• 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!

Confederate monuments[W:1182]

Re: Confederate monuments

katzgar said:
Actually I didnt misunderstand rather you arent literate. The service company thing we can just dismiss as the is certainly no way you can know that. The bases in the south will be of little value when the 60% northerners leave and the troops from overseas land on the gulf coast.
Click to expand...


this is baseless, because you cannot make that conclusion
 
Re: Confederate monuments

Master PO said:
one thing people ARE NEVER ONLY TO GET, is you cant look back into time and apply todays values.

because even you and i are going to be judged in the future on the things we have done.
Click to expand...

Even going off the morals of the day fighting for slavery was considered an evil cause. That's a big part of why Britain and France never intervened on the side of the Confederates.
 
Re: Confederate monuments

apdst said:
1) that isn't a Tiger

2) you used to have Tiger 117 on there.

Are you commemorating Michael Whittman? Didn't he score 117 kills?
Click to expand...

No **** it's not a Tiger. I made that very clear. It's an allied tank destroyer.

No, I've always had the same username.

He had more than that. Something like 135. And while I was impressed by that when I read it, it has nothing to do with my user name.

"117" is a Halo reference. "Tigerace" refers to the war game Battle Academy 2 by Slitherine. There's a user created campaign where you recreate the exploits of Otto Carius, another German Tiger tank ace. Carius was short, I'm short....,

Hence "Tigerace117."
 
Last edited:
Re: Confederate monuments

tigerace117 said:
even going off the morals of the day fighting for slavery was considered an evil cause. That's a big part of why britain and france never intervened on the side of the confederates.
Click to expand...

has no bearing on what i said
 
Re: Confederate monuments

Tigerace117 said:
Even going off the morals of the day fighting for slavery was considered an evil cause. That's a big part of why Britain and France never intervened on the side of the Confederates.
Click to expand...

England, France and Austria sold war materials to the South.
 
Re: Confederate monuments

apdst said:
England, France and Austria sold war materials to the South.
Click to expand...

That's not the same thing as intervening, or even recognizing the south as a country.
 
Re: Confederate monuments

Master PO said:
my point is the federal government classifies it as a war of rebellion and not insurrection
Click to expand...

Sure, but it doesnt matter what they classify it as. They have no right to force their views on sovereign people.
 
Re: Confederate monuments

Master PO said:
this is a speech from andrew johnson, it has no weight of law...none!

the u.s. library of CONGRESS designates the civil war a war of rebellion.

proclamations are not legal evidence of law because if they were they would be law, former presidents of the u.s. have given christian proclamations
Click to expand...


It's not a "speech" - ****in' aye. There are different kinds of proclamations as well. One is ceremonial, others carry force of law, especially ones "in pursuance of an act of Congress approved."

Johnson wasn't president in 1861, when the first proclamation was made, and how you missed the part about "in pursuance of an act of Congress approved" is beyond me. I bolded it up for your beady eyes about 20 tmes now, just in case you missed it.

Get that? In pursuance of an Act of Congress. Let's look at the first one: Approved July 13, 1861:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled.....by, or for the account of any State: Provided, The Proviso.Secretary of the Treasury shall be satisfied that the said arms are intended, in good faith, for the use of the troops of any State which is, or may be engaged in aiding to suppress the insurrection now existing against the United States.APPROVED, July, 1861.

And be it further enacted, That whenever the President, in The President, pursuance of the provisions of the second section of the act entitled "An may declare the act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the inhabitants of a Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, and to repeal the act State, &c. to be now in force for that purpose," approved February twenty-eight, seven- surrection.teen hundred and ninety-five, shall have called forth the militia to suppress combinations against the laws of the United States, and to cause the laws to be duly executed, and the insurgents shall have failed to disperse by the time directed by the President, and when said insurgents claim to act under the authority of any State or States, and such claim is not 1861 disclaimed or repudiated by the persons exercising the functions of government in such State or States, or in the part or parts thereof in which said combination exists, nor such insurrection suppressed by said State or States, then and in such case it may and shall be lawful for the President, by proclamation, to declare that the inhabitants of such State, or any section or part thereof, where such insurrection exists, are in a state of insurrection against the United States;

(The source jumble up some of the text) Read the ACT of CONGESS Here:


https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/37th-congress/c37.pdf

Need I go on? Will you finally give it up?
 
Last edited:
Re: Confederate monuments

apdst said:
Yeah, it kinda sorta is.
Click to expand...

No, not really. Now if they had sent "volunteers" to fight the US outright or broke the blockade, that would be a much different story.
 
Re: Confederate monuments

calamity said:
Standard fare when suppressing an insurrection. "President Lincoln used the authority granted him under the Act on September 15, 1863, to suspend habeas corpus throughout the Union in any case involving prisoners of war, spies, traitors, or any member of the military."
Click to expand...

the act of 1863-think that through
 
Re: Confederate monuments

I'll add that the power of the president was derived by the First Militia Acts in 1792 & 1795, more directly.

Affirmed by SCOTUS in 1849

Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S.7 How. 11---> affirming the power of the president to call forth the militia of other states to suppress the insurrection in another state as proscribed in the Militia Act of 1795.

"It rested with Congress, too, to determine upon the means proper to be adopted to fulfill this guarantee. They might, if they had deemed it most advisable to do so, have placed it in the power of a court to decide when the contingency had happened which required the federal government to interfere. But Congress thought otherwise, and no doubt wisely, and, by the act of February 28, 1795, provided that,

"in case of an insurrection in any State against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such State or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), to call forth such number of the militia of any other State or States, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to sufficient to suppress such insurrection."

By this act, the power of deciding whether the exigency had arisen upon which the government of the United States is bound to interfere is given to the President. He is to act upon the application of the legislature or of the executive, and consequently he must determine what body of men constitute the legislature, and who is the governor, before he can act. The fact that both parties claim the right to the government cannot alter the case, for both cannot be entitled to it. If there is an armed conflict like the one of which we are speaking, it is a case of domestic violence, and one of the parties must be in insurrection against the lawful government. And the President must, of necessity, decide which is the government and which party is unlawfully arrayed against it before he can perform the duty imposed upon him by the act of Congress."


Luther v. Borden (full text) :: 48 U.S. 1 (1849) :: Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
 
Re: Confederate monuments

Tigerace117 said:
No, not really. Now if they had sent "volunteers" to fight the US outright or broke the blockade, that would be a much different story.
Click to expand...

You're splitting hairs.
 
Re: Confederate monuments

Tigerace117 said:
Which, of course, supports my point that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Click to expand...

So, how long have you been outraged about Comfederate monuments?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom