change, you've hijacked the thread JDIdiot.

[lostincypress]

I suppose the words of Jefferson Davis could provide some clarification.........

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_m042961.asp

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by lostincypress

I suppose the words of Jefferson Davis could provide some clarification.........

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_m042961.asp

Mr. Lincoln promulgated the war, and he said the war was about 'Union'.

"... I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of 75,000, in order to suppress said combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed.

The details of this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.

I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union ..."

http://thecivilwarandnorthwestwiscon...ll-for-troops/



And since you are from Missouri, Lostinspace, what about hearing from your home state:


Missouri

"An act declaring the political ties heretofore existing between the State of Missouri and the United States of America dissolved.

"Whereas the Government of the United States, in the possession and under the control of a sectional party, has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions ..."

http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordi...n.htm#Missouri

[BJerk]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Not pouting at all, ExGYer. I've accepted the fact that because of people like you this country is no longer, and will never again be, the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave". So I enjoy life. If clowns like you annoyed me, I wouldn't be here.

But I will stand for freedom as long as I can. But there are too many opposed to freedom for it to prevail. Doesn't mean I'm wrong, or any less passionate. So I've decided to enjoy myself, just to piss the Statists, like you, off.

You make good points with your posts, especially the ones about the constitution being obsolete. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall called it a "flawed document" himself. Remember, the constitution was written by 18th century agrarians who thought blacks were 3/5th's of a person and who couldn't have conceived of all the ways a government needs electronic surveillance to protect the people. I, too, love liberty and privacy for myself. I can't reconcile how our slow moving justice system can keep up with all the criminals and not squash their privacy and freedom (which they manipulate to kill us). If we had the freedom and liberty of the 18th century farmers, we couldn't protect our big cities from terrorists with the way we do things now. It is like a wartime system. We have a wartime system because around the world people hate us and want to kill us.
We could have privacy and freedom if we could create a world where everyone feels valued. I'd like to do things your way but they just don't seem practical.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Did read both documents very carefully, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.

1. Slavery is never mentioned in either document; hence, both documents pass the threshold of the ignorant requirement you stipulated, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, and 'two' such documents is one more than your ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass stipulated. Hence, you've been demonstrably proved wrong again, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.

You lose. Again. One document (Missouri) isn't a vlid document at all and the other document (Arkansas) references its earlier slavery complaints without using the word slavery. I asked you for a Declaration of Secession that was based on something other than slavery and NOT based on slavery. Arkansas' Ordinance IS based on slavery, tranny fucker. You are getting very desperate.

2. Your ignorant racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass also chose to ignore that Arkansas's 'March' convention referenced in it's 'May' Ordinance of Secession voted to abstain from secession in March. Arkansas did not vote to secede until AFTER Lincoln made his call to arms in April. So 'slavery' was not the decisive factor that you say it is in driving Arkansas into secession -- it was overreaching Federal belligerency that drove Arkansas into secession.

I don't give a fuck if Arkansas decided to postpone secession until later. I asked for a Confederate state that seceded for some OTHER reason and NOT for slavery. I did not ask for a decisive factor or a primary reason because that is just a matter of opinoin and I knew you would argue that to death. That is why I demanded that you identify a Confederate state that seceded for stated reasons that did NOT include slavery. That's why the Ordinances are mostly useless because they generally don't state reasons.

3. Further, your ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass also chose to ignore the other issues discussed at the March convention: "James Totten, the secessionist delegate from Arkansas County, advanced the view that Southerners, the descendants of the English cavaliers, could never co-exist with the Puritan Northerners. Another argument was economic." And your ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass also chose to ignore how "Governor Rector had long been seen as incompetent by both [Unionist and Secessionist] factions"; so says your source, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.

ONCE AGAIN, merely stating another reason doesn't cut it. I'm not going to argue with you over primary reasons. That's just opinion and you like to state yours like they are facts. The reasons for seceding must NOT include slavery. EVERY Confederate state secession was based on slavery. There may have been other lame reasons stated. But the rest are just window dressing to make it look like it wasn't just slavery. No one was seceding over tariff levels.

And the "economic reason" is a good example of a bullshit rationale. Texas, a state seceding to preserve slavery, threatened an economic boycott of Missouri unless that also secede with them. And slavery supporters in MO cited THAT as a reason to secede. This ignores that the economic boycott from the North would dwarf a Texas boycott. They could have told Texas for fuck off. Frankly this qualifies as another slavery-based reason for seceding.

4. Missouri is represented by a star on the "Stars and Bars", so your ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass attempt to dismiss its government in exile and the combat units Missouri fielded for the Confederate cause is disingenuous, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. Hence, you've been demonstrably proved wrong again, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.

LIAR. By mission. AGAIN. Missouri was also a star on the US flag all through the war. Don't you know i'd read the same source as you? And Missouri fielded only about 40K troops for the Confederacy, but 100K troops for the Union. You omitted THAT, too The Confederacy's bogus claims to Missouri were based on the phony legislature in exile.

Keep trying, tranny fucker.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Mr. Lincoln promulgated the war, and he said the war was about 'Union'.

"... I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of 75,000, in order to suppress said combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed.

The details of this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.

I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union ..."

http://thecivilwarandnorthwestwiscons in.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/1861-april-1b5-lincolns-call-for-troops/



And since you are from Missouri, Lostinspace, what about hearing from your home state:





Missouri

"An act declaring the political ties heretofore existing between the State of Missouri and the United States of America dissolved.

"Whereas the Government of the United States, in the possession and under the control of a sectional party, has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions ..."

http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordi...n.htm#Missouri

Today's highlight ... CORPY melts down and flings insults at someone else just trying to make a point in a debate.

Making up names, for a change.

Hurling feces.

Meltdown could continue longer than the Civil War... Which would give .corpy something to squeal about until the pigs come home!

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Today's highlight ... CORPY melts down and flings insults at someone else just trying to make a point in a debate.

Making up names, for a change.

Hurling feces.

Meltdown could continue longer than the Civil War... Which would give .corpy something to squeal about until the pigs come home!

Clarkesville called and said, No Yappy EMO Turds ALLOWED...LOL

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Bert Jones

You make good points with your posts, especially the ones about the constitution being obsolete. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall called it a "flawed document" himself. Remember, the constitution was written by 18th century agrarians who thought blacks were 3/5th's of a person and who couldn't have conceived of all the ways a government needs electronic surveillance to protect the people. I, too, love liberty and privacy for myself. I can't reconcile how our slow moving justice system can keep up with all the criminals and not squash their privacy and freedom (which they manipulate to kill us). If we had the freedom and liberty of the 18th century farmers, we couldn't protect our big cities from terrorists with the way we do things now. It is like a wartime system. We have a wartime system because around the world people hate us and want to kill us.
We could have privacy and freedom if we could create a world where everyone feels valued. I'd like to do things your way but they just don't seem practical.

Yes, it was, and is, a flawed document, but there has never been one that promoted liberty and individual responsibility like it. It was drafted to "form a more perfect union, not a perfect one. That is why there is a process for amendment, which requires that the states and the people are all on board with the changes. And the rights protected by the Constitution are unalienable, and not just conveniences. When the law requires that a criminal be proven such beyond a reasonable doubt, and that evidence against him or her be valid, that protects YOU more than the criminal.

It was a good system, while it lasted.

[BJerk]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It was a good system, while it lasted.

Well put!

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by Bert Jones

You make good points with your posts, especially the ones about the constitution being obsolete. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall called it a "flawed document" himself. Remember, the constitution was written by 18th century agrarians who thought blacks were 3/5th's of a person and who couldn't have conceived of all the ways a government needs electronic surveillance to protect the people. I, too, love liberty and privacy for myself. I can't reconcile how our slow moving justice system can keep up with all the criminals and not squash their privacy and freedom (which they manipulate to kill us). If we had the freedom and liberty of the 18th century farmers, we couldn't protect our big cities from terrorists with the way we do things now. It is like a wartime system. We have a wartime system because around the world people hate us and want to kill us.
We could have privacy and freedom if we could create a world where everyone feels valued. I'd like to do things your way but they just don't seem practical.

You made an error; those 18th century agrarians did not think that blacks were 3/5s of a person. Those men (among which were lawyers, reverends, shop keepers, distillers, writers, publishers, yes, some farmers) made a compromise with the south. The southern planters wanted SLAVES to count as full people with the landowner controlling their vote. The northern businessmen did not want to count SLAVES as anything. They did not include black men but SLAVES. The compromise to allow some standing of SLAVES for the purpose of representation in the house but not full value. Hence, the 3/5th rule. It did not endorse slavery. It recognized the political reality of what was and indirectly lead to the Civil War. The first presidents came from the south, the House was controlled by the south, and the Senate was split between the north and south. As the years passed and more people migrated inwards the balance of power shifted to the north and later the new west. The south was hamstrung because of the 3/5th rule and the Missouri Compromise. The southern leaders saw the handwriting on the wall. As California became a state without slavery they knew that it was only a matter of time when abolition would be forced upon them by the government. Right or wrong, they knew they had to act...and they did.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You made an error; those 18th century agrarians did not think that blacks were 3/5s of a person. Those men (among which were lawyers, reverends, shop keepers, distillers, writers, publishers, yes, some farmers) made a compromise with the south. The southern planters wanted SLAVES to count as full people with the landowner controlling their vote. The northern businessmen did not want to count SLAVES as anything. They did not include black men but SLAVES. The compromise to allow some standing of SLAVES for the purpose of representation in the house but not full value. Hence, the 3/5th rule. It did not endorse slavery. It recognized the political reality of what was and indirectly lead to the Civil War. The first presidents came from the south, the House was controlled by the south, and the Senate was split between the north and south. As the years passed and more people migrated inwards the balance of power shifted to the north and later the new west. The south was hamstrung because of the 3/5th rule and the Missouri Compromise. The southern leaders saw the handwriting on the wall. As California became a state without slavery they knew that it was only a matter of time when abolition would be forced upon them by the government. Right or wrong, they knew they had to act...and they did.

Well, we finally agree on something.

Thank you for that accurate description of why the South seceded. They had to do something to protect slavery.

[Yssup Rider]

Am I mistaken or did IBIdiot continue this argument in another thread, thereby hijacking both?