historian said:

---

Good point. Trump definitely is no Angel. However, many people support him because he has a record of success and on delivering on promises. Not many politicians can say that. The only modern example I can think of is Reagan, who was also one of the most popular in his day. For what it's worth, Reagan is the only president since Eisenhower to win two landslide victories. That says something about his popularity. Arguably, Reagan won 3 in that GHW Bush (#41) won by a sizable margin largely on Reagan's coattails. He then squandered it with, "Read my lips…"

---

What were his promises? He lied about building a wall and Mexico would pay for the wall. He lied about fiscal sanity leaving us with largest debt in history.

You may be referring to moving the Israeli capital to Jerusalem of which 80% of us could care less except for the fact we probably paid for that too.

Promise to end Obamacare? Failed in that regard too. Congress just wouldn't listen to him.

Debt: Failed on promise to eliminate

Manufacturing: Bringing jobs back failed by the end of his term.

Yes, rules like treason.

historian said:

---

Yes, rules like treason.

---

A State can not engage in insurrection or treason against itself.

Nor can they "over throw" a Federal government by simply withdrawing from it

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

IF the States that wanted to secede brought it to Congress and attempted a vote and won. THEN you would be right, that is not illegal. It has to be in both party's best interest to break apart the Union. Can't just leave...

---

Thank you for the excellent point! If the south wanted to leave the union in a peaceful and orderly fashion they should have sought a legal remedy: try to negotiate with Lincoln, put forward a resolution in Congress through their representatives, or take it to the courts. Of course, with any of these options, they would also have to accept the results if they lost. Instead, they chose to start a war, which they still lost, at great cost to both sides.

Regardless, the south started the war. No obfuscation, deception or rhetoric will change that fact.

This is rich

Karen Carter Peterson politicking at DNC after release from prison for stealing from La. Democratic party

Click photo for more...
https://t.co/z2OX8h6dYM

— WWL-TV (@WWLTV) August 21, 2024

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Voice of Reality:

The colonial citizens are patriotic revolutionaries because they defeated Britain.
The Southerners are traitors because they lost to the North.

It is that simple. Reasons, initiating incidents, etc. do not matter.
Only outcome determines how the victors and losers are categorized.

---

The Khmer Rouge were patriots fighting for their cause against imperialists. The Bolsheviks were patriotic Russians breaking the grip of monarchy.

Don't think it's that simple. Cause and purpose does matter.

---

The Khmer Rouge were "patriots" until the Vietnamese destroyed them.
It is "that simple". Winners dictate categorization.
When they were winners they dictated status. When they lost they didn't.

The Bolsheviks were patriots for decades until the economic pressure of the West caused the Soviet state to implode. As they left power they stopped being patriots.
When they were winners they dictated status. As subsequent losers they didn't.

Your examples do not support but rather undermine your point.

And it works both ways. Iran's democracy advocates were patriots for a few months until Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists destroyed them. Russian democracy advocates were patriots until Putin, the other Former KGB agents, and the sympathetic oligarchs destroyed them.

The French Revolution…..the Nazis…..,Peronistas……the list goes on and on. Everyone is a patriot until they lose power. They then join the ever growing list of state enemies.

---

Excellent point. To the Soviets, World War II was the Great Patriotic War and Stalin was a hero. Make no mistake: Stalin was a monster far worse than Hitler.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

IF the States that wanted to secede brought it to Congress and attempted a vote and won. THEN you would be right, that is not illegal. It has to be in both party's best interest to break apart the Union. Can't just leave...

---

Much like Separate But Equal was settled by Plessy v Ferguson? Like Roe v Wade settled abortion as a constitutionally protected fundamental right?

Like any other piece of paper, a SCOTUS opinion is only worthwhile until enough of the right people decide it no longer is.

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Yes, rules like treason.

---

A State can not engage in insurrection or treason against itself.

