Cuban Flag, "Confederate" Flag Comparison?

[Trigger Time]

I think the important question is whether we should start taking it as a threat to national security when citizens in America start trying to impose socialism or other forms of government in America. I believe this is NOT protected by the first amendment and it is a direct threat to our nation and those people should be rounded up and jailed.
These are not ideas or opinions it is open treason.

 

[cordex]

I think the important question is whether we should start taking it as a threat to national security when citizens in America start trying to impose socialism or other forms of government in America. I believe this is NOT protected by the first amendment and it is a direct threat to our nation and those people should be rounded up and jailed.
These are not ideas or opinions it is open treason.

I vehemently disagree with this. No, let me state that a smidge more clearly: You are completely and utterly wrong. Unpopular and political speech is exactly what the First Amendment protects.

 

[churchmouse]

I vehemently disagree with this. No, let me state that a smidge more clearly: You are completely and utterly wrong. Unpopular and political speech is exactly what the First Amendment protects.

Wow.
Speak all you want. That is protected.
To actively push another form of Gov. not outlined in the 2 documents...yes those 2....I tend to agree with TT on this one.

 

[jamil]

They’re the same. And they’re different. I voted according to what I think is the best response to what seems most obvious that Kut is after here.

They’re both symbols of whatever the displayer wants it to symbolize. So they’re the same. Could be good. Could be bad. It depends.

It’s not the arrangement of multicolored threads, or the patterns they’re sown into that makes the semantic difference. Are you wearing it to symbolize racial superiority, or marxism? Or are you wearing it to symbolize your heritage, or a pride in a geopolitical region? That’s what makes the semantic difference.

The one exception is if a flag can only symbolize an ideology. For example, the Nazi flag has become a universal symbol of an ideology that transcends geopolitical regions. The Hammer and Sickle is an ideological symbol too.

You can wear the stars and bars (I’m trolling) on your shirt and not be an advocate of white supremacy. You wear a swastika or hammer/sickle on your shirt, and you’re not just saying you’re proud of your region. Most likely you’re making an ideological statement, and an evil one in my estimation.

 

[BigRed]

Because the Confederates shut up after the war? Actually, they didn’t- ignoring what their own political and military leaders said preceding and during the war...and sometimes themselves, the Lost Causers desperately tried to retroactively re-write the fight to keep others as property as some noble cause. State’s rights? Sure...most specifically the right to force people to do your bidding, steal their labor, breakup families, etc.. I’m all for states’ rights according to the Constitution,but nothing provoked the South to-arms except threats to slavery. Whatever the flag means to people now, the Army of Northern Virginia and it’s flag was dedicated to preserving it.

So, when South Carolina began the process of seceding in 1832 and Gov. Hayne began raising an army, it was over slavery?

When Abraham "but not free a single slave" Lincoln sent the US army south with the explicit statement it wasn't to end slavery, it was to end slavery?

When VA seceded only after the US army mobilized to head south, it was over simple slavery?

When Robert E. Lee freed the slaves on his dead father-in-laws plantation in 1863, it was because he was fighting for slavery?

It seems to me that you are grossly oversimplifying a very complex historical event.

Arrogant ignorance typical of those no good damned yankees.

 

[Kutnupe14]

1.So, when South Carolina began the process of seceding in 1832 and Gov. Hayne began raising an army, it was over slavery?

2. When Abraham "but not free a single slave" Lincoln sent the US army south with the explicit statement it wasn't to end slavery, it was to end slavery?

3. When VA seceded only after the US army mobilized to head south, it was over simple slavery?

​4. When Robert E. Lee freed the slaves on his dead father-in-laws plantation in 1863, it was because he was fighting for slavery?

It seems to me that you are grossly oversimplifying a very complex historical event.

I actually missed this post.

