View Full Version : SC Gov to push for removal of confederate flag.
Digital_Damage
06-22-15, 13:14
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/south-carolina-governor-to-call-for-removal-of-confederate-flag-report/ar-AAbXAw4
Racism aside, I never understood why people cling to a flag that was used by a bunch of traitors on the losing side of a civil war.
sevenhelmet
06-22-15, 13:36
While can see the importance from a standpoint of history, I also see that it's a very inflammatory symbol of racism and slavery to many. While I would not support a ban on the flag itself, I think flying it above the state's capital is doing more harm than good. However, I am not from the South, so maybe someone who is can explain why I'm wrong.
Someone should ask Hilary about that blue star on the AR flag and what it stands for.
BoringGuy45
06-22-15, 13:49
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/south-carolina-governor-to-call-for-removal-of-confederate-flag-report/ar-AAbXAw4
Racism aside, I never understood why people cling to a flag that was used by a bunch of traitors on the losing side of a civil war.
For partially that reason. The history books portray it as a war between the heroic North, which stood for freedom and brotherhood for all men, and the evil South, which stood for oppression, racism, and hatred. It's been 150 years, and the South is still told they ought to be ashamed of themselves even today, that slavery can never be forgiven, and being the descendant of a slave owner is as bad as owning slaves yourself. However, there was the very true accusation that the North was hypocritical in condemning slavery, while allowing sweatshops to exist where people were held in what was slavery in just about every sense of the word. Also, Southerners are portrayed as uncouth, stupid, racist, and generally a worthless segment of the U.S. population that the North would be best off just genociding.
Thus, while I understand completely how the Confederate flag is viewed as racist, I also see how it's also seen as a symbol of pride. Despite being told for 150 years that they are lower than the scum of the earth, the South hangs on to the symbol of the time when they stood up and fought. But all that said, it does bring a connotation of racism and disunity. It's hard to proclaim loyalty to America and opposition to racism when one has the symbol of the faction that revolted against America in order to keep slavery. Those who cling bitterly to avenging the South are no better than those who demand reparations slavery.
Again, don't let this post indicate that I support flying the Confederate flag. I don't. I just see (partially) where they are coming from.
MountainRaven
06-22-15, 13:51
I see the flying of the Confederate battle flag as chiefly being a sign of ignorance: If you're going to display your Southern "pride", why not fly the first or third Confederate civil flags?
I also see it as being akin to Germans flying Nazi flags. I understand the history and the flag certainly should be flown for re-enactment events. But outside of that it suggests that the dark days that ultimately ended when the armies flying those flags struck their colors and left the field of battle aren't really over. Particularly when those colors had been struck and were only again hoisted in official fashion during the 1960s.
And we live in an era where half of the country firmly believes we're living on Mars while the other half equally firmly believes we're living on Venus (both sides happily ignorant of the fact that we are actually on earth and equally convinced that anyone who doesn't believe as they do is certifiably insane) - and certain persons have managed to convince themselves that the Civil War wasn't about slavery at all (despite slavery being mentioned in virtually every paragraph of South Carolina's declaration of secession). Because historical revisionism is cool, I guess.
Thats a good point re Germans flying the Nazi flag. Sure the Nazis did some bad stuff, but it was a time when they were being oppressed by everyone and yet stood up to fight. Right?
brickboy240
06-22-15, 14:23
Isn't the current place for this flag the "compromise position" they chose already?
The flag is on a monument to fallen soldiers...not a memorial to slavery, slave owners or the slave trade. It is historically the flag they carried into battle. Most of the soldiers that died under that battle flag in SC NEVER owned slaves. The flag is small and on a much shorter pole than where it was before.
"...but, but it is used as a symbol of racism"
Yeah but the Klan also burns crosses in people's yards and carries the US Flag as well. Should we take the cross off the top of the church where the 9 were shot? I mean...the Klan carries that same cross....right?
The left (...and mostly liberal white northerners) have turned that flag into a symbol of slavery. They have beaten it into everyone's heads that we cannot have that flag anywhere.
I say that the flag should stay, since it is on a war memorial for fallen soldiers....NOT a memorial to slave owners or the slave trade. Slavery was the law of the land for a long time under the US flag but nobody is calling for taking it down on the Iwo Jima Memorial or any other war memorials...are they?
The flap over this flag is just silly. A little education in why it is on that memorial would go a long way. It is NOT intended to be a middle finger to blacks in that state - they have turned int into such a symbol and that is a tragedy.
Someone should ask Hilary about that blue star on the AR flag and what it stands for.
The blue star above "ARKANSAS" represents the Confederate States of America, which Arkansas joined in secession.
sevenhelmet
06-22-15, 14:24
Also, Southerners are portrayed as uncouth, stupid, racist, and generally a worthless segment of the U.S. population that the North would be best off just genociding.
Wow, I've never heard the South portrayed that way. Is this something you've actually heard said, or is it a projection of people's adverse reaction to Southern culture?
Pretty extreme to say that about one's fellow Americans- regardless of their individual failings.
I never understood why people cling to a flag that was used by a bunch of traitors on the losing side of a civil war.
Had the U.S. lost the Revolutionary War, that's precisely what people would say about anyone flying the stars and stripes.
sevenhelmet
06-22-15, 14:30
Had the U.S. lost the Revolutionary War, that's precisely what people would say about anyone flying the stars and stripes.
Probably. However, history is largely defined by the winning side...
Wow, I've never heard the South portrayed that way. Is this something you've actually heard said, or is it a projection of people's adverse reaction to Southern culture?
Pretty extreme to say that about one's fellow Americans- regardless of their individual failings.
I don't know that I would say it's that extreme, but I did experience it to a degree with the family of my first wife. She and her family were from New York, and I'm born and raised in North Florida. Among the things they would look down on was my gun ownership. "Must be one of those south things" was one of the remarks about it.
brickboy240
06-22-15, 14:31
Yes...Southerners are portrayed in that matter by other Americans. Where the hell have you been hiding?
Unless you are from the South or have lived here a long time...you have no concept of how many have a sort of internal pride in being Southern. Northern people just do not feel that way about their states. Drive around anywhere in Texas and you will see the flag on everything. I don't even remember what the state flag looks like in most Northeastern states - I never saw it unless it was flying over a county seat or govt building!
Walk up and down the streets of Houston, Birmingham, Jackson, Baton Rouge or Biloxi and you will not find anyone that is dying to move to Connecticut or New Jersey! LOL
This partly explains how many Southern people DO see the Confederate Battle Flag as a symbol of Southern Pride. Many are really disgusted that the Klan has tarnished the flag's image.
Probably. However, history is largely defined by the winning side...
Of course it is. That doesn't make it correct though.
Digital_Damage
06-22-15, 14:40
Isn't the current place for this flag the "compromise position" they chose already?
The flag is on a monument to fallen soldiers...not a memorial to slavery, slave owners or the slave trade. It is historically the flag they carried into battle. Most of the soldiers that died under that battle flag in SC NEVER owned slaves. The flag is small and on a much shorter pole than where it was before.
"...but, but it is used as a symbol of racism"
Yeah but the Klan also burns crosses in people's yards and carries the US Flag as well. Should we take the cross off the top of the church where the 9 were shot? I mean...the Klan carries that same cross....right?
The left (...and mostly liberal white northerners) have turned that flag into a symbol of slavery. They have beaten it into everyone's heads that we cannot have that flag anywhere.
I say that the flag should stay, since it is on a war memorial for fallen soldiers....NOT a memorial to slave owners or the slave trade. Slavery was the law of the land for a long time under the US flag but nobody is calling for taking it down on the Iwo Jima Memorial or any other war memorials...are they?
The flap over this flag is just silly. A little education in why it is on that memorial would go a long way. It is NOT intended to be a middle finger to blacks in that state - they have turned int into such a symbol and that is a tragedy.
A war memorial to traitors... to the United States of America. There is no way of getting around that point. I could be entirely wrong, but I have never heard of another country that puts up a memorial to honor a group of losing traitorous rebels that kicked off one of a the bloodiest conflicts in history resulting in the deaths of almost 1 million people. Seems incredibly backwards in every sense.
sevenhelmet
06-22-15, 14:47
Yes...Southerners are portrayed in that matter by other Americans. Where the hell have you been hiding?
Concur, but the surprise for me was the genocide comment. I've never actually heard that suggested. I think I'd have harsh words for anyone making that sort of comment.
As to the state pride piece, I've seen state pride in other places, such as New York, especially in the city, but it's more of a "If you're not from here, go f-yourself" kind of pride. I find the Southern version more palatable. Then again, I'm Midwest by birth and a Texan by choice, so it's hardly surprising I can't stand New York.
Averageman
06-22-15, 15:18
A war memorial to traitors... to the United States of America. There is no way of getting around that point. I could be entirely wrong, but I have never heard of another country that puts up a memorial to honor a group of losing traitorous rebels that kicked off one of a the bloodiest conflicts in history resulting in the deaths of almost 1 million people. Seems incredibly backwards in every sense.
I think that "Traitors" might be a little strong.
I would suggest that you really might want to take another look at a couple more sources for your information before using the term "Traitors".
If you and I have an agreement to start and build a business and decades later I feel that I am being mistreated in our partnership, why shouldn't we agree to disagree, dissolve our union and pursue our business's independently?
That may be a oversimplification of events, but perhaps not so much. You may also say that the South fired the first shots, but again there were actions taken by the North that were not so far from the very reasons the Colonies separated from England.
Take a minute and think about what might have been the benefits to an amicable separation of the North and South. In the end both would have become stronger and more versatile economies and the million or so casualties never would have happened.
For the most part the lessons learned from such a dissolution might have been necessary to bringing them back together again under more amicable terms to fight a common enemy or to rebuild a troubled economy.
Perhaps, and we will never know for sure; had that happened peacefully we wouldn't now be under the yoke of a stronger than intended Federal Government and States rights might still mean something.
But again, the winners right the history, but I think in this case every fifty years they rewrite the history to make it a bit kinder and more progressive to suit the needs of current policy, truth be damned.
Do we allow the Federal Government to dictate the removal of that flag? Do we remove it from hats and bumper stickers next and burn all books that oppose the current view of history? Or should we allow the history to stand, support opposing views and allow the States to fly the flag they choose?
So you see, perhaps we haven't become that 'enlightened" yet, perhaps ugly as it may be history should be remembered and taught not revised. The warts and scars and stupidity are a part of what got us here.
wildcard600
06-22-15, 15:22
A war memorial to traitors... to the United States of America. There is no way of getting around that point. I could be entirely wrong, but I have never heard of another country that puts up a memorial to honor a group of losing traitorous rebels that kicked off one of a the bloodiest conflicts in history resulting in the deaths of almost 1 million people. Seems incredibly backwards in every sense.
So as long as the traitors win the war its okay ??
I say that the flag should stay, since it is on a war memorial for fallen soldiers....NOT a memorial to slave owners or the slave trade. Slavery was the law of the land for a long time under the US flag but nobody is calling for taking it down on the Iwo Jima Memorial or any other war memorials...are they?
Can not the same argument be used for the Nazi Swastika? Millions of germans died in WW2 and the majority weren't SS nor had any direct part in the holocaust.
Im not saying southerners are nazis.
Who would have thought. Had we just got rid of the SC flag racists would not have anything to cling to. Hot damn.. Brilliant. While we're at it lets not call a football team the redskins because it's inflammatory and degrading to some people by choice. While we're at it I find teams with Giants in their name derogatory and insulting towards fat people, moose tracks ice cream is insulting towards women who get the indirect toe reference. I think we should revamp the conceptual social contract to include not upsetting anyone anytime too. That will definitely stop bad people from doing bad things.
MountainRaven
06-22-15, 15:29
Most of the soldiers that died under that battle flag in SC NEVER owned slaves. The flag is small and on a much shorter pole than where it was before.
And most German soldiers fighting for the Third Reich never killed any Jews.
Yeah but the Klan also burns crosses in people's yards and carries the US Flag as well. Should we take the cross off the top of the church where the 9 were shot? I mean...the Klan carries that same cross....right?
The symbol is not the cross. It is the burning cross.
I say that the flag should stay, since it is on a war memorial for fallen soldiers....NOT a memorial to slave owners or the slave trade. Slavery was the law of the land for a long time under the US flag but nobody is calling for taking it down on the Iwo Jima Memorial or any other war memorials...are they?
Do the Germans fly Nazi flags at their war memorials? Does the Blutfahne still fly in Münch?
Maybe the Germans should construct a memorial to the fallen of WWII across the street from the Bundestag and adorn it with a little war-time Reichskriegsflagge. Nobody could possibly object to that, could they?
The Russians don't normally fly flags at their memorials to the dead of WWII, but when they do, it is the not the flag of the Soviet Union, but the flag of the Russian Federation that is flown.
If memory serves, the veterans of the Confederate militaries were treated after the war as veterans of the United States military. Therefore, the appropriate flag to fly at the monument is the American flag.
A war memorial to traitors... to the United States of America. There is no way of getting around that point. I could be entirely wrong, but I have never heard of another country that puts up a memorial to honor a group of losing traitorous rebels that kicked off one of a the bloodiest conflicts in history resulting in the deaths of almost 1 million people. Seems incredibly backwards in every sense.
People seem to have forgotten that but for the grace of Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Jefferson Davis, and the other leaders of the rebellion would have been hanged as traitors.
It is high irony to me that those who today champion states' rights look to the South as their historical champion. Their champions should be in the North, where states' rights nullified federal laws requiring that escaped slaves be returned to their "masters". Where states used their rights for good and not in defense of a patently evil institution.
It is also ironic that so many of the same people who decry Hispanics who fly the flags of their countries of origin (such as Mexico) as a symbol of "destroying and dividing" America will defend with glee a symbol of the one-time fracturing of this country. That so many who decry hyphenated Americans then proudly boast of being Southern.
brickboy240
06-22-15, 15:45
Didn't Grant own slaves?
Also, the Northern troops treated many Southern places just as the Nazis treated Poland in 1939. They beat, burned, stole and raped their way across many places in the South.
The Northern troops were not the "saviors" many make them out to be. But since they won...they get to write the history...I guess.
They were not traitors. Traitors are those that betray their country. The CSA wanted to separate from the union...not betray it. They basically wanted to go their own way and be left alone. Sound familiar? Slavery was NOT the only reason the Southern states went the way they did.
People are way too sensitive. There's not a flag, mascot, or word on this planet that offends me.
Maybe it's because I'm a white guy, of German descent, that lives in a union state...
...or maybe it's because I've got a pair.
...or thick skin.
...or more important shit to worry about.
brickboy240
06-22-15, 16:05
This is a totally created crisis.
Did you know that for many years, that flag flew over the SC capitol building?
Symbolism over substance...that is at the heart of this.
I think that "Traitors" might be a little strong.
I would suggest that you really might want to take another look at a couple more sources for your information before using the term "Traitors".
If you and I have an agreement to start and build a business and decades later I feel that I am being mistreated in our partnership, why shouldn't we agree to disagree, dissolve our union and pursue our business's independently?
That may be a oversimplification of events, but perhaps not so much. You may also say that the South fired the first shots, but again there were actions taken by the North that were not so far from the very reasons the Colonies separated from England.
