• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Confederate Memorial Day(s) exist?

Should Confederate Memorial Day(s) exist?


  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .
they asked the union troops to leave and they refused.

but the southern states did not impose a war on the federal government because they had no intention over throwing the federal government, that wanted to go their own way.

Some of the things the southern states wanted to take with them did not belong to them.
 
Some of the things the southern states wanted to take with them did not belong to them.

well explain how the southern states can operate with foreign entities in their states, like federal buildings, forts, shipyards.

would the colonies leave parts of the British Crown in america?
 
Correct.

But there are some people who would like to get a rematch. I don't believe that's going to happen.



The South will not rise again.
Perhaps that is why they have those civil war reenactments. As far as I know people in other countries don't have reenactments of getting their asses kicked.I could be wrong.Maybe the British reenact the American colonist kicking their ass.
 
Perhaps that is why they have those civil war reenactments. As far as I know people in other countries don't have reenactments of getting their asses kicked.I could be wrong.Maybe the British reenact the American colonist kicking their ass.

yes there are reenactments of war in Europe, like the Napoleonic War.

 
Last edited:
Former postion!

the southern states declared their separation from the union, they created their own government and constitution, and no longer participated in the the union for 5 years.

again FORMER..

these acts you have posted were made by the federal government whom the southern states were fighting.

to levy a war, means to impose a war, the southern states left the union, with only the intention of going their own way.


If by "going their own way" you mean 'to expand slavery into the new territories' then you'd be right. That was the build up to the Civil War.

Lincoln considered the southern states as "loyal states that were subverted by traitors.".....

"...Whereas, a rebellion now exists whereby the loyal state governments of several states have for a long time been subverted, and many persons have committed, and are now guilty of, treason against the United States; and.....<snip>

"...And still further, that this proclamation is intended to present the people of the states wherein the national authority has been suspended, and loyal state governments have been subverted, a mode in and by which the national authority and loyal state governments may be reëstablished within said states, or in any of them; and while the mode presented is the best the Executive can suggest, with his present impressions, it must not be understood that no other possible mode would be acceptable....."​


Neither Lincoln or the US government recognized the South's "so-called confederate government" and they always referred to it as a 'rebellion' or 'treason' but never a war. They were very careful not give the South's "so called secession" any legitimacy......

"The persons excepted from the benefits of the foregoing provisions are all who are, or shall have been, civil or diplomatic officers or agents of the so-called Confederate government; all who have left judicial stations under the United States to aid the rebellion; all who are, or shall have been, military or naval officers of said so-called Confederate government above the rank of colonel in the army or of lieutenant in the navy; all who left seats in the United States congress to aid the rebellion;...<snip>...

And I do further proclaim, declare, and make known that whenever, in any of the States ....<snip> each having taken the oath aforesaid, and not having since violated it, and being a qualified voter by the election law of the state existing immediately before the so-called act of secession, and excluding all others, shall reestablish a state government which shall be republican, and in nowise contravening said oath, such shall be recognized as the true government of the state, and the state shall receive thereunder the benefits of the constitutional provision which declares that “the United States shall guaranty to every state in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) against domestic violence......”
Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction, December 8, 1863

The federal government won the war that rendered the South's "so called seccession" as null and void.
 
Last edited:
If by "going their own way" you mean 'to expand slavery into the new territories' then you'd be right. That was the build up to the Civil War.

Lincoln considered the southern states as "loyal states that were "subverted" by traitors.".....

"...Whereas, a rebellion now exists whereby the loyal state governments of several states have for a long time been subverted, and many persons have committed, and are now guilty of, treason against the United States; and.....<snip>

"...And still further, that this proclamation is intended to present the people of the states wherein the national authority has been suspended, and loyal state governments have been subverted, a mode in and by which the national authority and loyal state governments may be reëstablished within said states, or in any of them; and while the mode presented is the best the Executive can suggest, with his present impressions, it must not be understood that no other possible mode would be acceptable....."​


Neither Lincoln or the US government recognized the South's "so-called confederate government" and they always referred to it as a 'rebellion' or 'treason' but never a war. They were very careful not give the South's "so called secession" any legitimacy......

"....And I do further proclaim, declare, and make known that whenever, in any of the States of Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina, a number of persons, not less than one tenth in number of the votes cast in such state at the presidential election of the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty, each having taken the oath aforesaid, and not having since violated it, and being a qualified voter by the election law of the state existing immediately before the so-called act of secession, and excluding all others, shall reestablish a state government which shall be republican, and in nowise contravening said oath, such shall be recognized as the true government of the state, and the state shall receive thereunder the benefits of the constitutional provision which declares that “the United States shall guaranty to every state in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) against domestic violence......”
Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction, December 8, 1863

The federal government won the war that rendered the South's seccession as null and void.

you have already posted "reinstated".......to be reinstated, it had to be out of the position it was in...... to be reinstated.

the south did what the founders had done, and even more, because the decision to leave the union was put before the people, and the people have a right to alter or abolish their government.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
 
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 295--304, 305--7 1829 (2d ed.)

The Union is an association of the people of republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics. The people of each pledge themselves to preserve that form of government in all. Thus each becomes responsible to the rest, that no other form of government shall prevail in it, and all are bound to preserve it in every one.

But the mere compact, without the power to enforce it, would be of little value. Now this power can be no where so properly lodged, as in the Union itself. Hence, the term guarantee, indicates that the United States are authorized to oppose, and if possible, prevent every state in the Union from relinquishing the republican form of government, and as auxiliary means, they are expressly authorized and required to employ their force on the application of the constituted authorities of each state, "to repress domestic violence." If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.

Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code, and thereby incapacitate themselves from concurring according to the mode now prescribed, in the choice of certain public officers of the United States.

The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.

This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood, and the doctrine heretofore presented to the reader in regard to the indefeasible nature of personal allegiance, is so far qualified in respect to allegiance to the United States. It was observed, that it was competent for a state to make a compact with its citizens, that the reciprocal obligations of protection and allegiance might cease on certain events; and it was further observed, that allegiance would necessarily cease on the dissolution of the society to which it was due.

The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics. Governments of dissimilar forms and principles cannot long maintain a binding coalition. "Greece," says Montesquieu, "was undone as soon as the king of Macedon obtained a seat in the amphyctionic council." It is probable, however, that the disproportionate force as well as the monarchical form of the new confederate had its share of influence in the event. But whether the historical fact supports the theory or not, the principle in respect to ourselves is unquestionable.
 
you have already posted "reinstated".......to be reinstated, it had to be out of the position it was in...... to be reinstated.

the south did what the founders had done, and even more, because the decision to leave the union was put before the people, and the people have a right to alter or abolish their government.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


In his proclamation, Lincoln seems to be saying that just because a loyal state is taken over by traitors and subversives doesn't mean that state doesn't still exist or is separate from the union. Unlike the founding fathers, the secessionists weren't fighting for freedom, but rather they were fighting to keep and expand the unholy institution of slavery.
 
Back
Top Bottom