1. Yes, Haynes was clear in his beliefs regarding slavery, stating in reference to the institution:

The moment the federal government shall make the unhallowed attempt to interfere with the domestic concerns of the states; those states will consider themselves driven from the Union

2. The North fought to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves. The South fought to keep their slaves.

3. Yes, slavery was Virginia's reason for seceding.

What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. ... If things are allowed to go on as they are, it is certain that slavery is to be abolished. By the time the north shall have attained the power, the black race will be in a large majority, and then we will have black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything. Is it to be supposed that the white race will stand for that? It is not a supposable case ... war will break out everywhere like hidden fire from the earth, and it is probable that the white race, being superior in every respect, may push the other back. ... we will be overpowered and our men will be compelled to wander like vagabonds all over the earth; and as for our women, the horrors of their state we cannot contemplate in imagination. That is the fate which abolition will bring upon the white race. ... We will be completely exterminated, and the land will be left in the possession of the blacks, and then it will go back to a wilderness and become another Africa... Suppose they elevated Charles Sumner to the presidency? Suppose they elevated Fred Douglass, your escaped slave, to the presidency? What would be your position in such an event? I say give me pestilence and famine sooner than that.— Henry Lewis Benning, speech to the Virginia Convention, February 18, 1861

Sir, the great question which is now uprooting this Government to its foundation – the great question which underlies all our deliberations here, is the question of African slavery.
— Thomas F. Goode, speech to the Virginia Secession Convention, (March 28, 1861).

4. Robert E. Lee, freed the slaves of his dead father in law, in accordance with the father-in-laws wishes (not Lee's) only after court-ordered to do so.

 

[Fargo]

I actually missed this post.

1. Yes, Haynes was clear in his beliefs regarding slavery, stating in reference to the institution:

2. The North fought to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves. The South fought to keep their slaves.

3. Yes, slavery was Virginia's reason for seceding.




4. Robert E. Lee, freed the slaves of his dead father in law, in accordance with the father-in-laws wishes (not Lee's) only after court-ordered to do so.

1. 1832. Tariffs, not slavery.

2. Another gross oversimplification.

3. Secession over the issue of slavery was explicitly rejected by a 2 to 1 margin on April 4. Two weeks later it was adopted as soon as the army began mobilizing. Education from LVA: Virginia Ordinance Of Secession

4. Do you have a citation that Lee did not intend to free those slaves absent a court order? I have never heard of a court order being the cause, it was my understanding that he executed the will according to its terms.

 

[cordex]

Wow.
Speak all you want. That is protected.
To actively push another form of Gov. not outlined in the 2 documents...yes those 2....I tend to agree with TT on this one.

Then you are dead wrong too. More in line with the SJW line of “badspeech is not free speech!”

People should be allowed to speak in favor of any stupid thing they like and you should be free to oppose them and show why their ideas are not as good as your ideas. They should be allowed to lobby for a change to a totalitarian communist state, a Nazi totalitarian state, a religious state, a pure democracy, royalism - whatever they like. So long as they are not attempting a violent overthrow, it is protected free speech. If you oppose this, you are more of a threat to the freedoms of our society than they are.

Our government has changed drastically since it was founded. Should the supporters of the 17th amendment have been jailed? The 19th? Heck, any amendment?

 

[Kutnupe14]

1. 1832. Tariffs, not slavery.

2. Another gross oversimplification.

3. Secession over the issue of slavery was explicitly rejected by a 2 to 1 margin on April 4. Two weeks later it was adopted as soon as the army began mobilizing. Education from LVA: Virginia Ordinance Of Secession

4. Do you have a citation that Lee did not intend to free those slaves absent a court order? I have never heard of a court order being the cause, it was my understanding that he executed the will according to its terms.