Take a minute and think about what might have been the benefits to an amicable separation of the North and South. In the end both would have become stronger and more versatile economies and the million or so casualties never would have happened.
For the most part the lessons learned from such a dissolution might have been necessary to bringing them back together again under more amicable terms to fight a common enemy or to rebuild a troubled economy.
Perhaps, and we will never know for sure; had that happened peacefully we wouldn't now be under the yoke of a stronger than intended Federal Government and States rights might still mean something.
But again, the winners right the history, but I think in this case every fifty years they rewrite the history to make it a bit kinder and more progressive to suit the needs of current policy, truth be damned.
Do we allow the Federal Government to dictate the removal of that flag? Do we remove it from hats and bumper stickers next and burn all books that oppose the current view of history? Or should we allow the history to stand, support opposing views and allow the States to fly the flag they choose?
So you see, perhaps we haven't become that 'enlightened" yet, perhaps ugly as it may be history should be remembered and taught not revised. The warts and scars and stupidity are a part of what got us here.
You are no "Averageman". Methinks you need a more accurate username...
Very well written piece.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/south-carolina-governor-to-call-for-removal-of-confederate-flag-report/ar-AAbXAw4
Racism aside, I never understood why people cling to a flag that was used by a bunch of traitors on the losing side of a civil war.
A war memorial to traitors... to the United States of America. There is no way of getting around that point. I could be entirely wrong, but I have never heard of another country that puts up a memorial to honor a group of losing traitorous rebels that kicked off one of a the bloodiest conflicts in history resulting in the deaths of almost 1 million people. Seems incredibly backwards in every sense.
Well, that is one perspective. Ever hear of a little concept called the "Social Contract"? You know, as laid out right there in the second paragraph, by Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence?
Digital_Damage
06-22-15, 16:46
So as long as the traitors win the war its okay ??
Errr... Yes, then they would be in control and it would be called a revolution.
You do not see a bunch of Union Jack's in public spaces in the US do you?
Digital_Damage
06-22-15, 16:55
I think that "Traitors" might be a little strong.
I would suggest that you really might want to take another look at a couple more sources for your information before using the term "Traitors".
If you and I have an agreement to start and build a business and decades later I feel that I am being mistreated in our partnership, why shouldn't we agree to disagree, dissolve our union and pursue our business's independently?
That may be a oversimplification of events, but perhaps not so much. You may also say that the South fired the first shots, but again there were actions taken by the North that were not so far from the very reasons the Colonies separated from England.
Take a minute and think about what might have been the benefits to an amicable separation of the North and South. In the end both would have become stronger and more versatile economies and the million or so casualties never would have happened.
For the most part the lessons learned from such a dissolution might have been necessary to bringing them back together again under more amicable terms to fight a common enemy or to rebuild a troubled economy.
Perhaps, and we will never know for sure; had that happened peacefully we wouldn't now be under the yoke of a stronger than intended Federal Government and States rights might still mean something.
But again, the winners right the history, but I think in this case every fifty years they rewrite the history to make it a bit kinder and more progressive to suit the needs of current policy, truth be damned.
Do we allow the Federal Government to dictate the removal of that flag? Do we remove it from hats and bumper stickers next and burn all books that oppose the current view of history? Or should we allow the history to stand, support opposing views and allow the States to fly the flag they choose?
So you see, perhaps we haven't become that 'enlightened" yet, perhaps ugly as it may be history should be remembered and taught not revised. The warts and scars and stupidity are a part of what got us here.
You cant walk away from your obligations simply because you found out they were not in your best interest.
The moment they fired on Ft Sumpter they were indeed considered traitors.
brickboy240
06-22-15, 17:05
Wouldn't the logic of some here also brand Washington and Jefferson as "traitors" as well? When they fired on British troops at Concord Bridge...were those colonists traitors?
By that same idea...why should we even fight anything Obama does? Even if his policies are not in our best interest....we should just shut up and sit here and take it...right?
LOL
Halleluyah, I guess this means that there won't be any more race riots, or killings, etc...because, well ya know, we DID take the SC Flag down and all....
Didn't Grant own slaves?
No, he didn't. Story goes that he was given some as a wedding present or something similar, and immediately freed them due to his views on Slavery. Possibly apocryphal, but I'm not aware of anybody claiming that Grant ever owned/worked slaves.
On the controversy of the flag, I'm all for them flying it. The flag commonly flown is the battle flag, and as the "soldiers'" flag, I feel it should be separated from the slavery and racism inherent in the Confederacy. The men of the Army of Northern Virginia and the other armies the South would raise were brave, and fought for what they felt was right. Gotta respect that. I don't agree with their attempt at succession, or their reasons, but they sure as hell don't deserve to be labeled as hate filled bigot rednecks, especially considering the extreme racism prevalent in that day and age.
Averageman
06-22-15, 17:52
You cant walk away from your obligations simply because you found out they were not in your best interest.
The moment they fired on Ft Sumpter they were indeed considered traitors.
Certainly an agreement to work together is just that an agreement. Your obligation to continue to work together requires a harmonious environment in which all parties can live together and prosper. It should be a working union of States that allows all to pursue their obligation to the Union without undue punishment or retribution in the form of taxation or tariffs. That quiet simply wasn't what was happening (and I will agree this may be perhaps from a Southern viewpoint) and the Southern States greatly resented that the North was taking advantage of the agreement and taking advantage of the South,
If you will, a bit of reading that I've cut and pasted.
http://www.southernheritage411.com/truehistory.php?th=010
* Lincoln, in his first address to the country as president, threatened to invade the Confederate states if they didn't pay federal tariffs or if they didn't allow the federal government to occupy and maintain federal forts in Confederate territory.
* Lincoln and other Republicans blocked a widely popular compromise plan that may very well have prevented war, and they refused to allow the people to vote on it in a national referendum.
http://blueandgraytrail.com/features/southerncauses.html
Tariffs were permitted in the Constitution to allow the United States to generate revenue. The first act, the Tariff Act of 1789, did just that, fairly raising revenue through tariffs on imported goods. In the Tariff of 1816, however, the United States tariff structure changed from revenue producing to protectionist. These protectionist tariffs had been proposed by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton back in 1789 but the concept was pretty much ignored. Hamilton's original reason was promote the industrialization of the North.
Tariffs levied in 1816 were aimed at lucrative Southern markets. Many Northern politicians were looking at wealthy plantation owners and wanting to share that wealth with their constituents and tariffs were the means by which to accomplish this goal. Protectionist fervor, fanned by pre-1816 success creating industrial growth through the Embargo Act was somewhat muted by shippers and merchants who opposed tariffs, but in 1820 and 1824 the United States once again was trying to increase tariffs.
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/southernside.htm
Most Republicans who opposed secession said they opposed it because they believed it was unconstitutional. In their view, no state had the right to leave the Union, even if it did so peacefully and democratically, and even if the state offered to pay its share of the national debt and to pay compensation for all federal installations within its borders. Not only did most Republicans deny there was a constitutional right of secession, they also denied there was a natural right of secession. Southern leaders argued there was both a constitutional right and a natural right to peacefully separate from the Union. They maintained that, in accordance with the principles of the American Revolution, the citizens of a state were the ultimate sovereign and therefore had the God-given right to peacefully and democratically withdraw their state from the Union, to form a national government of their own choosing, and to take their place among the family of nations.
There is considerable evidence that many Republican leaders opposed secession and eventually supported waging war on the South in large part because of economic considerations. Numerous Republicans, including Lincoln, were worried about the loss of tariff revenue from the Deep South states. The Republicans favored a high federal tariff and protectionism, as did many influential Northern businessmen. They proved this by passing the Morrill Tariff in the House of Representatives before Lincoln took office. The Morrill Tariff, though not as bad as the “Tariff of Abominations” that sparked the nullification crisis in 1832-1833, more than doubled the tariff rate collected on most dutiable items entering the United States and greatly expanded the number of items covered by the tariff. At the time the bill was passed, American tariff rates stood at around 17% overall and 21% on dutiable items. The Morrill Tariff increased those rates to about 26% overall and to 36% on dutiable items.
And what further strengthened the Confederacy Lincoln made some terrible errors.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-lincoln-suspends-the-writ-of-habeas-corpus-during-the-civil-war
John Merryman, a state legislator from Maryland, is arrested for attempting to hinder Union troops from moving from Baltimore to Washington during the Civil War and is held at Fort McHenry by Union military officials. His attorney immediately sought a writ of habeas corpus so that a federal court could examine the charges. However, President Abraham Lincoln decided to suspend the right of habeas corpus, and the general in command of Fort McHenry refused to turn Merryman over to the authorities.
Federal judge Roger Taney, the chief justice of the Supreme Court (and also the author of the infamous Dred Scott decision), issued a ruling that President Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus. Lincoln didn’t respond, appeal, or order the release of Merryman. But during a July 4 speech, Lincoln was defiant, insisting that he needed to suspend the rules in order to put down the rebellion in the South.
http://www.usnews.com/news/history/articles/2009/02/10/revoking-civil-liberties-lincolns-constitutional-dilemma
Lincoln ignored a Supreme Court justice's decision overturning his order, and over the next few years, the Great Emancipator, in one of the war's starkest ironies, allowed these new restrictions, which also imposed martial law in some volatile border areas and curbed freedom of speech and the press, to expand throughout the Northern states.
As the war drew to a close, though, some historians believe Lincoln may have begun to recognize the dangers of his own unprecedented expansion of presidential war powers. More than 13,000 civilians were arrested under martial law during the war throughout the Union. But it was in Missouri, in particular, nearly a thousand miles from the nation's capital and far beyond the federal government's day-to-day reach, that Lincoln was confronted with the most dramatic example of his internal security measures' unintended consequences.
Now I would submit that the new President and his relatively new Party upon coming to power were a bit full of themselves and compromises were available and logical.
In the end, how many must die to protect the political egos on both sides that were bruised?
By the nature of you being here, I can only gather that if the current or future POTUS took such actions against you and yours, perhaps you would ask to be released from your obligation to such a union and seek out better terms with neighboring States that were under the same restrictions.
Lincoln was simply wrong and had every opportunity to keep the Union, political pressure forced his better nature and caused the Civil War, But again, much could be said about the Southern States taking a more cooperative stance.
MountainRaven
06-22-15, 18:27
And yet South Carolina never bothered to mention Northern tariffs once in their declaration of secession.
Slavery? Yup. Northern states nullifying federal laws requiring the return of escaped slaves? Yup.
But nothing about tariffs.
Oh, and Lincoln's inaugural address? Happened three months after South Carolina seceded.
And then the South didn't wait for Lincoln to march an army to restore the Union.
And the men of the South were so eager to fight for right that the Confederacy had to institute a draft long before the Union ran out of volunteers willing to risk life and limb to restore the Union and end slavery. Turns out that the bottom line of the Confederacy's slaveholding elite did not inspire much patriotism with the average white Southerner.
The South seceded because the guy they wanted in the White House lost. They seceded because the guy who won was an abolitionist. And then they started the war by shelling a fort belonging to the federal government of the United States of America. Imagine if Cuba started shelling Guantanamo Bay: I doubt anyone on this forum would want anything less than a declaration of war against Cuba.
I guess slavery is better than guns and repealing Obamacare: So many people defending the secession of the South, but not declaring secession from a president who has not only argued for Obamacare and against guns, but has acted on his convictions and has been elected twice
hhahahaha
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-21-at-2.02.53-PM.png
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/06/22/hillary-clinton-not-talking-about-92-clinton-gore-confederate-campaign-button/
Averageman
06-22-15, 19:32
And yet South Carolina never bothered to mention Northern tariffs once in their declaration of secession.
Slavery? Yup. Northern states nullifying federal laws requiring the return of escaped slaves? Yup.
But nothing about tariffs.
Oh, and Lincoln's inaugural address? Happened three months after South Carolina seceded.
And then the South didn't wait for Lincoln to march an army to restore the Union.
And the men of the South were so eager to fight for right that the Confederacy had to institute a draft long before the Union ran out of volunteers willing to risk life and limb to restore the Union and end slavery. Turns out that the bottom line of the Confederacy's slaveholding elite did not inspire much patriotism with the average white Southerner.
The South seceded because the guy they wanted in the White House lost. They seceded because the guy who won was an abolitionist. And then they started the war by shelling a fort belonging to the federal government of the United States of America. Imagine if Cuba started shelling Guantanamo Bay: I doubt anyone on this forum would want anything less than a declaration of war against Cuba.
I guess slavery is better than guns and repealing Obamacare: So many people defending the secession of the South, but not declaring secession from a president who has not only argued for Obamacare and against guns, but has acted on his convictions and has been elected twice
[B][B]And that is what happens when the Federal Government takes away States rights.
Tariffs may well have not been addressed immediately, but does that makes them less of a threat to a Union of individual States or of South Carolina individually?
If the Tariffs were in favor of the Northern States and not addressed by South Carolina, did that make them less of an issue to Texas, Georgia or Virginia?
The Draft was more essential to the South than the North due to the lack of influx on immigration to the South during the war. The North had no issue importing the Irish to fight for them and blockading the South from any imports to include the very same immigrant population they had no issues using as cannon fodder. This of course does not address why the 7000+ Black Soldiers chose to fight for of the Confederacy.
And was Lincoln truly an abolitionist? He has certainly been quoted many times to the contrary.
[B]Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I'm a bit confused as this appears to be someone who has lost control of the situation. Was he or was he not an abolitionist? Or was he more likely a Politician?
Footnoted and otherwise discussion on Lee and Grant's slave ownership
http://www.american-presidents.org/2007/02/grant-was-slave-owner.html
It's kind od ironic, today Obama said the use of the word N*$$#@ is not the problem with racism, while the governor of SC says an old flag is. Boss Hogg would be proud of her.
I have lived the capital of the Confederacy for 60 years and never met anyone that flew the flag out of racism. In fact I could count on my fingers how many times I have even seen one in a private setting. The last one I saw was some middle eastern guy went down to Fla and paid $60K for one of those General Lee Dukes of Hazard cars. He brought it back up here and a week ago he ran it off the side of I64 into the woods. Made all the news for a day or so.... They all forgot to mention that he was a racists though...... oh... that's right.. .he wasn't white, he just thought the car was cool.
http://wtvr.com/2015/06/06/holmberg-general-lee-crashes/ if you watch this video see if you can spot the racist..... hint:(white).... jeeze you gotta love politicians....
I honestly don't think that SC gov realizes how ignorant she looks when she tries to convince herself to tell the masses that Moe Jr. killed all those people because of a damn flag.
Used to be there was a sucker born every minute, I guess we're up to what... 4, 5 or 6 a minute now?
I see Confederate flags dozens of times in a day. Be it bumper stickers ,flags, or...oh yeah its on our state flag. Anybody causing trouble, race riots, church shootings? No. I will not rehash the Civil War on here. We lost but live down here and you'll understand why it still flies. The new movie coming up starring Matthew McConnaughey about the Free State of Jones during the Civil War. I LIVE in the Free State of Jones. Point being this discussion and topic is very close to my heart. The Civil War is very ingratiated in our culture because it happened on OUR ground. Man it's so cliche but it is not about race. No offense to anyone North of Virginia or West of Texas but this is up to us (the old Confederacy States) whether we want to have the flag or not. Mississippi voted on our flag and we voted to keep it how it is. Let us decide. And to add I do not put the Confederate flag on parallel with the Nazi Hakenkreuz. We weren't lining up an entire race for extermination. Was slavery wrong? Of course but I don't cross the streams with those 2 symbols. I see your point but just disagree.
But the thing that bothers me most. The thing the pisses me off and makes me sad at the same time is we have a psychopathic murderer who restarted this debate. We have a murderer who (thanks to the media) is driving this conversation. Giving him air time and exposure. Exactly what be doesn't deserve. Copycats are watching.
-Jax
While we're at it lets not call a football team the redskins because it's inflammatory and degrading to some people by choice.
I had a discussion with a Native American lady who wanted me to sign a petition banning the use of Indian related names for high school athletic teams, I asked her why she thought those names were chosen to denigrate the Indian culture, since I doubted that the parents/students that chose those names were thinking, 'Hey let's call ourselves something that represents something we don't admire.'
I lived in Nebraska for a while, don't hear anyone complaining about the dorky looking white guy that is the Cornhusker, do you?
There are plenty of legit things to bitch about.
This is a totally created crisis.
Did you know that for many years, that flag flew over the SC capitol building?
Symbolism over substance...that is at the heart of this.
I think so, apparently about 40 years, they started flying it in 1961 - 2000 not at all in response to the Civil Rights movement or any court cases regarding desegregation. Just a coincidence. Move along, move along, nothing to see here.
sevenhelmet
06-22-15, 20:22
I had a discussion with a Native American lady who wanted me to sign a petition banning the use of Indian related names for high school athletic teams, I asked her why she thought those names were chosen to denigrate the Indian culture, since I doubted that the parents/students that chose those names were thinking, 'Hey let's call ourselves something that represents something we don't admire.'
I lived in Nebraska for a while, don't hear anyone complaining about the dorky looking white guy that is the Cornhusker, do you?
There are plenty of legit things to bitch about.
On point. I'm going to remember this the next time someone bitches about Indian sports team names.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/confederate4.html
So if we have the story correct thus far....
A. It's a soldier's flag.
B. It causes otherwise ordinary people to go out and kill black people.
C. It's ok for the NAACP to harm States economies over a piece of cloth that the citizens of the State voted on.
Now according to the Governor of SC the correct answer is B and she is being cheered....
Didn't the slave ships sail out of Boston to Africa and then to Charleston? I love how Northerners like to think they are so pure in the slave debate.
...and all the confederates were a bunch of classless morons..... and still are!... and put a flag in their hands and they will kill a black person in a heartbeat.... that's what the flag is for you know.
http://www.blackconfederatesoldiers.com/prisoner-of-war-during-civil-war.html
"The Petersburg Express is informed by Lieut. Daniels, who has just arrived at Petersburg from Fort Norfolk, that some 35 or 40 Southern negroes, captured at Gettysburg, are confined at Fort McHenry. He says that they profess an undying attachment to the South. Several times Gen. Schenck has offered to release them from the Fort, if they would take the oath of allegiance to the Federal Government and join the Lincoln army. They had peremptorily refused in every instance, and claim that they should be restored to their masters and homes in the South. They say they would prefer death to liberty on the terms proposed by Schneck."1
http://scienceviews.com/parks/baltimorebastille.html
"Those imprisoned at Fort McHenry came from all classes of civilian population and from all ranks of the military. Among the most prominent civilians detained at the fort were the marshal of the Baltimore City Police force and the board of police commissioners; the mayor of Baltimore; a former governor of Maryland; members of the House of Delegates from Baltimore City and County; the congressman from the 4th Congressional District; a state senator; newspaper editors, including the grandson of Francis Scott Key; ministers, doctors, judges and lawyers. Prisoners of war included privates, officers, chaplains and surgeons. "
Well since we are on this topic and since some people would like to rewrite the history of America, here's some food for thought.
I am sure that some Native Americans aren't very happy when they see the Stars and Stripes and think about places like Wounded Knee or the idolizing of Americans who facilitated the killing and forcible relocation of Native Americans.
Multiple military installations are named after former Confederate generals such as Hood, Benning, A.P Hill, Lee, etc... So I suppose the U.S military is continuing the racist ideology of the south. Oh the horror to think that minorities from all races and creeds have served at these racist institutions. I'll bet plenty of Native Americans who were stationed at Ft. Jackson, SC (named after President Andrew Jackson) are pissed off considering he was one of the primary proponents of the Indian Removal Act- https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Indian_Removal_Act
At some point this stupidity has to stop. We are blaming guns, flags, video games, rap music, satanic rock-n-roll, TV, lack of smart phones, solar flares, sun spots and fluoride instead of putting the blame where it belongs. F&*ked up people and nothing will ever change.
Averageman
06-23-15, 06:11
Well since we are on this topic and since some people would like to rewrite the history of America, here's some food for thought.
I am sure that some Native Americans aren't very happy when they see the Stars and Stripes and think about places like Wounded Knee or the idolizing of Americans who facilitated the killing and forcible relocation of Native Americans.
Multiple military installations are named after former Confederate generals such as Hood, Benning, A.P Hill, Lee, etc... So I suppose the U.S military is continuing the racist ideology of the south. Oh the horror to think that minorities from all races and creeds have served at these racist institutions. I'll bet plenty of Native Americans who were stationed at Ft. Jackson, SC (named after President Andrew Jackson) are pissed off considering he was one of the primary proponents of the Indian Removal Act- https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Indian_Removal_Act
At some point this stupidity has to stop. We are blaming guns, flags, video games, rap music, satanic rock-n-roll, TV, lack of smart phones, solar flares, sun spots and fluoride instead of putting the blame where it belongs. F&*ked up people and nothing will ever change.
Hooooo Ahhhhhh!
And I couldn't have said it better!
Political Disclaimer: All Hoooo Ahhhhh's in this message are in no way to be construed as a Rebel Yell. Thank You.
Mauser KAR98K
06-23-15, 06:47
http://youtu.be/jREUrbGGrgM
Eurodriver
06-23-15, 06:49
Wat...
Ok...your first post was most definitely a Nexus ad!
Mauser KAR98K
06-23-15, 06:57
Wat...
Ok...your first post was most definitely a Nexus ad!
Yeah. Damn ad piped up as I clicked on the vid.
ETA: it's sad we give credence to an attention wore psycho whoes aim was to divide us more.
As much as I loath that flag, it needs to stay up. Its a reminder of the South's dark past, but also the pride we still have for ourselves and our culture. I'm not saying that the racism, Jim Crow and slavery are good parts of it, and it's not, but there is a Southern Pride that just can't be explained.
(The most racist people I know are from the North. Many of us in the South have truly mended that past).
interesting points
one part of them
“When did all this become a Republican problem? Who wrote the lyrics of the song, “Dixie?”…If you go to Arkansas, you know, all these old racial segregationists, they’re all Democrats,” Limbaugh continued. “Bill Clinton’s mentor from Arkansas, J. William Fulbright, was a proud segregationist. And Bill Clinton signed a proclamation authorizing the Confederate flag to fly over the statehouse in Arkansas.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/06/22/limbaugh-claims-important-history-is-being-overlooked-in-confederate-flag-debate-do-people-care-anymore-about-truth/
interesting points
one part of them
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/06/22/limbaugh-claims-important-history-is-being-overlooked-in-confederate-flag-debate-do-people-care-anymore-about-truth/
Stupid people are stupid and the dems are exceptionally good at exploiting and hoodwinking them.
Crow Hunter
06-23-15, 07:58
Personally, I think there should be a referendum in the State of South Carolina and the People should make the decision although I don't have a problem with them deciding to take it down. I do and will have a serious problem with it if, like is the case in Germany, it becomes illegal to display it.
As to the significance of the flag itself.
Go to a battlefield. You will see monuments all over the field for the Union units that fought there. You will see very few if any monuments to those of the South that fought there. You will see rows upon rows of honored Union dead with individual headstones and every year on Memorial Day each stone gets a US flag placed on it. On other parts of the battlefield you will see mass graves of Confederate dead with no commemoration and no flags are placed there on Memorial Day. (Although citizens will often purchase and place flags on the mass graves)
These men bravely fought against long odds for a way of life and what they believed in, whether it is deemed correct by modern morals or not. They fought the same way as American Patriots fought against the British Crown, the way the Lakota fought at the Little Bighorn.
To me the battle flag represents the soldier that fought not the cause they represented. I have family that fought on both sides. Same way as the Iron Cross represents the bravery of the German soldier. The Swastika was representative of the Nazi party, not the German soldier.
Here's my experience with said flag: Locally, it flies (actually nailed on the front of) three of the most disgusting, ramshackle houses complete with junk cars up on blocks, filthy, trash strewn yards full of weeds, old washing machines, junk of every description and populated with toothless yokels dressed in bib overalls with no shirts or shoes.
Get the picture?
They're obvious pride in this flag makes me shudder.
And yes, some in my part of the world belong to the KKK, though (except for said flag) keep a rather low profile in this day and age.
These same folks have the same flag decal stuck on the back window of their dilapidated/beater pick ups...
These sad sacks are just so proud of their flags while insisting it's not representative of racial hate, but declare the flag is simply about history.
Yeah, sure...
Whiskey_Bravo
06-23-15, 09:14
Well since we are on this topic and since some people would like to rewrite the history of America, here's some food for thought.
I am sure that some Native Americans aren't very happy when they see the Stars and Stripes and think about places like Wounded Knee or the idolizing of Americans who facilitated the killing and forcible relocation of Native Americans.
Multiple military installations are named after former Confederate generals such as Hood, Benning, A.P Hill, Lee, etc... So I suppose the U.S military is continuing the racist ideology of the south. Oh the horror to think that minorities from all races and creeds have served at these racist institutions. I'll bet plenty of Native Americans who were stationed at Ft. Jackson, SC (named after President Andrew Jackson) are pissed off considering he was one of the primary proponents of the Indian Removal Act- https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Indian_Removal_Act
At some point this stupidity has to stop. We are blaming guns, flags, video games, rap music, satanic rock-n-roll, TV, lack of smart phones, solar flares, sun spots and fluoride instead of putting the blame where it belongs. F&*ked up people and nothing will ever change.
Well said.
Didn't the slave ships sail out of Boston to Africa and then to Charleston? I love how Northerners like to think they are so pure in the slave debate.
Yes, no slave ship sailed under a southern flag. They were US, UK, and several others.
Being from the South I was going to write out a long winded response to some of the post here but realized it wouldn't matter and those that are not from the South will probably never understand anyway. For the vast majority of people in the South the battle flag represents heritage and historical pride and not hate or racism. My brief stint at living above the Mason Dixon in MN I saw and met more racist than I think I have in total here. I probably actually saw more Confederate battle flags there as well.
I've lived the vast majority of my life in the South, i.e., Florida, South Carolina, Kentucky, but most of my life in Texas.
I absolutely love the South and Texas in particular.
That said, I've yet to see a Confederate Battle Flag flown or affixed to a person's home or vehicle that isn't a low I.Q., mouth breathing, knuckle dragger.
Maybe, there are some that proudly fly this flag that are good folks, but not in my experience.
I've spent some time in the north, especially the north east and never once encountered the flag being discussed.
I'm sure I just didn't see the ones that are in evidence, but they must be few and far between as most yankees aren't into this particular flag.
Mauser KAR98K
06-23-15, 09:27
I'd rather vote for a yellow dog than a carpetbagger.
Nikki Haley should have worn two pens on her clothes. "GAR" and "GOP" to make the irony.
brickboy240
06-23-15, 09:33
What else can we take down that some find "offensive?"
LOL
So much for a free country and all...
I am sure that some Native Americans aren't very happy when they see the Stars and Stripes and think about places like Wounded Knee or the idolizing of Americans who facilitated the killing and forcible relocation of Native Americans.
I'll bet they love the Custer monument as well. I went to Wound Knee once to see if there was any type of monument there. All I found was a tiny little roadside sign that I drove by 4 times before I found it. Visiting Wounded Knee really made me sad.
brickboy240
06-23-15, 10:14
How about we remove the WWII memorial while we're at it.
Some Japanese Americans might be sad or feel excluded at the sight of this monument.
...don't want anyone to feel icky! LOL
I think it's important to look specifically at SC and this issue, not a general issue of that flag being removed from a state house per se. Many view it as there specifically as an "F U" to the Feds during Civil Rights conclusions, and the dates do match up, but the actual intent, is not 100% clear. This seems a balance write up:
The claim:
"The Confederate battle flag in South Carolina was first flown at the statehouse in 1961. "It was flown as a symbol of massive resistance to racial desegregation."
— Eugene Robinson on Sunday, June 21st, 2015 in comments on NBC's "Meet the Press"
The evidence:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jun/22/eugene-robinson/confederate-flag-wasnt-flown-south-carolina-state-/
I'm far from a PC type who's always in favor of reacting to anything that might possibly offend, but I'm willing to look at this one objectively.
What else can we take down that some find "offensive?"
LOL
So much for a free country and all...
If you're going to live in a free society, you're probably going to be offended much of the time.
BoringGuy45
06-23-15, 11:05
Didn't the slave ships sail out of Boston to Africa and then to Charleston? I love how Northerners like to think they are so pure in the slave debate.
Neither side was innocent of slavery. As I said earlier, the depiction of the heroic North vs. the evil South is not true at all. The sweatshops that so many industrialists were running in the North were absolutely no better than the slavery in the South. It was racist as well, only Irish, Italians, and other immigrants were the slaves instead of Africans. In some ways, northern slavery was worse, as it was hypocritical and deceptive. People were forced to work 12 or more hours at a time, 7 days a week, with no days off, no sick time, no workers comp. They were often forced to live on company property and were only paid in company credits, which they had to then pay back to the company for rent, food, and materials for work. The credits they were paid were usually less than the cost of rent, food, etc, meaning the more they worked, the more they were in debt, meaning they basically had to work forever. Oh, and if they were injured or maimed on the job, into debtors prison they went. There's no way around it, that's slavery. Worse than that, even after slavery was banned, these practices continued well into the 20th Century.
So the South was absolutely right to view the North as hypocritical in its condemnation of Southern slavery.
I think it's important to look specifically at SC and this issue, not a general issue of that flag being removed from a state house per se. Many view it as there specifically as an "F U" to the Feds during Civil Rights conclusions, and the dates do match up, but the actual intent, is not 100% clear. This seems a balance write up:
The claim:
"The Confederate battle flag in South Carolina was first flown at the statehouse in 1961. "It was flown as a symbol of massive resistance to racial desegregation."
Eugene Robinson on Sunday, June 21st, 2015 in comments on NBC's "Meet the Press"
The evidence:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jun/22/eugene-robinson/confederate-flag-wasnt-flown-south-carolina-state-/
I'm far from a PC type who's always in favor of reacting to anything that might possibly offend, but I'm willing to look at this one objectively.
Yes, that's right.... but the flag used to fly atop the building as FU to the Feds. But it was later voted and moved to a 'neutral' position.
Now in VA Terry "How the hell did I win the election?" McCauliffe has taken it upon himself to remove it from the vanity license plate. So a group of people had to gather names, pay fees, pay ongoing fees to have that license plate and now ... poof... another knee jerk politician pats himself on the back. Doesn't matter what it stands for... he is enlightened.
Sons of Confederate Veterans --- think about that one a minute
http://www.trbimg.com/img-5589773e/turbine/dp-mcauliffe-ban-confederate-flag-state-licens-001/580/580x381
http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/Random/the_world_is_a_magical_place.jpg
God forbid we actually do something useful like look into why this deranged loonatic was walking among the sane folks. Maybe we could even think about how to better help the next potential time bomb. NOPE. Let's remove a stupid flag that offends someone. Yeah that's do it.
How do I make the stupid stop???
Yes, that's right.... but the flag used to fly atop the building as FU to the Feds. But it was later voted and moved to a 'neutral' position.
If it's on state or Fred property, it's not neutral in that context. I don't know a thing about the Gov of SC, but I do know removal of that flag was not her idea either. Just jumping on the popularity bandwagon. We all know removal of that flag will have zero impact on future events.
Now in VA Terry "How the hell did I win the election?" McCauliffe has taken it upon himself to remove it from the vanity license plate. So a group of people had to gather names, pay fees, pay ongoing fees to have that license plate and now ... poof... another knee jerk politician pats himself on the back. Doesn't matter what it stands for... he is enlightened.
Sons of Confederate Veterans --- think about that one a minute
Yes, that one seems to be crossing the line (which in a free society will move back and forth over time). Context and legality is always part of the equation to such issues. To play devils advocate, what about someone who wants a Black Panther flag on their plate and claim it's not about hating white people, but about black freedom? Would you buy that? Me either. Should the state be involved, regardless of the topic, in printing socially contentious issues such as that? Probably not.
If you or I, as private citizens want to put a sticker on our car with that flag, or Black Panther Party, or Rainbow Love, or "you can take my guns from my cold dead hands" etc, I support that 100%. I don't honestly have issue per se with them deciding they don't want to be in the biz of socially contentious topics such as that.
Neither side was innocent of slavery. As I said earlier, the depiction of the heroic North vs. the evil South is not true at all. The sweatshops that so many industrialists were running in the North were absolutely no better than the slavery in the South. It was racist as well, only Irish, Italians, and other immigrants were the slaves instead of Africans. In some ways, northern slavery was worse, as it was hypocritical and deceptive. People were forced to work 12 or more hours at a time, 7 days a week, with no days off, no sick time, no workers comp. They were often forced to live on company property and were only paid in company credits, which they had to then pay back to the company for rent, food, and materials for work. The credits they were paid were usually less than the cost of rent, food, etc, meaning the more they worked, the more they were in debt, meaning they basically had to work forever. Oh, and if they were injured or maimed on the job, into debtors prison they went. There's no way around it, that's slavery. Worse than that, even after slavery was banned, these practices continued well into the 20th Century.
So the South was absolutely right to view the North as hypocritical in its condemnation of Southern slavery.
End of the day, no one is innocent of anything. So, shades of "guilt" are what's used, and of course the winner generally decides who the "guilty" party is. There was no country, or race (including Africans) who were not involved with slavery that didn't benefit from it in some way. It's who did what and when, and how they did it, etc, that gets parsed out over time.
Averageman
06-23-15, 13:30
Neither side was innocent of slavery. As I said earlier, the depiction of the heroic North vs. the evil South is not true at all. The sweatshops that so many industrialists were running in the North were absolutely no better than the slavery in the South. It was racist as well, only Irish, Italians, and other immigrants were the slaves instead of Africans. In some ways, northern slavery was worse, as it was hypocritical and deceptive. People were forced to work 12 or more hours at a time, 7 days a week, with no days off, no sick time, no workers comp. They were often forced to live on company property and were only paid in company credits, which they had to then pay back to the company for rent, food, and materials for work. The credits they were paid were usually less than the cost of rent, food, etc, meaning the more they worked, the more they were in debt, meaning they basically had to work forever. Oh, and if they were injured or maimed on the job, into debtors prison they went. There's no way around it, that's slavery. Worse than that, even after slavery was banned, these practices continued well into the 20th Century.
So the South was absolutely right to view the North as hypocritical in its condemnation of Southern slavery.
What is often ignored is some of the most dangerous labor done in those factories, mills and mines was done by Children.
It was so much easier to fit one of those little rascals in to the inner workings of a loom, mine shaft or mill to keep the equipment running and well oiled. Plus once the company store had you so far in debt one of the only logical though unscrupulous ways to pay it down was to put as many of your capable family members on the job.
I think a lot of our history is pretty ugly, but again, we rewrite that history every so often in order to keep the peace and pick and choose those who were on the dirty end of the stick.
I would imagine in such times if you were 10 years old and your only two choices were to be working in a cotton field or riding a couple of miles on a trolly to the bottom of a coal mine to pursue manual labor, most would choose the cotton field.
And of course no one ever beat or whipped these kids to get a little more motivation out of them....naah never happened.
If it's on state or Fred property, it's not neutral in that context.
It's not neutral in the sense of being off .gov property but it was agreed to in the fair and neutral manner that they all agreed to at the time. Now there is zero neutrality... It's simply a racist flag with respect to it's handling.
Black Panthers - Confederate Soldiers Flag
Oh my goodness... the imagery.....
Obama standing behind Tim Kane, Terry McCauliffe, Mark Warner and showing them who has a grip on things.
Cost of a confederate flag $50
Cost of a Black Panter vanity plate printing $40K
The look on the faces of three so called anti racist white Dems after removing the confederate plate and allowing the Black Panther plate ---- Priceless!
Walmart and EBay have joined in. No mas Confederados
Moose-Knuckle
06-23-15, 14:11
The blue star above "ARKANSAS" represents the Confederate States of America, which Arkansas joined in secession.
Yup, my great-great grandfather's bronze footstone . . .
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/RebelCav_zpsmckhmnzd.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/RebelCav_zpsmckhmnzd.jpg.html)
Moose-Knuckle
06-23-15, 14:21
Yes, no slave ship sailed under a southern flag. They were US, UK, and several others.
They were mostly Portuguese and Dutch slavers.
Yup, my great-great grandfather's bronze footstone . . .
1811 to 1888 = 77, pretty amazing for that time period and serving in the war!
Moose-Knuckle
06-23-15, 16:37
1811 to 1888 = 77, pretty amazing for that time period and serving in the war!
Not only was he a cavalryman during the Civil War he went on and fought in various "Indian Wars".
What else can we take down that some find "offensive?"
LOL
So much for a free country and all...
Somebody posted a quote from Rush Limbaugh, could we take him down? He's an asshat, just because somebody says mostly things you agree with doesn't mean they should be listened to. He has the integrity and moral fiber of a wounded Jackal. Fvcking draft dodger. (note: FDD is just my general term for Chickenhawks, felons, and general two-faced bitches that hide behind the flag of Patriotism for their own gain)
Personally, I think there should be a referendum in the State of South Carolina and the People should make the decision although I don't have a problem with them deciding to take it down. I do and will have a serious problem with it if, like is the case in Germany, it becomes illegal to display it.
As to the significance of the flag itself.
Go to a battlefield. You will see monuments all over the field for the Union units that fought there. You will see very few if any monuments to those of the South that fought there. You will see rows upon rows of honored Union dead with individual headstones and every year on Memorial Day each stone gets a US flag placed on it. On other parts of the battlefield you will see mass graves of Confederate dead with no commemoration and no flags are placed there on Memorial Day. (Although citizens will often purchase and place flags on the mass graves)
These men bravely fought against long odds for a way of life and what they believed in, whether it is deemed correct by modern morals or not. They fought the same way as American Patriots fought against the British Crown, the way the Lakota fought at the Little Bighorn.
To me the battle flag represents the soldier that fought not the cause they represented. I have family that fought on both sides. Same way as the Iron Cross represents the bravery of the German soldier. The Swastika was representative of the Nazi party, not the German soldier.
I don't agree that, in general, that particular flag represents those soldiers to the vast majority of people who see it.
I did not know of the disparity of the graveyards, and would be willing to help in some way to correct the problem, because it is the right thing to do. Any organizations working the issue?
I believe that the last thing many of the soldiers on either side wanted to do was fight that war. I'm sure many were just taken along by events and peer pressure (edited to add - and the politicians)
That being said, as posts #52 and #54 indicate, the Confederate flag is nothing more than a statement of hate and disrespect by many who fly it.
I'm glad to see the confederate flag fall by the wayside, and find itself on the precipice of a ban. Truly well past its time to be forced from the public eye.
I hope that this flag ban, and the infringement on free speech it entails, will protect the lives of the next innocent people faced with hatred that is held in the hearts of man.
In the long run, symbolic gestures, and curbing speech/expression you dislike will not change the nature of man. I am absolutely positive that even after every Southern Democrat Battle Flag has been removed, and destroyed, that its absence will work just as well as the "No Guns" signs do today.
A hollow "victory", to be sure.
When this measure fails the people too, please be sure to look for the next increment of freedom to take from them -- for their own good, of course.
I posted it :) do not listen to him ? just saw the link and read it but he has some truth there
dem are the party of racism and hatred toward women and minorities and controlling them there history shows proves this
kinda funny you hate him want to take him down (censor) and tell others dont listen to him etc... hahahhahaahah I find that typical of a racist lefty/dem would say ?
Somebody posted a quote from Rush Limbaugh, could we take him down? He's an asshat, just because somebody says mostly things you agree with doesn't mean they should be listened to. He has the integrity and moral fiber of a wounded Jackal. Fvcking draft dodger. (note: FDD is just my general term for Chickenhawks, felons, and general two-faced bitches that hide behind the flag of Patriotism for their own gain)
just pull the flags down and put up rainbow flags that way if you disagree with those the left can just call you homophobe racist tea bagging republican and all will be perfect/happy !
hold hands now sing kumbaya
Outlander Systems
06-23-15, 19:22
Zero ****s given on my part, regarding the flag, free speech issues notwithstanding.
But, for a dash of perspective, while we are all here, with such pressing issues to concern ourselves such as:
A flag, and people's feelings
A football with the air let out of it
A man who cut his ding-dong off and got a boob job
A group of people had their heads blown off with det cord
A group of people were blown to bits in a vehicle with an RPG
A group of people were placed in a cage, and lowered into a swimming pool
A Yazidi woman is being offered as a sex slave/grand prize in a Koran contest
So while we are over here, getting butt hurt over a bunch of inconsequential minutia, untold scores of our blood and treasure was pissed away so that some animals could take over in our absence.
****. That. Shit.
We need to wake the **** up, and deal with reality, before reality deals with us, and we were wishing we could argue over footballs, and what pattern of cloth is woven into a sheet.
Disgusting.
http://heavy.com/news/2015/06/isis-islamic-state-executes-drowns-in-cage-blows-up-spies-brutal-video-propaganda-uncensored-youtube-iraqi-espionage-men-killed/
I posted it :) do not listen to him ? just saw the link and read it but he has some truth there
dem are the party of racism and hatred toward women and minorities and controlling them there history shows proves this
kinda funny you hate him want to take him down (censor) and tell others dont listen to him etc... hahahhahaahah I find that typical of a racist lefty/dem would say ?
If you read my post I don't like the guy, he's a clown, just because I agree with much of what he says doesn't mean he isn't a clown. My belief is that when he wanted to get on the air and get famous, if it would have been more advantageous to be a liberal than a conservative, that is the road he would have taken.
But you got me, I'm a hard corps racist, who has never contributed a thing.
I said it sounds like that of a typical lefty racist dem
did not say you were :) but your response is funny :)
If you read my post I don't like the guy, he's a clown, just because I agree with much of what he says doesn't mean he isn't a clown. My belief is that when he wanted to get on the air and get famous, if it would have been more advantageous to be a liberal than a conservative, that is the road he would have taken.
But you got me, I'm a hard corps racist, who has never contributed a thing.
I'm glad to see the confederate flag fall by the wayside, and find itself on the precipice of a ban. Truly well past its time to be forced from the public eye.
I hope that this flag ban, and the infringement on free speech it entails, will protect the lives of the next innocent people faced with hatred that is held in the hearts of man.
In the long run, symbolic gestures, and curbing speech/expression you dislike will not change the nature of man. I am absolutely positive that even after every Southern Democrat Battle Flag has been removed, and destroyed, that its absence will work just as well as the "No Guns" signs do today.
A hollow "victory", to be sure.
When this measure fails the people too, please be sure to look for the next increment of freedom to take from them -- for their own good, of course.
Harrumph.
What is often ignored is some of the most dangerous labor done in those factories, mills and mines was done by Children.
It was so much easier to fit one of those little rascals in to the inner workings of a loom, mine shaft or mill to keep the equipment running and well oiled. Plus once the company store had you so far in debt one of the only logical though unscrupulous ways to pay it down was to put as many of your capable family members on the job.
I think a lot of our history is pretty ugly, but again, we rewrite that history every so often in order to keep the peace and pick and choose those who were on the dirty end of the stick.
I would imagine in such times if you were 10 years old and your only two choices were to be working in a cotton field or riding a couple of miles on a trolly to the bottom of a coal mine to pursue manual labor, most would choose the cotton field.
And of course no one ever beat or whipped these kids to get a little more motivation out of them....naah never happened.
Don't forget border states still had slavery after the war. The emancipation proclomation in 1963 was just applied to states which succeeded.
A bit of humor in the midst of all this...
http://www.voanews.com/content/northern-town-celebrates-status-as-last-confederate-holdout--131527733/163655.html
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/23/amazon-takes-down-confederate-flag-continues-to-sell-communist-merchandise/
amazon no confederate merch but communist OK
Leadership: it's not what we think it means.
I know I am gong to regret this......
The flag has become a symbol of Racism. I don't care what it originally started as, that is what it has come to embody. For the people who say it is just a flag and doesn't matter. Well I am willing to bet you are lying to yourself about that. How do you feel about people trampling all over the American flag? It should not matter since it is just a flag right?
There is a strong trend today to revise history and make it look better for certain groups. The States rights groups are really bad about this. Reading some of the documents about why the south turned traitor (and they were traitors) shows their true intentions. And it was not states rights.
The flag of traitors has no place being flown over any government building. If Johnny redneck wants to put it on the back of his truck then that is his right, just like the skinhead who put a Swastika on his. Personal freedoms and all of that.
But lets stop lying to ourselves and trying to pretend it has become anything but a symbol of racism or that the traitors were somehow heros.
Yes it can be argued that our founding fathers were traitors as well. Indeed they were. But the cause matters. And the cause of our founding fathers was just. The cause of the southern states was not.
Cause is relative....
At any rate let the politicians raise the issue at election time if their so concerned about it. I didn't see any one complaining vehemently about it prior to this incident.
ETA
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/06/23/manchin-toomey-both-interested-in-reviving-gun-control-push/
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/south-carolina-governor-to-call-for-removal-of-confederate-flag-report/ar-AAbXAw4
Racism aside, I never understood why people cling to a flag that was used by a bunch of traitors on the losing side of a civil war.
What we like to call the American Revolution was also a civil war. And we were the traitors then....
I know I am gong to regret this......
The flag has become a symbol of Racism. I don't care what it originally started as, that is what it has come to embody. For the people who say it is just a flag and doesn't matter. Well I am willing to bet you are lying to yourself about that. How do you feel about people trampling all over the American flag? It should not matter since it is just a flag right?
There is a strong trend today to revise history and make it look better for certain groups. The States rights groups are really bad about this. Reading some of the documents about why the south turned traitor (and they were traitors) shows their true intentions. And it was not states rights.
The flag of traitors has no place being flown over any government building. If Johnny redneck wants to put it on the back of his truck then that is his right, just like the skinhead who put a Swastika on his. Personal freedoms and all of that.
But lets stop lying to ourselves and trying to pretend it has become anything but a symbol of racism or that the traitors were somehow heros.
Yes it can be argued that our founding fathers were traitors as well. Indeed they were. But the cause matters. And the cause of our founding fathers was just. The cause of the southern states was not.
While I understand and agree with some of your statements to a point I was pondering part if it today. With these new groups trampling the U.S. flag because it embodies racism how many more decades till people try to push the Stars and Stripes to the side to. In my town there are people wanting to ban the CSA battle flag from any public display. How long before these people turn this on Old Glory because of some not so "Glorious" moments. That is the biggest issue in my opinion. Should it fly over a court house, no. Is it ok on a war memorial, I say yes. If it is not ok on a war memorial for CSA veterans than maybe the memorial should be removed, they are racist after all. Gettysburg, Petersburg, Antietam, Manass 1 and 2, cold harbor....... When does it end?
One writer is already taking issue with the USS Chancellorsville, a currently serving US Navy missile cruiser (Ticonderoga class). Seems it's named after a Confederate victory in the Civil War.
The current ruckus notwithstanding, I would submit that the Confederate flag is not going away any time soon. If anything, the actions to ban/restrict it will only make it's adherents more determined. You know the drill - try to ban anything and there will be resistance.
Russia and China and other countries are just laughing and checking off the days till we are no more
The Dumb Gun Collector
06-23-15, 23:19
I could care less. Take it down. It is just a flag and it, at least in GA, didn't even pop up on the flag until people were trying to thumb their noses at desegregation. Our first Republican governor did a pretty good job of waiving his hands until we swapped over to a less recognizably confederate flag. And if people want to change it then do it, who cares? I don't think it is a huge issue but then again, I am not black. But if some state in Germany wanted to unfurl the swastika out of love of heritage, I would be pretty disturbed.
THE GOOD NEWS IS they seemed to stop talking about guns as soon as they got their teeth in this distraction.
THE GOOD NEWS IS they seemed to stop talking about guns as soon as they got their teeth in this distraction.
Amen Brother Ben
I'm glad to see the confederate flag fall by the wayside, and find itself on the precipice of a ban. Truly well past its time to be forced from the public eye.
I hope that this flag ban, and the infringement on free speech it entails, will protect the lives of the next innocent people faced with hatred that is held in the hearts of man.
In the long run, symbolic gestures, and curbing speech/expression you dislike will not change the nature of man. I am absolutely positive that even after every Southern Democrat Battle Flag has been removed, and destroyed, that its absence will work just as well as the "No Guns" signs do today.
A hollow "victory", to be sure.
When this measure fails the people too, please be sure to look for the next increment of freedom to take from them -- for their own good, of course.
It's not a ban on citizen use of the flag, but rather a removal from government use and particularly the removal of it flying over state capitol grounds.
Therefore the topic has nothing to do with freedom of speech nor any incremental reduction in freedoms.
You can bet your ass they are trying to figure how can they tether guns to this momentum they have gathered. Hillary has nothing else. Racism and guns. They are throwing her a bone (npi).. she needs the 'anti-racist' vote to win. After that she's got nothing but grab guns. No health care, no International sway, no charisma, nothing... all she can do is grab guns.
BTW, in SC, that flag now flies on a memorial site for the confederacy... So they will not be removing a flag. they will be saying the Americans that for whatever reason fought and died will no longer be memorialized on .gov soil.
Which honestly I can support. I think most politicians have their heads so far up their own asses that they will never see the light of day again anyway. I think the the entire memorial and flag should be moved to private property. ... and yes, I'll bet somewhere there is someone that has a relative that was a NAZI and maybe they just want to remember in some disconnected way... how did my gradfather get mixed up in this horrible thing. It doesn't mean they hate Jews. I didn't like it when they buried the Boston Bomber here.... now I think,,, screw it... he's dead. It's not not like they have a party at his grave site every weekend. Yeah, if you were the guy's friend but aren't yourself a terrorist, go to his grave, look at his ISIS flag or whatever.... try to reason life out. For the average person it's really not that big of a deal.... for politicians though... this is their life blood.
Funny you mention that. I just finished a little road trip to South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico. We were going to stop at Wounded Knee but I was told not to waste my time since it was nothing more than a worn out marker with Native American kids begging for money and selling trinkets.
I did a lot of reading about the subject and there was a big uproar after soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor.
I'll bet they love the Custer monument as well. I went to Wound Knee once to see if there was any type of monument there. All I found was a tiny little roadside sign that I drove by 4 times before I found it. Visiting Wounded Knee really made me sad.
Displaying the Swastika in Germany is a crime against the state and the Nazi party is one of the groups specifically banned under the Strafgesetzbuch § 86a. In fact it is so egregious you would probably be investigated by the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz. As I recall even legitimate collectors of WWII memorabilia need to have a permit to possess certain items.
Not all Germans were Nazis and in fact most people were not members of the Nazi Party. Many that were did so out because they would have cast out by their peers and would have been denied jobs, etc....
I could care less. Take it down. It is just a flag and it, at least in GA, didn't even pop up on the flag until people were trying to thumb their noses at desegregation. Our first Republican governor did a pretty good job of waiving his hands until we swapped over to a less recognizably confederate flag. And if people want to change it then do it, who cares? I don't think it is a huge issue but then again, I am not black. But if some state in Germany wanted to unfurl the swastika out of love of heritage, I would be pretty disturbed.
THE GOOD NEWS IS they seemed to stop talking about guns as soon as they got their teeth in this distraction.
Mauser KAR98K
06-24-15, 06:42
Amen Brother Ben
Not so fast:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/06/23/manchin-toomey-both-interested-in-reviving-gun-control-push/
Outlander Systems
06-24-15, 06:54
Russia and China and other countries are just laughing and checking off the days till we are no more
Honu, you "get it".
Crow Hunter
06-24-15, 07:51
Okay. I should keep my mouth shut but since I had ancestors who fought for the Confederacy the term "traitor" really rubs me the wrong way in this context.
To get an understanding of what was going on at that time you have to view it through the lense morality of the time. Slaves, at that time, were considered property and they were the economic driver of the economy of the South. Whether you owned them or not, likely your job was some how related to them. Regardless of the morality that we feel today about the ownership of another human being, it was not only accepted at the time, it was the law.
Now you have people from another part of the country, chiefly large Northern cities, who don't believe in your way of life, who think you are evil for owning slaves. Who manage, via larger coastal cities with more votes, elect politicians that say that you can no longer own that property, it is morally wrong and you must surrender said property and while doing it lose your livelihood while they sit in their "ivory towers" of manufacturing, giving up nothing and living in the ultimate hypocritical action of using your raw material produced by slaves to manufacture their products and by the way continue to use it during the war via captured contraband and buy it from overseas where it is still produced via slavery. How would you respond?
Let's put it into context.
Let's say that people from another part of the country, chiefly large Northern cities, who don't believe in your way of life, who think you are evil for owning guns. Who manage, via larger coastal cities with more votes, elect politicians that say you can no longer own guns. Arms that you have owned for generations, traditions of self defense and hunting that have been passed down for legally for centuries. These weapons protect your life and defend your homestead and may even be part of your livelihood. While they, in the ultimate hypocritical action live day to day with paid armed guards protecting them. They make laws that say "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" and begin steps to strip your property from you.
What would you do, "traitor"?
Crow Hunter
06-24-15, 08:02
I did not know of the disparity of the graveyards, and would be willing to help in some way to correct the problem, because it is the right thing to do. Any organizations working the issue?
I am not 100% sure. I know that at Shiloh, there is a monument that was built and is supported by the Daughters of the Confederacy and I know when I have been close to Memorial Day, someone placed small Stars and Bars flags on the Confederate mass graves. I imagine that it is local people that do it. I don't 100% remember for sure but I think I also saw this at a couple of battlefields in Virginia. Shiloh is the one that I visit the most, after Ft Donelson since they are local to me. There aren't any marked mass graves at Ft Donelson that I am aware of. Next time I go down, I will ask in the Visitors Center and see if there is a group that is doing it or not.
Digital_Damage
06-24-15, 08:22
Okay. I should keep my mouth shut but since I had ancestors who fought for the Confederacy the term "traitor" really rubs me the wrong way in this context.
To get an understanding of what was going on at that time you have to view it through the lense morality of the time. Slaves, at that time, were considered property and they were the economic driver of the economy of the South. Whether you owned them or not, likely your job was some how related to them. Regardless of the morality that we feel today about the ownership of another human being, it was not only accepted at the time, it was the law.
Now you have people from another part of the country, chiefly large Northern cities, who don't believe in your way of life, who think you are evil for owning slaves. Who manage, via larger coastal cities with more votes, elect politicians that say that you can no longer own that property, it is morally wrong and you must surrender said property and while doing it lose your livelihood while they sit in their "ivory towers" of manufacturing, giving up nothing and living in the ultimate hypocritical action of using your raw material produced by slaves to manufacture their products and by the way continue to use it during the war via captured contraband and buy it from overseas where it is still produced via slavery. How would you respond?
Let's put it into context.
Let's say that people from another part of the country, chiefly large Northern cities, who don't believe in your way of life, who think you are evil for owning guns. Who manage, via larger coastal cities with more votes, elect politicians that say you can no longer own guns. Arms that you have owned for generations, traditions of self defense and hunting that have been passed down for legally for centuries. These weapons protect your life and defend your homestead and may even be part of your livelihood. While they, in the ultimate hypocritical action live day to day with paid armed guards protecting them. They make laws that say "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" and begin steps to strip your property from you.
What would you do, "traitor"?
Piss poor analogy, the south was largely alone in a world context with the morality of slavery. There was no provision in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or Bill of Rights guaranteeing the right to own slaves.
It is very disturbing you are trying to justify the vile act of slavery with the 2nd amendment.
Averageman
06-24-15, 08:25
Piss poor analogy, the south was largely alone in a world context with the morality of slavery. There was no provision in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or Bill of Rights guaranteeing the right to own slaves.
It is very disturbing you are trying to justify the vile act of slavery with the 2nd amendment.
Hmmm, you mean like the 3/5ths compromise of 1787?
'Cause I'm sorry, but yeah pretty much there was.
Mauser KAR98K
06-24-15, 08:25
Piss poor analogy, the south was largely alone in a world context with the morality of slavery. There was no provision in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or Bill of Rights guaranteeing the right to own slaves.
It is very disturbing you are trying to justify the vile act of slavery with the 2nd amendment.
In fact, slavery was almost written in to the Declaration as a bad institution by Jefferson, slave owner. He was asked to take it out so not to alienate to Southern Colonies.
Just thought of this in the gym. So with all the recent media coverage and talk about the Confederate battle flag and state flag of Mississippi and how bad it is that it still exist. Does this mean that all the Six Flags theme parks will be renamed Five Flags? :rolleyes:
Digital_Damage
06-24-15, 08:45
Hmmm, you mean like the 3/5ths compromise of 1787?
'Cause I'm sorry, but yeah pretty much there was.
Grasping at straws.
Nothing in the 3/5th guaranteed the right. It was put in place to not skew the electoral with counting a populous that had no free will to vote for their representatives. Once slavery was given the boot it was nullified since it served no purpose. If anything the abolishment of slavery strengthened the Southern states Voting power. They also wielded it in the most unethical way by assigning more chairmen and blocking several bills trying to remove segregation.
It would have been sickening to give the Southern states more electoral simply because they had the higher number of slaves that had no voice in the process.
brickboy240
06-24-15, 09:23
Keep letting the left and the revisionist history folks decide what stays and what goes.
Today it is the Confederate Battle Flag and statues of Jefferson Davis.
Tomorrow it will be the American flag and statues of Lincoln, Washington and others.
Laugh...but it is coming.
They are not going to be satisfied with taking down that flag and a few statues here and there.
Crow Hunter
06-24-15, 09:26
Piss poor analogy, the south was largely alone in a world context with the morality of slavery. There was no provision in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or Bill of Rights guaranteeing the right to own slaves.
It is very disturbing you are trying to justify the vile act of slavery with the 2nd amendment.
It is equally disturbing that you can't see an analogy that what is considered a "right" by a group of people that is not considered a "right" by others would be worth fighting for.
So switch it around. Instead of it being guns, make it the "right" to own land or the "right" to own a car the "right" to eat meat. There is nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that secures a persons ability to do any of those things. It is all based on currently accepted laws that could change at the whim of those in charge. It is still something that you, as a member of that society, consider a "right" and that is integral to your entire fabric of existence. Your worldview, your means of feeding your family, things your grandparents did, etc.
There are millions of people in the world and even in the US that believe the same thing about owning guns, land, cars and meat that you do about owning slaves. Does that make you a "traitor" that you want to own guns, land, cars and eat meat and would be willing to fight against those people for trying to make any of those things illegal?
The men that stood up to defend what their way of life via the right of the Individual Sovereign States to determine what goes on in their borders and leave the Union at will does not make them "traitors" anymore than the Union troops were "traitors" for fighting for a strong Federal government in which the States are merely provinces of a single unified country undermining the very foundation of what American stood for up to that point.
Personally, I think slavery is abhorrent and it did FAR more to harm America that it ever did to help it. If I could go back in time and convince my ancestors that owning slaves was a bad idea, I would. But I am not going to call them "traitors" for standing up to defend what was their way of life and their worldview at the time and I find it insulting when others do.
Especially when a very large number of people profess on this very website that they would do the exact same thing to protect their families and way of life.
MountainRaven
06-24-15, 09:30
I love how so many people who decry moral relativism within, say, the context of religion, will happily embrace it for the love of slavery.
brickboy240
06-24-15, 09:32
I asked the question and noticed it was (conveniently) ignored.
If this is the definition of "traitor" then how do you see Jefferson Davis and the CSA as traitors but give Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, Paul Revere, Ben Franklin and other revolutionaries a pass on the same smear? If the British Army had caught Washington....he surely would have been hung as a traitor...right?
Keep letting the left and the revisionist history folks decide what stays and what goes.
Today it is the Confederate Battle Flag and statues of Jefferson Davis.
Tomorrow it will be the American flag and statues of Lincoln, Washington and others.
Laugh...but it is coming.
Well since several people seem to easily compare the CSA to Nazi party. You could easily do the same to the U.S. at different time periods with foreign and domestic policies. If you are going to paint with that brush. That was my point of an earlier post with the U.S. flag stomp challenge. Not long before all my ancestors from the 1600s till now are vilified and any remeberance of them is seen as a evil act. Till it is main stream that a U.S. flag flying on a war memorial is considered wrong.