Nor can they "over throw" a Federal government by simply withdrawing from it

---

The confederacy made war against the US. That's part of the constitutional definition of treason. I've already made that point but you keep ignoring it and keep pretending that they were an independent nation just because they said so. That's not how reality works.

The earlier post about the loonie at the DNC reminded me of this:

https://notthebee.com/article/matt-walsh-wass

I'm glad to be back on topic!

historian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

IF the States that wanted to secede brought it to Congress and attempted a vote and won. THEN you would be right, that is not illegal. It has to be in both party's best interest to break apart the Union. Can't just leave...

---

Thank you for the excellent point! If the south wanted to leave the union in a peaceful and orderly fashion they should have sought a legal remedy: try to negotiate with Lincoln, put forward a resolution in Congress through their representatives….

---

Uh they did

Lincoln refused to negotiate on the issue of separation.

Their representatives and Senators explained their reasons in Congress and even gave speeches explaining their actions.

[I rise Mr. President [John C. Breckinridge], for the purpose of announcing to the Senate that I have satisfactory evidence that the State of Mississippi, by a solemn ordinance of her people in convention assembled, has declared her separation from the United States. Under these circumstances, of course my functions are terminated here. It has seemed to me proper, however, that I should appear in the Senate to announce that fact to my associates…] -Sen. Davis

https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/archives/documents/jefferson-davis-farewell-address

Lincoln chose to risk war and invasion to force those States back into the Union at bayonet point.

And drove Virginia and the upper South States to secede.

A major tactical mistake

[Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers on April 15, turned momentum toward secession, and the convention voted on April 17 to leave the Union. Virginians expressed their agreement at the polls on May 23. The state had joined the Confederacy.] -Encyclopedia of Virginia

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

This is rich

Karen Carter Peterson politicking at DNC after release from prison for stealing from La. Democratic party

Click photo for more...
https://t.co/z2OX8h6dYM

— WWL-TV (@WWLTV) August 21, 2024

---

She should have stuck to shoplifting $949.95 at a time.

They did not accept losing the argument. They started a war.

historian said:

---

They did not accept losing the argument. They started a war.

---

There was not "losing argument". Secession is not forbidden by the Constitution.

Lincoln called for 75,000 troops and invaded the Southern States. Because he would not negotiate legal separation.

He started the war.

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Yes, rules like treason.

---

A State can not engage in insurrection or treason against itself.

Nor can they "over throw" a Federal government by simply withdrawing from it

---

The confederacy made war against the US. That's part of the constitutional definition of treason. I've already made that point but you keep ignoring it and keep pretending that they were an independent nation just because they said so. That's not how reality works.

---

States have a right to defend themselves and their citizens for invasion.

Lincoln had no Constitutional right to declare martial law over the entire country and invade sovereign States with military force.

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

Virginia had ever right to defend herself from invasion

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

---

You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?

People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.

Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.

[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.

---

Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years. I don't care if Lincoln, Grant and Lee perform a Rock Opera on how wrong they were. Supreme Court ruled.

Most rulings have descending opinions, if they lose they are just that opinions.

You keep fighting this Southern Lost Cause and that the South was wronged narrative. They were traitors. Lee was a traitor. He took an oath and went against it. Really pretty straight forward.

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

They did not accept losing the argument. They started a war.

---

There was not "losing argument". Secession is not forbidden by the Constitution.

Lincoln called for 75,000 troops and invaded the Southern States. Because he would not negotiate legal separation.

He started the war.

---

I'm no expert, but didnt he do that after the Battle for Fort Sumter?

Treason is unconstitutional and those who fired the shots started the war, not the leader who reacted appropriately.

You can repeat the Lost Cause schtick as often as you like but it's still not true.

It wasn't really a battle, and more of a bombardment. The Union forces surrendered when they ran out of supplies. To answer your question, yes Lincoln took those actions after the Confederates started the war by firing upon the US Army in the fort. By any legal definition, that is an act of war.

cms186 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

They did not accept losing the argument. They started a war.

