Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Sprightly

Why Are So Many Fascist Monuments Still Standing in Italy?

308 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

29 minutes ago, PinkFlamingo said:

Bla bla bla....

Don't give me your bs statistics. don't feel safe walking in the city in which I grew up because of your slave descendants. 

Karlydee, you're one of the worst bigots on this forum. 

You are more likely to be murdered raped or robbed by a white person -- own it

 

Provide an example of my bigotry -- please -- I find that from time to time self introspection and character analysis is good for the soul, so

 

if you can provide me example (me - a White man with a BLACK/Multiracial spouse and multiracial children that has suffered housing discrimination due to the race of my spouse and seen my children illegally detained and searched by police) - I will take it under advisement and strive to be less bigoted

Edited by karlydee2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Smokey 1 said:

They didn't betray the US they left it which they had the right to do.  It wasn't as simple as you claim.  One ancestor of mine wrote a journal and in it he explained that he joined the ANV because of what Lincoln was doing in MD, suspending rights, arresting people for no good reason, confiscating livestock and whole farms and putting the state under martial law illegally.  Does that make him a vile person?  I don't believe so and I will always be proud of him and the courage it took to do what did.  

Your argument that the south had the right to self determination assumes that right trumped the right of slaves not to be held as slaves!

Isn't there a hierarchy of rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, karlydee2 said:

The Secessionist States and any sympathizers are vile despicable people who violated a basic human right -- freedom.

Sorry, but if your ancestors supported secession, they were vile human beings -- the cornerstone and foundation of secession was the continued RIGHT enshrined in LAW to deprive BLACK citizens of their freedom by allowing legal SLAVERY.

Do you believe the preservation of slavery was the reason every southern soldier fought and the abolishment of slavery the motive for northern soldiers?  Your blanket judgments are not realistic or accurate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

Do you believe the preservation of slavery was the reason every southern soldier fought and the abolishment of slavery the motive for northern soldiers?  Your blanket judgments are not realistic or accurate.  

If they fought for any other reasoning they were stupid, and unable to comprehend the real reason behind secession. If your ancestors fall in that category -- you seem to have lost some of their stupidity.

 

Regardless, you continue to be an at least hypocritical apologist ( deep down you know secession was all about slavery and not about states rights) v-- but we can play that game until the cows come home ....

Edited by karlydee2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

57 minutes ago, ms maggie said:

Your argument that the south had the right to self determination assumes that right trumped the right of slaves not to be held as slaves!

Isn't there a hierarchy of rights?

That is a good point but that logic didn't work in those days because unfortunately slaves "didn't count" legally.  Of course that also applied to women. 

Edited by Smokey 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

Do you believe the preservation of slavery was the reason every southern soldier fought and the abolishment of slavery the motive for northern soldiers?  Your blanket judgments are not realistic or accurate.  

Soldiers fight for their fellow soldiers. And usually because they were concripted, or paid.

This comparison to Italy doesn't hold water. Those monuments were build while the fascists were in office. Nobody was throwing up statues of Il Duce post war.

I can't think of any example of a losing side in any war honoring their leaders in this fashion after the fact. Maybe native Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

19 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

That is a good point but that logic didn't work in those days because unfortunately slaves "didn't count" legally.  Of course that also applied to women. 

But the war made them "count". Sort of the point. So retrospectively ignoring their right to not be enslaved in deference to the south's right to self determination is kinda hollow IMO.

Not to mention the Constitution clearly prohibits states from forming any confederation. Then there's that supremacy clause.

Edited by ms maggie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

That is a good point but that logic didn't work in those days because unfortunately slaves "didn't count" legally.  Of course that also applied to women. 

Didn't make it right, or moral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hst2 said:

Awesome, our thing. I have explained to you how slavery was involved in every aspect of the war, and shown that your statement that it wasn't is absurd.

I am truly sorry that it isn't working out for you, put hooefully, you have learned somthing.

You seem to have confused yourself.

How could the slavery aspects of the CW have been present at the beginning of the war if "He (Lincoln) brilliantly made the war about slavery," sometime after the war had begun?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, karlydee2 said:

Didn't make it right, or moral.

No, of course not but it is also unreasonable to judge people of the past by today's standards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ms maggie said:

But the war made them "count". Sort of the point. So retrospectively ignoring their right to not be enslaved in deference to the south's right to self determination is kinda hollow IMO.

Not to mention the Constitution clearly prohibits states from forming any confederation. Then there's that supremacy clause.

While I understand the concept I don't believe one right cancels out another right, especially when the past is judged by modern standards.  If the same standard were used during the revolution then we didn't have the right to "secede" from Great Britain.  IOW, the right of self determination does not contain a morality clause, the fact that they had legal slavery did not negate the colonies right to independence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Smokey 1 said:

Do you believe the preservation of slavery was the reason every southern soldier fought and the abolishment of slavery the motive for northern soldiers?  Your blanket judgments are not realistic or accurate.  

As long as there were slaves, there was a social class beneath them. If slaves wree freed, that distinction would disappear, and they would be equal with the class that had just been beneath them. In many places, they scarcely recognized as human beings could now out vote them.

So yeah, in the main, they were fighting to protect slavery. It was an integral part of their social structure.

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

No, of course not but it is also unreasonable to judge people of the past by today's standards. 

They, of course, knew it was immoral. Otherwise, they wouldn't have had to pass laws to keep slaves in their place.