Digital_Damage
06-24-15, 09:46
I asked the question and noticed it was (conveniently) ignored.
If this is the definition of "traitor" then how do you see Jefferson Davis and the CSA as traitors but give Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, Paul Revere, Ben Franklin and other revolutionaries a pass on the same smear? If the British Army had caught Washington....he surely would have been hung as a traitor...right?
I don't think anyone answered because it was a stupid question. It is a point of view.
They were considers traitors to the crown, and certainly would have been hung if they lost the war.
The Confederacy were traitor to the United States of America, you know... our United States of America.
Averageman
06-24-15, 09:48
I love how so many people who decry moral relativism within, say, the context of religion, will happily embrace it for the love of slavery.
It has nothing to do with a "love of slavery", it has everything to do with revisionist history.
You would perhaps like to forget how many of those Founding Fathers actually owned slaves and although the beginnings of discussions about freeing slaves began by far there was no popular movement to forbid it.
The 3/5ths compromise was used in order to bring in a Union of States and was just that, a compromise to allow that union to occur.
The problem to a great degree is the Democratic Party has been allowed to control the Media and the Public school System and rewrite history, literally they have rewritten history and excluded all of the embarrassing parts.
I can see Winston Smith has been very busy down there at the Ministry of Truth erasing all of the history that might bring shame to those who currently are at the helm.
Digital_Damage
06-24-15, 10:00
It is equally disturbing that you can't see an analogy that what is considered a "right" by a group of people that is not considered a "right" by others would be worth fighting for.
So switch it around. Instead of it being guns, make it the "right" to own land or the "right" to own a car the "right" to eat meat. There is nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that secures a persons ability to do any of those things. It is all based on currently accepted laws that could change at the whim of those in charge. It is still something that you, as a member of that society, consider a "right" and that is integral to your entire fabric of existence. Your worldview, your means of feeding your family, things your grandparents did, etc.
There are millions of people in the world and even in the US that believe the same thing about owning guns, land, cars and meat that you do about owning slaves. Does that make you a "traitor" that you want to own guns, land, cars and eat meat and would be willing to fight against those people for trying to make any of those things illegal?
The men that stood up to defend what their way of life via the right of the Individual Sovereign States to determine what goes on in their borders and leave the Union at will does not make them "traitors" anymore than the Union troops were "traitors" for fighting for a strong Federal government in which the States are merely provinces of a single unified country undermining the very foundation of what American stood for up to that point.
Personally, I think slavery is abhorrent and it did FAR more to harm America that it ever did to help it. If I could go back in time and convince my ancestors that owning slaves was a bad idea, I would. But I am not going to call them "traitors" for standing up to defend what was their way of life and their worldview at the time and I find it insulting when others do.
Especially when a very large number of people profess on this very website that they would do the exact same thing to protect their families and way of life.
When they did not get their way they took up arms against their country, started their own country and were the first to commit an act of violence against the United States of America, that is the very definition of being a traitor.
You ignore a little thing called Democracy, Elected Representation and the application of law. They entered into an agreement knowing what that agreement entailed and the right to slaves was not guaranteed, they had Elected Representation to try and work within the system. They choose not to.
The term Traitor is insulting depending on the point of view, but that is exactly what they were by definition. You can dress is up and try to excuse their actions anyway you like, but until the definition of what a traitor means is changed the fact will remain they were Traitors to the United States of America.
Averageman
06-24-15, 10:00
I don't think anyone answered because it was a stupid question. It is a point of view.
They were considers traitors to the crown, and certainly would have been hung if they lost the war.
The Confederacy were traitor to the United States of America, you know... our United States of America.
A lot of those Men who signed the Declaration of Independence had to go in to hiding during the Revolutionary War. Due to the fluid lines during that war many of those Men lost their fortunes and their lives, other barely escaped.
Perhaps those here who wish to defend the North could explain the fate of those slaves that were freed and after the war fled North. I'm sure you imagine they were met with open arms and hearts.
Digital_Damage
06-24-15, 10:09
A lot of those Men who signed the Declaration of Independence had to go in to hiding during the Revolutionary War. Due to the fluid lines during that war many of those Men lost their fortunes and their lives, other barely escaped.
Perhaps those here who wish to defend the North could explain the fate of those slaves that were freed and after the war fled North. I'm sure you imagine they were met with open arms and hearts.
Well this statement give more clarity to your point of view as twisted as it is. I don't see anyone here defending the "North".
Averageman
06-24-15, 10:10
When they did not get their way they took up arms against their country, started their own country and were the first to commit an act of violence against the United States of America, that is the very definition of being a traitor.
You ignore a little thing called Democracy, Elected Representation and the application of law. They entered into an agreement knowing what that agreement entailed and the right to slaves was not guaranteed, they had Elected Representation to try and work within the system. They choose not to.
The term Traitor is insulting depending on the point of view, but that is exactly what they were by definition. You can dress is up and try to excuse their actions anyway you like, but until the definition of what a traitor means is changed the fact will remain they were Traitors to the United States of America.
Do you have any idea how the Northern States refused to compromise and continually punished the Southern States with unfair Tariffs? It is easy from the view of the Northern States to excuse the acts of aggression against the Southern States all while putting the burden of expansionism nearly completely upon their backs?
The North was guilty of reaping all of the gain a preindustrial economy could squeeze out of an agricultural economy and then complain when they couldn't get more.
The idea that there were no more compromises available was completely at odds with the facts. The newly elected President was going to be the breaking point and even before he took office inflammatory rhetoric and actions were taken knowing the South had little recourse or would have any recourse in either of the three branches of government.
But again, the War was not fought about slavery and clearly if it had been the North would have welcomed the former Slaves in to society with open arms and the horrors of the reconstruction era would never have happened.
Averageman
06-24-15, 10:12
Well this statement give more clarity to your point of view as twisted as it is. I don't see anyone here defending the "North".
Then you're not reading the posts very clearly.
If one side is to be called a "Traitor" then the actions of those whom they opposed must have been fair and equal and fully cooperative toward compromise and the equality of the union and states rights.
What I am saying is should your loyalty to a Union of States surpass your well being of your own State and the interpretations of the documents that founded it?
Crow Hunter
06-24-15, 10:32
When they did not get their way they took up arms against their country, started their own country and were the first to commit an act of violence against the United States of America, that is the very definition of being a traitor.
You ignore a little thing called Democracy, Elected Representation and the application of law. They entered into an agreement knowing what that agreement entailed and the right to slaves was not guaranteed, they had Elected Representation to try and work within the system. They choose not to.
The term Traitor is insulting depending on the point of view, but that is exactly what they were by definition. You can dress is up and try to excuse their actions anyway you like, but until the definition of what a traitor means is changed the fact will remain they were Traitors to the United States of America.
That is why I said in my original statement that most of us reading this are "traitors".
I am not ignoring that we are part of a Representational Republic. I even brought it up in my statement. The South chose to secede, as it was understood at the time, because they felt that the Union no longer represented their views and that it was tipping towards a more authoritarian central government which was intent in bringing more "Free" states into the Union and thus marginalizing the South and their entire economic system. Economic devastation was coming to the South no matter which way they went. If they stayed in the Union, slavery would have been voted out of existence and whole swaths of the population would have been economically devastated.
At least by trying to secede form their own country, which at the time was an understood "right" of the States, they might have been able to continue. The Civil War was about slavery but not about slavery at the same time. The North did not fight a war to free the slaves, it fought a war to create a "more perfect Union of the States". The South did not fight a war to be able to enslave people, they fought a war to preserve the Sovereignty of the individual States. Slavery, however, was the fuse that set off the conflict. Personally, I believe that even if slavery had not been in the picture, this conflict would have arisen via other issues.
To the point and use of the word "traitors". That isn't any different that those of us who would resist should the Federal government make the decision, via Elected Representation and application of law to outlaw things, like guns, that we currently hold dear and it isn't any different than what the American Colonies did during the Revolutionary War or those that fought the Whiskey Rebellion or the "Red Necks" that fought against US troops/Pinkertons during the labor uprisings in the early 20th century or the Native Americans that fought against the US to preserve their way of life.
Traitors are people like Benedict Arnold, Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen.
We will just have to agree to disagree.
I will just ignore your comments about my "traitorous" ancestors (Revolutionary War, Whiskey Rebellion, and Civil War) and you can ignore my apparent "support" for slavery.;)
You ignore a little thing called Democracy, Elected Representation and the application of law. They entered into an agreement knowing what that agreement entailed and the right to slaves was not guaranteed, they had Elected Representation to try and work within the system. They choose not to.
Funny, that's exactly what the southern states were complaining about the north in their secession declarations. I just reread GA's.
Yes it was heavily motivated by slavery, wrong as that was. But it was entangled with tarifs, selective application of federal law, and bypassing of legislature. And they felt, unconstitutional. This is independent of the morality of the issue.
It's very clear that:
- northern states had clear motive to break the South's economic and political clout
- that slavery was used to justify the above, but it probably was not the main motive
- unconstitutional things were done by the Fed prior to seccesion. And multiple times afterward, even when the war was over.
Clearly the south was wrong on slavery. But they were right that the way the northern states used the fed gov was also wrong. And the way the feds used the northern politicians.
I write this within 5 minutes of multiple examples of Union army war crimes that were whitewashed. And many more that were borderline under Sherman's total war.
Hint: there was more than one trail of tears, and it did not involve native Americans. Civilian women and children
I personally believe the Confederate battle flag on state grounds was the last backlash of the segregationists. And as such should end. It was not to honor the Confederate army. and since its cooption by racist orgs, we need to move on. There are better ways to represent the current south, and even the old south.
But I'm equally opposed to the longstanding manipulation of history about the civil war, its causes, and outcomes. It's not as simple as many try to make it sound, nor as morally pure.
Averageman
06-24-15, 10:51
Funny, that's exactly what the southern states were complaining about the north in their secession declarations. I just reread GA's.
Yes it was heavily motivated by slavery, wrong as that was. But it was entangled with tarifs, selective application of federal law, and bypassing of legislature. And they felt, unconstitutional. This is independent of the morality of the issue.
It's very clear that:
- northern states had clear motive to break the South's economic and political clout
- that slavery was used to justify the above, but it probably was not the main motive
- unconstitutional things were done by the Fed prior to seccesion. And multiple times afterward, even when the war was over.
Clearly the south was wrong on slavery. But they were right that the way the northern states used the fed gov was also wrong. And the way the feds used the northern politicians.
I write this within 5 minutes of multiple examples of Union army war crimes that were whitewashed. And many more that were borderline under Sherman's total war.
Hint: there was more than one trail of tears, and it did not involve native Americans. Civilian women and children
I personally believe the Confederate battle flag on state grounds was the last backlash of the segregationists. And as such should end. It was not to honor the Confederate army. and since its cooption by racist orgs, we need to move on. There are better ways to represent the current south, and even the old south.
But I'm equally opposed to the longstanding manipulation of history about the civil war, its causes, and outcomes. It's not as simple as many try to make it sound, nor as morally pure.
Thank You;
You made that point clearly and apparently much better than I have been trying to do.
Crow Hunter
06-24-15, 10:59
Thank You;
You made that point clearly and apparently much better than I have been trying to do.
+1
Me too.
Moose-Knuckle
06-24-15, 11:07
I love how so many people who decry moral relativism within, say, the context of religion, will happily embrace it for the love of slavery.
Like it or not, slavery is part of the human condition. Always has been and probably always will be in some form or fashion i.e. sex slave trade in it's modern incarnation for an example. My last name bears witness to the fact that my European ancestors were serfs (aka slaves) to the Lord of the manner (aka Master of the plantation). Ironic that most of the world religions has embraced and or still embraces slavery in some for or fashion; Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. as documented in their ancient holy books.
So I see we are back to debating the old school table that slavery was the reason for the civil war. Right.
I have no dog in this fight as I'm an immigrant so I could give a shit about the confederate flag. What I do care about is the camel's nose we are gleefully wanting to let into our tent in the name of ending racism. Like it or not once these bozos are done banning flags and statues they will continue on to bigger and better things to ban. We are either free or we are not. Figure out which one you'd like to be.
I'll just leave this here:
Walmart, Amazon, Sears, eBay to stop selling Confederate flag merchandise
America's leading merchants have spoken: The Confederate flag is coming off the shelves.
Walmart, Amazon, eBay and Sears all announced bans on the sale of Confederate flag merchandise, amid an intensifying national debate over the use of the controversial flag.
The announcements are the latest indication that the flag, a symbol of the slave-holding South, has become toxic in the aftermath of a shooting last week at a historic African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina. Gov. Nikki Haley announced in a Monday afternoon news conference that she supports removing the Confederate flag from the state capitol grounds.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/22/politics/confederate-flag-walmart-south-carolina/
Moose-Knuckle
06-24-15, 11:48
This has become comical . . .
Warner Brothers has announced that the General Lee Dodge Charger from The Duke's of Hazzard is losing it's Stars and Bars from licensed merch . . .
https://www.yahoo.com/autos/general-lee-from-dukes-of-hazzard-losing-its-122294326432.html
This has become comical . . .
Warner Brothers has announced that the General Lee Dodge Charger from The Duke's of Hazzard is losing it's Stars and Bars from licensed merch . . .
https://www.yahoo.com/autos/general-lee-from-dukes-of-hazzard-losing-its-122294326432.html
They're also going to charge Bo & Luke for a hate crime for every law they had broke while driving the "General".
They might end up losing the farm to Boss Hogg!!
Averageman
06-24-15, 12:36
This is really going out there;
Now they are calling for the removal of the Jefferson Memorial.
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/cnn-thinks-its-time-to-take-down-jefferson-memorial
Banfield, who has a rich history of putting her foot in her mouth, asked fellow CNN dummy Don Lemon if it’s now appropriate for lawmakers to start a future conversation about whether or not the monument of Thomas Jefferson should be removed from the U.S. Capitol.
Yeah this should really work out well for us. Winston Smith would be proud to help with erasing that!
And for the most part, without a teleprompter do you think She could name one of the nine people shot last week or 6 Confederate States?
Regardless of the ugliness tied to any symbol, real or imagined, should we obliterate it from history and deny it ever existed in order not to offend some one real or imagined?
Crow Hunter
06-24-15, 12:46
Are they going to dub the car horn to Battle Hymn of the Republic and change the Yee Haw on the jumps to "Yay, you know" with a Minnesota accent?
Why don't they just rewrite the whole show?
Instead of the Duke boys being Rebels and running and fighting against corrupt and unjust laws, they could make them the cops chasing down evil racists, gun owners, homophobes and other non politically correct insurgents.
Maybe they could put the Stasi flag instead of the Confederate flag to signal conformance instead of rebellion. Maybe when they do the classic jumps they could just shout OBEY!!!
Why do people always jump to silly extremes? It is getting to the point that Reductio ad absurdum is losing its meaning....:bad:
Digital_Damage
06-24-15, 12:46
That is why I said in my original statement that most of us reading this are "traitors".