---

There was not "losing argument". Secession is not forbidden by the Constitution.

Lincoln called for 75,000 troops and invaded the Southern States. Because he would not negotiate legal separation.

He started the war.

---

I'm no expert, but didnt he do that after the Battle for Fort Sumter?

---

Yep,

Thought of course that was an engagement that killed not one and was with South Carolina militia

He then decided to invade Virginia

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

---

You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?

People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.

Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.

[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.

---

Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..

---

A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861

In 1861 there was no Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and no Supreme Court case that forbid secession.

The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

---

You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?

People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.

Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.

[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.

---

Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..

---

A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861

In 1861 there as not Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and not Supreme Court case that forbid secession.

The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence

---

No they didn't. Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty. They must follow the Fed law even if they disagree. Sorry, your argument is Lost Cause BS ...

BREAKING: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s running mate Nicole Shanahan says Friday’s press conference “is going to be one of the biggest events in American election history.”

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) August 21, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Voice of Reality:

The colonial citizens are patriotic revolutionaries because they defeated Britain.
The Southerners are traitors because they lost to the North.

It is that simple. Reasons, initiating incidents, etc. do not matter.
Only outcome determines how the victors and losers are categorized.

---

The Khmer Rouge were patriots fighting for their cause against imperialists. The Bolsheviks were patriotic Russians breaking the grip of monarchy.

Don't think it's that simple. Cause and purpose does matter.

---

Well we know that was not not true...

They always held themselves out a the revolutionary vanguard of the coming international communist world revolution...not as Russian patriots.


[The Bolsheviks were a faction of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party that originated in 1903. By 1907, 78.3% of the Bolsheviks were Russian, while 10% were Jewish. However, the revolutionary elite was made up of nearly two-thirds ethnic minorities, including Jews, Latvians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Armenians, and Poles. Ethnicity was closely linked to class in the Bolsheviks' social composition, suggesting that both were important factors in their political radicalism]

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/592862#:~:text=It%20takes%20as%20its%20point,thirds%20of%20Russia's%20revolutionary%20elite.

[Lenin was consistently opposed to what he labeled "Great Russian chauvinism," even accusing non-Russian comrades like Stalin and Orjonikidze of such attitudes]

---

At least you're consistent. I'll give you that.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

---

You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?

People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.

Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.

[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.

---

Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..

---

A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861

In 1861 there as not Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and not Supreme Court case that forbid secession.

The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence

---

No they didn't. Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty. They must follow the Fed law even if they disagree. Sorry, your argument is Lost Cause BS ...

---

quote the fed law in place in 1860 or tenth amendment applies

There is a reality at the DNC that is the same as the RNC. And what makes the parties the same should worry you the most and must change. pic.twitter.com/3x4ZQD02TO

— Christopher C. Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) August 22, 2024

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Voice of Reality:

The colonial citizens are patriotic revolutionaries because they defeated Britain.
The Southerners are traitors because they lost to the North.

It is that simple. Reasons, initiating incidents, etc. do not matter.
Only outcome determines how the victors and losers are categorized.

---

The Khmer Rouge were patriots fighting for their cause against imperialists. The Bolsheviks were patriotic Russians breaking the grip of monarchy.

Don't think it's that simple. Cause and purpose does matter.

---

Well we know that was not not true...

They always held themselves out a the revolutionary vanguard of the coming international communist world revolution...not as Russian patriots.


[The Bolsheviks were a faction of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party that originated in 1903. By 1907, 78.3% of the Bolsheviks were Russian, while 10% were Jewish. However, the revolutionary elite was made up of nearly two-thirds ethnic minorities, including Jews, Latvians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Armenians, and Poles. Ethnicity was closely linked to class in the Bolsheviks' social composition, suggesting that both were important factors in their political radicalism]

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/592862#:~:text=It%20takes%20as%20its%20point,thirds%20of%20Russia's%20revolutionary%20elite.