Quote

We can be forgiven if we interrogate Jefferson posthumously about slavery. It is not judging him by today’s standards to do so. Many people of his own time, taking Jefferson at his word and seeing him as the embodiment of the country’s highest ideals, appealed to him. When he evaded and rationalized, his admirers were frustrated and mystified; it felt like praying to a stone. The Virginia abolitionist Moncure Conway, noting Jefferson’s enduring reputation as a would-be emancipator, remarked scornfully, “Never did a man achieve more fame for what he did not do."


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-35976004/#zV8O4RVQAiMcyVhd.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

While I understand the concept I don't believe one right cancels out another right, especially when the past is judged by modern standards.  If the same standard were used during the revolution then we didn't have the right to "secede" from Great Britain.  IOW, the right of self determination does not contain a morality clause, the fact that they had legal slavery did not negate the colonies right to independence. 

You are quite the defender of ancient standards.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VOSA said:

You seem to have confused yourself.

How could the slavery aspects of the CW have been present at the beginning of the war if "He (Lincoln) brilliantly made the war about slavery," sometime after the war had begun?

 

How could the slavery aspects of the CW not have been present at the beginning of the war if He (Lincoln) said slavery was the only conflict just before the had begun?

And you can quote me on that. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, karlydee2 said:

You are more likely to be murdered raped or robbed by a white person -- own it

 

Provide an example of my bigotry -- please -- I find that from time to time self introspection and character analysis is good for the soul, so

 

if you can provide me example (me - a White man with a BLACK/Multiracial spouse and multiracial children that has suffered housing discrimination due to the race of my spouse and seen my children illegally detained and searched by police) - I will take it under advisement and strive to be less bigoted

I had no idea you're white. Lmao. You must be the male version of Rachel Dolezal...you're white but want very much to be black.

By all means, continue to wear your "I'm a White man with a BLACK/Multiracial spouse and multiracial children" badge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Smokey 1 said:

While I understand the concept I don't believe one right cancels out another right, especially when the past is judged by modern standards.  If the same standard were used during the revolution then we didn't have the right to "secede" from Great Britain.  IOW, the right of self determination does not contain a morality clause, the fact that they had legal slavery did not negate the colonies right to independence. 

I don't know if "secede" is the relevant issue with throwing off colonialism? It's a "revolt" by definition, right? The colonies weren't a full and equal part of the UK, they clearly didn't enjoy the same rights nor had they ever agreed to perpetual colonialism. As in " perpetual union" as we had in the US.

And slavery wasn't the reason the colonies revolted. At the end of the day the revolution came down to a military struggle. Neither side had an issue with slavery.

Secession was clearly a violation of the Constitution. Not aware of any similar freely entered into agreement with the colonies and the UK.

I think you may be overlooking the fact that the CSA monuments were erected post war, many post war, under Jim Crow. Any way you look at it, it was an affront to the black population.

Edited by ms maggie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ms maggie said:

I don't know if "secede" is the relevant issue with throwing off colonialism? It's a "revolt" by definition, right? The colonies weren't a full and equal part of the UK, they clearly didn't enjoy the same rights nor had they ever agreed to perpetual colonialism. As in " perpetual union" as we had in the US.

And slavery wasn't the reason the colonies revolted. At the end of the day the revolution came down to a military struggle. Neither side had an issue with slavery.

Secession was clearly a violation of the Constitution.

Can you cite the section of the Constitution that "clearly" shows it as a violation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

Can you cite the section of the Constitution that "clearly" shows it as a violation?

Article 1, section 10.

1. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

Article 4, section 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ms maggie said:

Article 1, section 10.

1. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

Article 4, section 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Nope, that is not clear at all.  That would only apply to what a state could not do as a state, they didn't join a confederation of other states within the union, they did so after leaving the union which is not addressed in the Constitution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Smokey 1 said:

Nope, that is not clear at all.  That would only apply to what a state could not do as a state, they didn't join a confederation of other states within the union, they did so after leaving the union which is not addressed in the Constitution. 

Article 4 clearly forbids that. "Supreme law of the land". 

Had the framers supported secession they would have codified a process.

You know history. The underlying tenet here was in terms of ultimate sovereignty the individual states deferred to the federal government. Hell even the Articles of  Confederation ceded that to a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Smokey 1 said:

No, of course not but it is also unreasonable to judge people of the past by today's standards. 

Enslavement of another human being is repugnant by the standards of any time and place -- regardless that some Empires or countries practiced such crimes against humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, ms maggie said:

Article 4 clearly forbids that. "Supreme law of the land". 

Had the framers supported secession they would have codified a process.

 

They Did.

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

New States formed under this clause are not automatically admitted into the Union -- therefore -- the Southern States could have formed a super-state with Congressional Approval -- and then not sought re-admission.

 

Not actually secession (constitutionally illegal) -- but functionally equivalent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

Nope, that is not clear at all.  That would only apply to what a state could not do as a state, they didn't join a confederation of other states within the union, they did so after leaving the union which is not addressed in the Constitution. 

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation

 

CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA 

are you that obtuse - it's clear as day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, karlydee2 said:

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation

 

CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA 

are you that obtuse - it's clear as day

Like I said to msmaggie, that only prohibited a state that was IN THE UNION from forming a "confederation".  Once a state had left the US it was no longer bound by the Constitution of the US.  Nothing obtuse about it, when you secede from a country you are no bound by their laws.  That is "clear is as day". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0