And I call all Americans Yankees. Doesn't make either of us right.
Advertisement
by Kannap » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:56 am
Luna Amore wrote:Please remember to attend the ritualistic burning of Kannap for heresy
by Yawkland » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:57 am
Hyperthalassia wrote:Would an American mimd explaining to me why there’s still people who honour and openly praise traitors to the Union? Especially persons as vile as this? I mean, I know there’s still a lot of neo-nazis who idolise Hitler, but this seems a lot more widespread and strangely accepted than that.
by Telconi » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:57 am
by Tombradyonia » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:58 am
by Griemvarant » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:58 am
Hyperthalassia wrote:Would an American mimd explaining to me why there’s still people who honour and openly praise traitors to the Union? Especially persons as vile as this? I mean, I know there’s still a lot of neo-nazis who idolise Hitler, but this seems a lot more widespread and strangely accepted than that.
by Yawkland » Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:00 pm
ECKU wrote:Hyperthalassia wrote:Would an American mimd explaining to me why there’s still people who honour and openly praise traitors to the Union? Especially persons as vile as this? I mean, I know there’s still a lot of neo-nazis who idolise Hitler, but this seems a lot more widespread and strangely accepted than that.
From some stupid ba reason of "tHeY'rE sTiLl AmErIcAnS!1!1!"
by Yawkland » Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:01 pm
Tombradyonia wrote:Kannap wrote:
I've been to a lot of bad Chick-fil-As.
I've never been to one, nor do I plan to do so. They're trying to shove their agenda down my throat (besides the chicken). I don't go to chicken restaurants in order for them to be able to tell me about their favorite imaginary friend.
by Heloin » Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:02 pm
Yawkland wrote:ECKU wrote:From some stupid ba reason of "tHeY'rE sTiLl AmErIcAnS!1!1!"
This begs the question, do people who take up arms against the US government forfeit their status as Americans and should therefore be treated as foreign combatants?
There's a problem with this (besides it being authoritarian as fuck). By treating the rebels as foreigners, you are essentially recognizing them as a separate nation, which is what they want. And if they are a foreign nation, then you have no right to conquer them and forcibly keep them in your country.
However, if you treat them as still Americans, then they are still part of your country and the government still has jurisdiction over them.
by Yawkland » Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:03 pm
Heloin wrote:Yawkland wrote:
This begs the question, do people who take up arms against the US government forfeit their status as Americans and should therefore be treated as foreign combatants?
There's a problem with this (besides it being authoritarian as fuck). By treating the rebels as foreigners, you are essentially recognizing them as a separate nation, which is what they want. And if they are a foreign nation, then you have no right to conquer them and forcibly keep them in your country.
However, if you treat them as still Americans, then they are still part of your country and the government still has jurisdiction over them.
Neither. You treat them as traitors.
by The South Falls » Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:06 pm
by Yawkland » Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:08 pm
Heloin wrote:Yawkland wrote:
Then by treating them as traitors, you are recognizing they are still Americans (because if they weren't Americans to begin with then they wouldn't be traitors).
No. This ain't a binary question here. You don't treat them as Americas but they're not foreigners. This isn't as complicated as you want to make it out to be.
by The South Falls » Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:09 pm
by Yawkland » Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:13 pm
by Heloin » Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:17 pm
Yawkland wrote:Heloin wrote:There nationality doesn't matter. They were Americans who turned traitor.
I don't think US law makes that distinction. If you look at all the times in US history where someone was tried for and convicted of treason, they were still treated as American citizens the entire time.
by Yawkland » Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:19 pm
Heloin wrote:Yawkland wrote:
I don't think US law makes that distinction. If you look at all the times in US history where someone was tried for and convicted of treason, they were still treated as American citizens the entire time.
This whole line of logic hasn't made sense at any point. They are US citizens therefor US States making holidays and monuments celebrating them is good despite the fact that they were openly traitors to the United States.
by Tombradyonia » Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:19 pm
Griemvarant wrote:For those who don't just focus on the slavery aspect and think it'd be a great idea to go back to slave-owning, the Civil War was still an important point in our history. The fact is, the vast majority of those who fought for the Confederacy did so out of loyalty to their home states in a time before the federal government was as all-encompassing as it was now. Most Confederates believed themselves to be taking a stand against the tyranny of the ruling class in a similar way that the colonists stood against the British and, indeed, many are also staunch patriots who stand behind the US for better or worse. They celebrate the Civil War for the ideology on both sides, of fighting to keep the republic intact and fighting against a perceived tyrannical state.
Forrest was a genius in the strategy of mounted combat, easily arguable as one of the greatest cavalry commanders to ever live.
Robert E. Lee was a staunch abolitionist who believed that slavery was evil but also believed that his personal morals didn't outweigh the morals of the people of Virginia whom he'd sworn to serve. He was outright hostile to Jefferson Davis but, when Virginia called on him to lead the army, he answered. Lee believed that a military commander was beholden to the people, not to push his own morals.
The major figures of the Confederacy were far more nuanced people than just a legion of cartoonish slavery-obsessed bigots.
Between the slave power and states' rights there was no necessary connection. The slave power, when in control, was a centralizing influence, and all the most considerable encroachments on states' rights were its acts.
The acquisition and admission of Louisiana; the Embargo; the War of 1812; the annexation of Texas "by joint resolution" [rather than treaty]; the war with Mexico, declared by the mere announcement of President Polk; the Fugitive Slave Law; the Dred Scott decision —all triumphs of the slave power— did far more than either tariffs or internal improvements, which in their origin were also southern measures, to destroy the very memory of states' rights as they existed in 1789.
Whenever a question arose of extending or protecting slavery, the slaveholders became friends of centralized power, and used that dangerous weapon with a kind of frenzy. Slavery in fact required centralization in order to maintain and protect itself, but it required to control the centralized machine; it needed despotic principles of government, but it needed them exclusively for its own use. Thus, in truth, states' rights were the protection of the free states, and as a matter of fact, during the domination of the slave power, Massachusetts appealed to this protecting principle as often and almost as loudly as South Carolina.
by Ifreann » Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:21 pm
Alien Overlord wrote:Ifreann wrote:Do you think? I would imagine that black Americans might be rather put off by their state government officially celebrating the men who wanted them kept in chains, and fought to achieve that goal.
They should try and motivate change within their own community-or just move to somewhere different.
Not all states or cities or counties are the same. A referendum is the fairest way to get over issues like this, and if the referendum isn't in your favor then it won't matter. People's opinions aren't going to change because you forbid a holiday-it may even cause resentment and backlash onto African Americans-in the case of possibly banning Nathan Bedford Forrest day for example.
If the people in Tennessee wanted this holiday then we should abide by the majority's decision.
As long as there isn't actual discrimination, then it will just have to be something that the minority will have to deal with.
by Heloin » Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:23 pm
Yawkland wrote:Heloin wrote:This whole line of logic hasn't made sense at any point. They are US citizens therefor US States making holidays and monuments celebrating them is good despite the fact that they were openly traitors to the United States.
This has nothing to do with whether or not having a Nathan Bedford Forrest Day is a good idea. It was in reply to another poster who questioned whether the Confederates should be considered Americans.
by Alien Overlord » Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:26 pm
Walkerfort wrote:so...
Banning cars will lead to a clusterfuck of mininations everywhere and attempting to mash two Eras together miserably and 1984 style dictatorships
butterfly effect when give a butterfly cocaine
by Yawkland » Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:27 pm
by Yawkland » Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:31 pm
Heloin wrote:Yawkland wrote:
This has nothing to do with whether or not having a Nathan Bedford Forrest Day is a good idea. It was in reply to another poster who questioned whether the Confederates should be considered Americans.
Then you jumped off the logical deep end with a line of reasoning that just doesn't make sense. The Confederates are un-American, that doesn't make them not American Citizens. These two things aren't mutually exclusive even if you think they are.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, El Lazaro, Ineva, Keltionialang, Sarduri, Shrillland, Stellar Colonies, Taosun, The Black Forrest, Tungstan, WorthleticsElite
Advertisement