[Lenin was consistently opposed to what he labeled "Great Russian chauvinism," even accusing non-Russian comrades like Stalin and Orjonikidze of such attitudes]

---

At least you're consistent…

---

I try to be!

Trump’s lead in the odds just hit 7%. pic.twitter.com/HddkW33YKz

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) August 22, 2024

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Voice of Reality:

The colonial citizens are patriotic revolutionaries because they defeated Britain.
The Southerners are traitors because they lost to the North.

It is that simple. Reasons, initiating incidents, etc. do not matter.
Only outcome determines how the victors and losers are categorized.

---

The Khmer Rouge were patriots fighting for their cause against imperialists. The Bolsheviks were patriotic Russians breaking the grip of monarchy.

Don't think it's that simple. Cause and purpose does matter.

---

The Khmer Rouge were "patriots" until the Vietnamese destroyed them.
It is "that simple". Winners dictate categorization.
When they were winners they dictated status. When they lost they didn't.

The Bolsheviks were patriots for decades until the economic pressure of the West caused the Soviet state to implode. As they left power they stopped being patriots.
When they were winners they dictated status. As subsequent losers they didn't.

Your examples do not support but rather undermine your point.

And it works both ways. Iran's democracy advocates were patriots for a few months until Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists destroyed them. Russian democracy advocates were patriots until Putin, the other Former KGB agents, and the sympathetic oligarchs destroyed them.

The French Revolution…..the Nazis…..,Peronistas……the list goes on and on. Everyone is a patriot until they lose power. They then join the ever growing list of state enemies.

---

That makes absolutely no sense. It would be like me taking your examples and saying the British were the patriots until the colonialists won (they fought the French and Indian War for the colonies), or the Union and not the Confederacy were traitors, until they weren't.

We can still view Iranian democracy advocates as the right cause over the Islamist tyranny that is still in place today regardless of their success. Again, cause and purpose DO matter and victory does NOT always determine how one is viewed historically. In fact history is full of victors whose triumph was a scourge on the people and regions of the world.

historian said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Voice of Reality:

The colonial citizens are patriotic revolutionaries because they defeated Britain.
The Southerners are traitors because they lost to the North.

It is that simple. Reasons, initiating incidents, etc. do not matter.
Only outcome determines how the victors and losers are categorized.

---

The Khmer Rouge were patriots fighting for their cause against imperialists. The Bolsheviks were patriotic Russians breaking the grip of monarchy.

Don't think it's that simple. Cause and purpose does matter.

---

The Khmer Rouge were "patriots" until the Vietnamese destroyed them.
It is "that simple". Winners dictate categorization.
When they were winners they dictated status. When they lost they didn't.

The Bolsheviks were patriots for decades until the economic pressure of the West caused the Soviet state to implode. As they left power they stopped being patriots.
When they were winners they dictated status. As subsequent losers they didn't.

Your examples do not support but rather undermine your point.

And it works both ways. Iran's democracy advocates were patriots for a few months until Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists destroyed them. Russian democracy advocates were patriots until Putin, the other Former KGB agents, and the sympathetic oligarchs destroyed them.

The French Revolution…..the Nazis…..,Peronistas……the list goes on and on. Everyone is a patriot until they lose power. They then join the ever growing list of state enemies.

---

Excellent point. To the Soviets, World War II was the Great Patriotic War and Stalin was a hero. Make no mistake: Stalin was a monster far worse than Hitler.

---

I think you're making my point, not his. Hitler, like Stalin, had a very fervent following as he rose to power and galvanized the people. Doesn't change the reality that their causes and purposes were brutal and wrong during the victories/reigns and after their falls.

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

---

You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?

People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.

Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.

[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.

---

Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..

---

A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861

In 1861 there as not Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and not Supreme Court case that forbid secession.