I am not ignoring that we are part of a Representational Republic. I even brought it up in my statement. The South chose to secede, as it was understood at the time, because they felt that the Union no longer represented their views and that it was tipping towards a more authoritarian central government which was intent in bringing more "Free" states into the Union and thus marginalizing the South and their entire economic system. Economic devastation was coming to the South no matter which way they went. If they stayed in the Union, slavery would have been voted out of existence and whole swaths of the population would have been economically devastated.
At least by trying to secede form their own country, which at the time was an understood "right" of the States, they might have been able to continue. The Civil War was about slavery but not about slavery at the same time. The North did not fight a war to free the slaves, it fought a war to create a "more perfect Union of the States". The South did not fight a war to be able to enslave people, they fought a war to preserve the Sovereignty of the individual States. Slavery, however, was the fuse that set off the conflict. Personally, I believe that even if slavery had not been in the picture, this conflict would have arisen via other issues.
To the point and use of the word "traitors". That isn't any different that those of us who would resist should the Federal government make the decision, via Elected Representation and application of law to outlaw things, like guns, that we currently hold dear and it isn't any different than what the American Colonies did during the Revolutionary War or those that fought the Whiskey Rebellion or the "Red Necks" that fought against US troops/Pinkertons during the labor uprisings in the early 20th century or the Native Americans that fought against the US to preserve their way of life.
Traitors are people like Benedict Arnold, Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen.
We will just have to agree to disagree.
I will just ignore your comments about my "traitorous" ancestors (Revolutionary War, Whiskey Rebellion, and Civil War) and you can ignore my apparent "support" for slavery.;)
Once again linking slavery that was not a documented right with the 2nd Amendment. Just beyond twisted...
Averageman
06-24-15, 12:57
Once again linking slavery that was not a documented right with the 2nd Amendment. Just beyond twisted...
You either haven't a clear understanding or it would more likely appear not want to understand history, but that's cool. If you feel that strongly about it you can join in with the bunch that want the Jefferson Memorial torn down.
I'm sure that the Obama Memorial will fit in there nicely.
Crow Hunter
06-24-15, 12:59
Once again linking slavery that was not a documented right with the 2nd Amendment. Just beyond twisted...
Have you missed the point that non-insignificant portion of the US voting public don't view the 2nd Amendment as a "right" of the people but view it as a "right" of the States to form a militia?
All it would take is a small change in the number of people voting a certain way and a couple of different Supreme Court justices and WHAM, individual rights to own guns goes the same way as the "right" to own a person as property.
It isn't any different than the non-insignificant portion of the US population of the time of the Civil War who firmly believed they had a "right" to own another person until it was decided that it was morally corrupt and the laws were changed.
You are equating current moral judgments with enumerated "rights".
Both are malleable.
I was going to post I wonder when the dukes show gets nerfed !
This has become comical . . .
Warner Brothers has announced that the General Lee Dodge Charger from The Duke's of Hazzard is losing it's Stars and Bars from licensed merch . . .
https://www.yahoo.com/autos/general-lee-from-dukes-of-hazzard-losing-its-122294326432.html
I say we go back in history to the first legal slave owner and point out he was black !
also forgot the name of the court case ? cora or something about the black slave that ran away with his Scotish and Irish slaves could be other euro but think that is what they were ?
OH NO 2 whites to the one black but only whites owned slaves and only blacks were slaves !!!!
NO lets erase this history quick !!!!!!!!
again I am so so so so so so sick of this race crap pertaining to what the democrats and left used to do with there flag ?
I dont care about the flag I care about the creep that happens as said by others this flag then whats next !
Okay. I should keep my mouth shut but since I had ancestors who fought for the Confederacy the term "traitor" really rubs me the wrong way in this context.
From the perspective of the UK, all Americans who fought in the Revolutionary War were/are traitors and rebels. From the perspective of the USA, all who fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War were/are traitors and rebels. That's just the definition. Both sets of people betrayed their country to form a new one. It's just that the Confederacy lost their rebellion and few people sympathize with the root cause of their actions.
To get an understanding of what was going on at that time you have to view it through the lense morality of the time. Slaves, at that time, were considered property and they were the economic driver of the economy of the South. Whether you owned them or not, likely your job was some how related to them. Regardless of the morality that we feel today about the ownership of another human being, it was not only accepted at the time, it was the law.
So even though it's considered immoral now and was considered immoral by the vast majority of the world's population at the time, slavery was ok to fight for since most free people in the south at the time considered it moral?
Are you saying that regardless of world opinion at the time and historical opinion now, fighting for what you believe in is always noble or fitting of respect?
Crow Hunter
06-24-15, 17:43
From the perspective of the UK, all Americans who fought in the Revolutionary War were/are traitors and rebels. From the perspective of the USA, all who fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War were/are traitors and rebels. That's just the definition. Both sets of people betrayed their country to form a new one. It's just that the Confederacy lost their rebellion and few people sympathize with the root cause of their actions.
So even though it's considered immoral now and was considered immoral by the vast majority of the world's population at the time, slavery was ok to fight for since most free people in the south at the time considered it moral?
Are you saying that regardless of world opinion at the time and historical opinion now, fighting for what you believe in is always noble or fitting of respect?
Yes, most of the time.
-The majority of the world and the population of the US at the time, thought that the Native Americans fighting back against European colonialism was an example of uneducated heathen savages fighting against the morally superior white Christian colonial powers that were there to help them.
-Saladin fighting back against the Crusaders to preserve the Holy Land from the Infidels. The majority of the Christian world thought he was a monster.
-A very large majority of the world (including many Americans) think that American soldiers are in the Middle East to control the world oil supplies.
I can go on.
Contrary to most propaganda, there is often no "good and evil" when it comes to conflict. Soldiers aren't fighting for a cause as much as they are fighting for the person beside them. They may have chosen a side based on their religious, political or moral compass or just simply where they were born, but that doesn't make them any less human or any less brave and less deserving of respect than others. Do you think that the Japanese soldiers who fought for their Emperor and the glory of Japan in an effort to subjugate the Koreans, Chinese, Filipinos, etc where evil and not worthy of respect?
I don't. I think that some of their leadership was evil but not the rank and file soldiers.
As an aside, the vast majority of the world did not consider slavery to be immoral at the time. Many of the major Western powers did, at the time, but had only recently abolished slavery themselves. Most in less than a generation prior to the US Civil War. Britain, one of the first major powers to do it, only did it in 1834 in some of it's holdings. New York state only abolished it in 1827 although it forced slaved born in 1827 to remain indentured servants until they were 28 effectively forcing them to remain slaves until 1855. Only 6 years before the beginning of the Civil War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline
The South was not a outlier for the times in question.
But hey, like I said, I probably should have kept my mouth shut.
ditto above post :)
and you should really check your history !
especially the Americas meaning South American slavery and Caribbean and Latin American slaves had a higher death rate than US due to the way they were treated and Brazil was the largest slave importer ! countries like Mexico was also huge the US was quite a small % of the slave trade in comparison
rest of the world
Asia and its huge slave problems and the middle east of course Africa which of course these countries still do modern slavery
so your statement of the rest of the world ? YEAH OK SURE !!!!!
to bad the rest of the world does not really think slavery is bad today of course always blaming the US when in fact again we were a tiny % of the world slave problem
lets just go to todays world slave Estimates from the Walk Free Foundation.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Modern_incidence_of_slavery.png
From the perspective of the UK, all Americans who fought in the Revolutionary War were/are traitors and rebels. From the perspective of the USA, all who fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War were/are traitors and rebels. That's just the definition. Both sets of people betrayed their country to form a new one. It's just that the Confederacy lost their rebellion and few people sympathize with the root cause of their actions.
So even though it's considered immoral now and was considered immoral by the vast majority of the world's population at the time, slavery was ok to fight for since most free people in the south at the time considered it moral?
Are you saying that regardless of world opinion at the time and historical opinion now, fighting for what you believe in is always noble or fitting of respect?
The South was not a outlier for the times in question.
Nor the history of the world... holy cow... all of civilization had slaves up to and beyond whatever the south did.
The nut cases are coming out of the woodwork... A man calls the talk radio station this evening... Oh, that flag, we black people just hate it, the KKK used it and it's a horrible symbol.... The host asked him should we get rid of the Stars and Stripes... oh no, now you're changing the subject!! ... well you know the KKK flew the Stars and Stripes right so we should get rid of both.... the guy got pissed off...
You can't win... politicians live for this divisive fuel.
Yep, the south were traitors and the only immoral people on Earth.... wow.... the Liberal Progressives have been awakened this week for damn sure.
I would have said agree we should ban everything to do with the KKK dont you agree caller ! when the caller says yes
then say OK lets get the ban going for the democratic party then since they started the KKK !
Nor the history of the world... holy cow... all of civilization had slaves up to and beyond whatever the south did.
The nut cases are coming out of the woodwork... A man calls the talk radio station this evening... Oh, that flag, we black people just hate it, the KKK used it and it's a horrible symbol.... The host asked him should we get rid of the Stars and Stripes... oh no, now you're changing the subject!! ... well you know the KKK flew the Stars and Stripes right so we should get rid of both.... the guy got pissed off...
You can't win... politicians live for this divisive fuel.
Yep, the south were traitors and the only immoral people on Earth.... wow.... the Liberal Progressives have been awakened this week for damn sure.
Someone mentioned earlier that Walmart, etc. were going to stop carrying the Confederate flag. I occasionally listen to NPR on the way to work and this morning I just happened to hear an interview with a guy that owns a flag store, he sells all kinds of flags, he didn't mention Nazi flags, but did mention a bunch of middle eastern countries, including Syria. He said he was going to continue to sell the Confederate flag, kind of 'I sell flags that's what I do.' The reporter added that sometime later this merchant had contacted them and told them that he was not going to be selling the Confederate flags any more. Why? Because the manufacturer had notified him that they were no longer going to produce them.
All this time I thought it just meant you hated Yankees...
Wow, I've never heard the South portrayed that way. Is this something you've actually heard said, or is it a projection of people's adverse reaction to Southern culture?
Pretty extreme to say that about one's fellow Americans- regardless of their individual failings.
Believe it or not I know someone that is convinced that all white people outside of CA are by default racists. Not only that, but apparently Klan meetings are a normal thing for white people in other states; CA is the country's only hope according to this person. I know, it shakes my head too.
"Vanden Bosch is also vice president of sales for Valley Forge Flag, a 133-year-old maker of flags from more than 200 countries, states, territories, and also branches of the U.S. Armed Forces. He said sales of the Confederate flag comprise a "miniscule" part of his overall business. "
This is the company that is going to stop making it.... you can tell it's a real popular item.
Welp,
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/06/24/farrakhan-i-dont-get-debate-over-confederate-flag-we-need-to-put-the-american-flag-down/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9kry_VfFSh4
Yes, most of the time.
-The majority of the world and the population of the US at the time, thought that the Native Americans fighting back against European colonialism was an example of uneducated heathen savages fighting against the morally superior white Christian colonial powers that were there to help them.
-Saladin fighting back against the Crusaders to preserve the Holy Land from the Infidels. The majority of the Christian world thought he was a monster.
-A very large majority of the world (including many Americans) think that American soldiers are in the Middle East to control the world oil supplies.
I can go on.
Contrary to most propaganda, there is often no "good and evil" when it comes to conflict. Soldiers aren't fighting for a cause as much as they are fighting for the person beside them. They may have chosen a side based on their religious, political or moral compass or just simply where they were born, but that doesn't make them any less human or any less brave and less deserving of respect than others. Do you think that the Japanese soldiers who fought for their Emperor and the glory of Japan in an effort to subjugate the Koreans, Chinese, Filipinos, etc where evil and not worthy of respect?
Honestly, no. I'm part Japanese and i don't think most of those soldiers of the Empire deserve honor for what they did and were willing to do. I'm less respectful about the Imperial Japanese army than I am about the Confederacy. While the Confederacy had some major faults in their cause and society, the army didn't commit war crimes to the best of my recollection. The North arguably did.
"Following orders" is not an excuse.
Looks like it is going to snowball. Once they get done the civil war will be a made up story.
http://jamiedupree.blog.wsbradio.com/2015/06/24/lawmakers-call-for-confederate-change-at-u-s-capitol/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Whiskey_Bravo
06-24-15, 22:31
The stupidity with all of this is getting out of hand. It almost seems orchestrated and perfectly timed all happening at the same moment. How in the absolute F did one sick retards killing of some people turn into a debate not on mental health and societal issues but on a flag from 150 years ago? Hot damn, the stupidity has even infected some on this very board as they race to be the first in line to rehash the civil war and deem one side the defender of all that is good and the other equal to the nazis.
Now the calls to remove war memorials and statues are coming from every direction. Even calls to remove the Jefferson memorial? Yes, lets please erase our history, I am sure a big statue of Obumer will fit in there.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/la-et-cm-thomas-jefferson-confederate-statues-20150624-story.html
TacticalSledgehammer
06-24-15, 22:41
Many associate the Confederate flag with their southern heritage and don't even think of it being racist. There's a lot of stupidity that comes from both sides concerning the flag, and most of it isn't based on fact rather than feelings and stories. If they want to change their flags, they need to put it on ballot.
Wow. To read some of these posts is just sad.
We should be able to do things because we are FREE to do so, not becAuse it is "okay", "safe", "politically correct" or any other bullshit reason.
Let the people decide. Ballots, voting- you know the "democracy" part of what some of you are claiming to champion with blinders on.
If the people of SC vote to remove these flags from public view- so be it.
But this type of censorship and brute force social engineering cannot be tolerated.
Fly whatever flag you please; this is the ****ing USA- freedom does not require a reason or "correctness" it only requires the ability to express oneself as they see fit without violent action against others.
Have whatever opinion you want about anyone, any group et al- just leave it there and don't rob, rape, kill or otherwise break the law.
It is truly sad how few of you are in tune with what actual freedom is and instead are not only complicit but rally to deny it.
Thing long and hard about where we are headed and what this place has become. We're not too far from all sorts of bans with these Ttitudes and complacency...
I'm Irish and Native American- do I want the Stars and Stripes removed because of some violent action by a FEW people be used of that? Hell no, I'm so far removed from any of that shit for me to pretend I'm hurt because of what happened 100+ years ago would be repugnant. Get on with life. Shit happens, get the sand out of your collective vaginas and move on to new and better things- history cannot be changed; although many try- and it shows in this thread.
I'm more concerned with what the government is doing to all of us NOW- and not what flag, opinions, eating habits, political affiliations, etc of the past.
Wake the **** up and quit falling for the smoke and mirrors dog and pony show.
Wow. To read some of these posts is just sad.
We should be able to do things because we are FREE to do so, not becAuse it is "okay", "safe", "politically correct" or any other bullshit reason.
Let the people decide. Ballots, voting- you know the "democracy" part of what some of you are claiming to champion with blinders on.
If the people of SC vote to remove these flags from public view- so be it.
But this type of censorship and brute force social engineering cannot be tolerated.
Fly whatever flag you please; this is the ****ing USA- freedom does not require a reason or "correctness" it only requires the ability to express oneself as they see fit without violent action against others.
Have whatever opinion you want about anyone, any group et al- just leave it there and don't rob, rape, kill or otherwise break the law.