Plainly spoken, the idea that Civil War, from the Southern perspective, is fairly intellectually dishonest.
Yes, some states tried to say that tariffs were the reason they sought to take up arms, and secede from the Union. IMO, in some instances, that was an attempt to avoid publicly debating the morality of the slave question, with the intent of avoiding possible uprisings (as what occurred in SC). Their excuses were laughably transparent. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, The Compromise of 1850, The Missouri Compromise, The 3/5 Compromise, The Fugitive Slave Act, Northwest Ordinance, The attempted Corwin Amendment, the attempted Crittenden Compromise, the attempted Wilmot Proviso... so many instances with the question slavery being raised. People took up arms to even before the Civil War over the issue (Bleeding Kansas).... and heck, one senator beat another with a cane on the floor of the senate over the issue. It was even an issue that led to the Texas Revolution...
...but we're supposed to believe that it was more about Tariffs that led to the Civil War? How is that even stated with a straight face, when one considers the incredible amount of turmoil and legislation concerning the issue? Tariffs? The Tariff of 1828 is all I got. It simply does not make any sense.

I'll see if I can find you that court order involving Lee.

 

[Fargo]

Go back and read Houghmade’s post that I was responding to. I was responding explicitly to his proposition that the southern states only ever considered taking up arms over slavery. I was not proposing that the Civil War was over tariffs in any huge way. I was pointing out that states had considered taking up arms and seceeding over principles of government in the past, without slavery having been an issue at all.

Also, I am struggling to figure out what your first sentence about intellectual dishonesty means. Is there a clause missing?

 

[BigRed]

There was no civil war.

In a civil war, a group attempts to take over control of the central government.

Never did the south attempt to take over control of the central government.

They attempted to walk away.

It was not a civil war.

It was a war of northern aggression.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Go back and read Houghmade’s post that I was responding to. I was responding explicitly to his proposition that the southern states only ever considered taking up arms over slavery. I was not proposing that the Civil War was over tariffs in any huge way. I was pointing out that states had considered taking up arms and seceeding over principles of government in the past, without slavery having been an issue at all.

Also, I am struggling to figure out what your first sentence about intellectual dishonesty means. Is there a clause missing?

I was speaking of the Southern States (not you) as being purposefully intellectually dishonest in citing their reasonings.

 

[indiucky]

I was speaking of the Southern States (not you) as being purposefully intellectually dishonest in citing their reasonings.

"Well to be fair we were looking at economic ruin and as long as we stayed out of the Book of Exodus we were able to make a decent case using two bible passages...."

 

[Fargo]

"Well to be fair we were looking at economic ruin and as long as we stayed out of the Book of Exodus we were able to make a decent case using two bible passages...."

How different things would be but for Eli Whitney. It is truly sad that the people of this country allowed to their greed to wed them so closely to such a vile institution, that it took the country tearing itself and it’s republican form of government asunder in a bloodbath to finally get rid of it.

It is almost as sad that having gotten rid of the institution of chattel slavery, the people of this country then proceeded to treat the freed slaves and their descendants in a widespread truly abominable fashion for over 100 years more.

 

[indiucky]

How different things would be but for Eli Whitney.

Very true Fargo....Not too many people know that....

 

[jamil]

I was speaking of the Southern States (not you) as being purposefully intellectually dishonest in citing their reasonings.

"Plainly spoken, the idea that Civil War, from the Southern perspective, is fairly intellectually dishonest."

So yes, there was something missing. As written you're saying the civil War was intellectually dishonest. Well, that doesn't really say anything, so it doesn't make sense. So I inferred the following meaning:

Plainly spoken, the [cause for] the civil war, from the Southern perspective, is fairly intellectually dishonest."

I would agree the modified statement. It's obvious from the various laws each side supported, that neither the North or South really gave a flying **** about states rights when it came to imposing policies which benefited themselves over the other. They only cared about states rights when it didn't benefit them.

 

[churchmouse]

 

[KLB]

BULLY!

 

[HoughMade]

There was no civil war.

In a civil war, a group attempts to take over control of the central government.

Never did the south attempt to take over control of the central government.

They attempted to walk away.

It was not a civil war.

It was a war of northern aggression.

Lost causers gonna lost cause.

...and that's a decent definition of a "coup", but not a "civil war"....not that what anyone calls it changes anything.

 

[Alpo]

I could hear the Stephen Foster music in the background.