The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence

---

No they didn't. Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty. They must follow the Fed law even if they disagree. Sorry, your argument is Lost Cause BS ...

---

quote the fed law in place in 1860 or tenth amendment applies

---

Lincoln said it best...

The idea of a national government agreeing to its own termination was absurd. No constitution of any country in the world would offer provisions supporting its dissolution.
The Union is not a "voluntary association". In ratifying the Constitution, the agreement was that the states were subsidiary to the Federal government. The Constitution is not a contract with the states, but rather with the people; and even if it were, the principles of contractual law would bar unilateral secession. Consent from all parties to a contract is required to rescind it. If one party pulls out, then they would be in breach of the terms.
Third, Lincoln further pointed out that the country existed before the Constitution. The signatories of the Declaration of Independence were British colonists, and as such, they declared their independence as a Union the United States. They signed as representatives of the people of their colony to declare the nation independent, not 13 separate countries. Hence, the states were never "sovereign" to begin with.
Further, the Union was declared to be perpetual by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (note the title) and subsequently expressed to be made "more perfect" by the Preamble to the Constitution. The Constitution's purpose was to strengthen the horrendously weak central government of the Articles of the Confederation, under which the Union was already perpetual. It certainly doesn't follow that strengthening the central government would somehow make the Union non-perpetual. It's very hard to see how a perpetual union, being made to be more perfect, could be so if it could be destroyed by any state at will. "… in order to form a more perfect union" can mean a lot of things, but it can't mean that we aren't perpetual; or else it isn't more perfect.

No government in history has been perpetual.

The statements in the Declaration of Independence stand in radical opposition to the idea of perpetual government.

The entirety of the Bill of Rights is to protect citizens from abuses by our own government.

Among those rights are the 2nd Amendment. If we have the right to bear arms to address government abuse, doesn't that inherently lend itself to the idea that the states as agencies of those same citizens are also "protected" by that same 2nd Amendment scope?

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Voice of Reality:

The colonial citizens are patriotic revolutionaries because they defeated Britain.
The Southerners are traitors because they lost to the North.

It is that simple. Reasons, initiating incidents, etc. do not matter.
Only outcome determines how the victors and losers are categorized.

---

The Khmer Rouge were patriots fighting for their cause against imperialists. The Bolsheviks were patriotic Russians breaking the grip of monarchy.

Don't think it's that simple. Cause and purpose does matter.

---

The Khmer Rouge were "patriots" until the Vietnamese destroyed them.
It is "that simple". Winners dictate categorization.
When they were winners they dictated status. When they lost they didn't.

The Bolsheviks were patriots for decades until the economic pressure of the West caused the Soviet state to implode. As they left power they stopped being patriots.
When they were winners they dictated status. As subsequent losers they didn't.

Your examples do not support but rather undermine your point.

And it works both ways. Iran's democracy advocates were patriots for a few months until Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists destroyed them. Russian democracy advocates were patriots until Putin, the other Former KGB agents, and the sympathetic oligarchs destroyed them.

The French Revolution…..the Nazis…..,Peronistas……the list goes on and on. Everyone is a patriot until they lose power. They then join the ever growing list of state enemies.

---

That makes absolutely no sense. It would be like me taking your examples and saying the British were the patriots until the colonialists won (they fought the French and Indian War for the colonies), or the Union and not the Confederacy were traitors, until they weren't.

We can still view Iranian democracy advocates as the right cause over the Islamist tyranny that is still in place today regardless of their success. Again, cause and purpose DO matter and victory does NOT always determine how one is viewed historically. In fact history is full of victors whose triumph was a scourge on the people and regions of the world.

---

You are boasting morality. I am talking label application. The victor gets to apply the labels.

"We" aren't applying labels in Iran. We can judge from afar but I guarantee you that all labeling within Iran is done by their leadership.

The more they talk the more they drop. #DNC2024 pic.twitter.com/yfWrUBUkpa

— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) August 22, 2024