It is truly sad how few of you are in tune with what actual freedom is and instead are not only complicit but rally to deny it.
Thing long and hard about where we are headed and what this place has become. We're not too far from all sorts of bans with these Ttitudes and complacency...
I'm Irish and Native American- do I want the Stars and Stripes removed because of some violent action by a FEW people be used of that? Hell no, I'm so far removed from any of that shit for me to pretend I'm hurt because of what happened 100+ years ago would be repugnant. Get on with life. Shit happens, get the sand out of your collective vaginas and move on to new and better things- history cannot be changed; although many try- and it shows in this thread.
I'm more concerned with what the government is doing to all of us NOW- and not what flag, opinions, eating habits, political affiliations, etc of the past.
Wake the **** up and quit falling for the smoke and mirrors dog and pony show.
This has nothing to do with censorship. Absolutely nothing.
No one is telling the citizen population what flags they can or cannot fly. No one is banning the Confederate battle flag.
wildcard600
06-25-15, 07:46
This has nothing to do with censorship. Absolutely nothing.
No one is telling the citizen population what flags they can or cannot fly. No one is banning the Confederate battle flag.
Everyone is just caving to the political pressure and voluntarily taking it down, stopped selling them, etc.
Reminds me of when walmart took all references to "evil assault rifles" off their website after SH as to not offend anyone.
Averageman
06-25-15, 08:17
And in the end what will be achieved?
Take down the Flags, remove the memorials, hell go take down the Jefferson Memorial and every other memorial that had anything to do with slave owners in any remote way.
When they bulldoze the Lincoln Memorial because Mary Todd Lincoln's family owned slaves, I will be right there with a camera.
When you go revising history and rewriting things that were painful and ugly, you'll get to a point.
That point will be when the powers that be have created another group of even more people who feel that the government and the politicians have snatched up just a little too much power again and we can all play Civil War part two.
George Orwell had it right, somewhere Winston Smith is sitting in an office destroying everything that doesn't fit the current agenda and most Americans are going right along with it.
Many associate the Confederate flag with their southern heritage and don't even think of it being racist. There's a lot of stupidity that comes from both sides concerning the flag, and most of it isn't based on fact rather than feelings and stories. If they want to change their flags, they need to put it on ballot.
I know more than a couple guys I served with from southern states who displayed confederate symbolism at home or on their vehicle that are black, it's a southern heritage thing that northerners have trouble understanding. What this has to do with a looney bin kid that shot up a church is what I'm still trying to comprehend, the focus should be on the individual that committed the crime, not everything that may have influenced his ability or actions.
Crow Hunter
06-25-15, 09:31
I know more than a couple guys I served with from southern states who displayed confederate symbolism at home or on their vehicle that are black, it's a southern heritage thing that northerners have trouble understanding. What this has to do with a looney bin kid that shot up a church is what I'm still trying to comprehend, the focus should be on the individual that committed the crime, not everything that may have influenced his ability or actions.
I have a buddy that I went to high school with who posted pictures of his kids and their friends riding horseback on his farm. His sons horse had a Confederate battle flag horse blanket.
Both my buddy and his son are black and they were riding with white friends.
It is only about racism when people want to make it about racism.
This has nothing to do with censorship. Absolutely nothing.
No one is telling the citizen population what flags they can or cannot fly. No one is banning the Confederate battle flag.
Censorship was a poor choice of words- the rest of my post stands. The brute force social engineering is spot on for what's happening.
And like I said, let the people in SC or any other state vote on it. Removing/villifying a symbol of heritage and pride without the consent of the people is wrong.
If they want it let them have it, if they decide to remove it so be it. That's the beauty of. Representative Government- which I much prefer to a nanny state just doing what they please in the name of whatever brand of "justice" or "safety" they believe in and force upon the people.
This issue is bigger than the confederate flag- using the hatred/ violent actions of a few as cache to force political change is not new; but getting to be out of control.
I know quite a few southern boys who fought for this country who fly the Confederate flag and they are the furthest from racists. They will definitely be viewed in a more negative light for flying that flag AFTER these events, by the majority of sheep out there who look at what's happening in SC and see that a hateful Caucasian killing people of a different skin pigment is a problem not with mental illness, personal responsibility or the break down of the family- but a problem with inanimate objects like flags and guns.
More people are vilifying a flag than are vilifying these people on YouTube calling for the murder of crackers and police and calling for race wars?!?! WTF!
That we are even a arguing over a flag with the multitude of problems our country faces is pretty pathetic. The smoke and mirrors circus show continues.
Where are we going in this country?
Whiskey_Bravo
06-25-15, 09:54
It is only about racism when people want to make it about racism.
This.
When you go revising history and rewriting things that were painful and ugly, you'll get to a point.
That point will be when the powers that be have created another group of even more people who feel that the government and the politicians have snatched up just a little too much power again and we can all play Civil War part two.
George Orwell had it right, somewhere Winston Smith is sitting in an office destroying everything that doesn't fit the current agenda and most Americans are going right along with it.
And this.
Right now I bet there are more confederate flags being displayed or flown in the south than before for the sole purpose of saying F you we will do what we want.
Whiskey_Bravo
06-25-15, 10:02
LOL, now Apple is removing all civil war games.
http://www.macrumors.com/2015/06/25/apple-removes-civil-war-games-confederate-flag/
Forget the Confederate flag, screwie Louis said to put down the U.S. flag:
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/06/24/farrakhan-i-dont-get-debate-over-confederate-flag-we-need-to-put-the-american-flag-down/
brickboy240
06-25-15, 10:49
Didn't I say this was about more than taking down the CSA flag?
Next, they will want all monuments to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson taken down as well.
There is already a push to remove a Civil War CSA general's name from a school here in Houston.
How long before they are burning piles of books in the streets?
This has moved well beyond a racist white kid shooting up a black church. It has moved into a wiping out of Confederate history because it wasn't politically correct and were it ends now one will know but there is a lot of history that will be erased or revised.
I'm seeing on Facebook right now a lot of my working, middle class friends now starting to post about their white privilege and institutional racism. Their white guilt is showing. I'm not sure how some little asshole shooting up a church has served as a catalyst for what has been discussed here in about the bulldozing of Confederate history, a history I truly believe is incredibly important to this country, and middle class white people feeling bad for being themselves.
wildcard600
06-25-15, 11:41
This has moved well beyond a racist white kid shooting up a black church. It has moved into a wiping out of Confederate history because it wasn't politically correct and were it ends now one will know but there is a lot of history that will be erased or revised.
I'm seeing on Facebook right now a lot of my working, middle class friends now starting to post about their white privilege and institutional racism. Their white guilt is showing. I'm not sure how some little asshole shooting up a church has served as a catalyst for what has been discussed here in about the bulldozing of Confederate history, a history I truly believe is incredibly important to this country, and middle class white people feeling bad for being themselves.
tell them they can donate some of that "white privilege" my way, i mine got lost in the mail i guess. i take cash, check or paypal.
thanks.
brickboy240
06-25-15, 13:11
There is no advantage or privilege in being white in America anymore.
There is also no reason any white person should feel guilty about their race, either.
Honestly...I don't get where this garbage comes from.
I am willing to bet that this flag nonsense is more about this:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/18/house-vote-tpa-standalone/28917811/
You will not hear anyone in the MSM talking about this passing. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Cincinnatus
06-25-15, 16:36
White-washing history in this fashion is as absurd, and every bit as ideologically fanatical as Isis destroying ancient monuments and artifacts in Mesopotamia.
Furthermore, just because you are against defacing the tomb of an ancient pharaoh or smashing a Babylonian facade, does not mean that one holds the identical values of said historical civilization.
BoringGuy45
06-25-15, 20:05
There is no advantage or privilege in being white in America anymore.
There is also no reason any white person should feel guilty about their race, either.
Honestly...I don't get where this garbage comes from.
It's a scary slide we're going down, and one we've seen over and over again all over the world, and it often leads to genocide. It tends to go something like this:
1) Group A gains power in a nation. The declare that their oppression at the hands of Group B is so bad that the only way to overcome it is to give itself (Group A) special preferences over Group B.
2) The Group A-run state declares that the special preferences doctrine has failed, and the Group B is worse than ever. The only way to cure this is to give Group A even more power and at the same time, begin to take away some rights of Group B in order to create equality.
3) The state declares that Group B has become even more dangerous than it has ever been. Group A's special preferences and Group B's loss of rights has not worked and Group B has shown that it cannot be trusted to be treated as respected citizens. As a result, all of Group B's rights must be removed and the state must closely monitor where they live, work, and what they do, lest they mobilize and march on Group A again.
4) The state declares that even after all this, Group B still is a major threat to Group A. Thus, a final solution must be found to the Group B question...
Now, do I think that genocide of all who disagree with the racist left is days, months, or even only a few years away? No, probably not. But this type of rhetoric makes such an idea more acceptable to society, so the seeds could be planted.
Outlander Systems
06-25-15, 20:11
Didn't I say this was about more than taking down the CSA flag?
Next, they will want all monuments to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson taken down as well.
There is already a push to remove a Civil War CSA general's name from a school here in Houston.
How long before they are burning piles of books in the streets?
It's a scary slide we're going down, and one we've seen over and over again all over the world, and it often leads to genocide. It tends to go something like this:
1) Group A gains power in a nation. The declare that their oppression at the hands of Group B is so bad that the only way to overcome it is to give itself (Group A) special preferences over Group B.
2) The Group A-run state declares that the special preferences doctrine has failed, and the Group B is worse than ever. The only way to cure this is to give Group A even more power and at the same time, begin to take away some rights of Group B in order to create equality.
3) The state declares that Group B has become even more dangerous than it has ever been. Group A's special preferences and Group B's loss of rights has not worked and Group B has shown that it cannot be trusted to be treated as respected citizens. As a result, all of Group B's rights must be removed and the state must closely monitor where they live, work, and what they do, lest they mobilize and march on Group A again.
4) The state declares that even after all this, Group B still is a major threat to Group A. Thus, a final solution must be found to the Group B question...
Now, do I think that genocide of all who disagree with the racist left is days, months, or even only a few years away? No, probably not. But this type of rhetoric makes such an idea more acceptable to society, so the seeds could be planted.
It's what happens when tyrants seize power.
It's also proof positive that our Republic is on shaky legs.
BoringGuy45
06-25-15, 20:48
It's what happens when tyrants seize power.
It's also proof positive that our Republic is on shaky legs.
The one thing we have going for us this: In most states where tyrants seized power, they seized it from governments that were already much more restrictive than ours, where the citizens had fewer rights, the concept of individual freedom was much weaker if not non-existent, and the people tended to be, right or wrong, more trusting and obedient to the government. The U.S. is different. We're built on rebellion and hamstringing the powers that be. When given orders, the first instinct of an American is to push back. While many do this when they have no right to, that attitude comes in handy when it comes to standing up for what truly are our rights. The next step towards tyranny made anytime in the near future would be met with fierce resistance, both from the citizenry and many in government. However, in the next few generations, I'm not so sure...
sevenhelmet
06-25-15, 22:39
I hope you're right, but I'm not sure we're as well off as you think. I think we'll end up more or less like how much of Europe is now. Economically and militarily weakened, a working class majority which is largely dependent on government handouts, and a loss of many of the freedoms we currently enjoy, including censorship on free speech, zero weapons allowed (at least for those who follow the laws), and oh yeah, sky-high tax rates.
The one thing we have going for us this: In most states where tyrants seized power, they seized it from governments that were already much more restrictive than ours, where the citizens had fewer rights, the concept of individual freedom was much weaker if not non-existent, and the people tended to be, right or wrong, more trusting and obedient to the government. The U.S. is different. We're built on rebellion and hamstringing the powers that be. When given orders, the first instinct of an American is to push back. While many do this when they have no right to, that attitude comes in handy when it comes to standing up for what truly are our rights. The next step towards tyranny made anytime in the near future would be met with fierce resistance, both from the citizenry and many in government. However, in the next few generations, I'm not so sure...
Your tenet hinges on a thinking and intelligent population. We are far from it and sliding away at a very fast pace.
It's a scary slide we're going down, and one we've seen over and over again all over the world, and it often leads to genocide. It tends to go something like this:
1) Group A gains power in a nation. The declare that their oppression at the hands of Group B is so bad that the only way to overcome it is to give itself (Group A) special preferences over Group B.
2) The Group A-run state declares that the special preferences doctrine has failed, and the Group B is worse than ever. The only way to cure this is to give Group A even more power and at the same time, begin to take away some rights of Group B in order to create equality.
3) The state declares that Group B has become even more dangerous than it has ever been. Group A's special preferences and Group B's loss of rights has not worked and Group B has shown that it cannot be trusted to be treated as respected citizens. As a result, all of Group B's rights must be removed and the state must closely monitor where they live, work, and what they do, lest they mobilize and march on Group A again.
4) The state declares that even after all this, Group B still is a major threat to Group A. Thus, a final solution must be found to the Group B question...
Now, do I think that genocide of all who disagree with the racist left is days, months, or even only a few years away? No, probably not. But this type of rhetoric makes such an idea more acceptable to society, so the seeds could be planted.
Been there done that. Thankfully the final solution part didn't come about, but the first parts weren't all that fun. I was hoping my kids wouldn't have to worry much about that; but I guess I'm going to be wrong.
BoringGuy45
06-25-15, 23:15
Your tenet hinges on a thinking and intelligent population. We are far from it and sliding away at a very fast pace.
And while the majority of the country may be sheep, the thinking and intelligent population is still large, strong, and active enough in this day and age that such a power grab would be extremely difficult.
Leaveammoforme
06-26-15, 00:16
I say take the flag down, ban it from being flown and pass legislation that provides penalties for those who disobey.
All we have to do is follow Chicago's lead and soon the entire U.S. will prosper like them. 100 plus years of fighting the flag being flown has created less hate.
In preparation for the Fourth of July, she visited Marshall Field's to pick up the flags, but could only buy a British flag as Confederate flags were out of stock.
George Thomas, a Civil War veteran who worked at Field's, witnessed Hammond's effort to order a Confederate flag and told the Tribune, "the idea that any one should keep the flag in stock or that anybody should want to use one filled me with rage."
Thomas and 300 people congregated at Hammond's home on July 4 and tore down her British flag. They sang "The Stars and Stripes Forever" so loud it could be heard in Lincoln Park and warned her not to fly the Confederate flag.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-confederate-flag-chicago-met-20150624-story.html
The statistics speak for themselves, only 41 murders so far this month. Well done Chicago, you curbed that hate and violence.
http://heyjackass.com/
And while the majority of the country may be sheep, the thinking and intelligent population is still large, strong, and active enough in this day and age that such a power grab would be extremely difficult.
Your premise works in battle perhaps but not at the ballot box. IOW, in a true battle a rather small contingent of intelligent and strong people of a like mind could defeat a much larger group. This doesn't work at the ballot box. It's simply a larger scale Jim Jones, Charles Manson effect... You take a dense city of people living day to day and having been brainwashed by a central figure they will out vote you.
brickboy240
06-26-15, 11:05
The left took America without really having to fire a shot.
They did not even have to take everyone's guns away.
Sad...but true!
"The flag of a treasonous army should not fly over American governmental buildings at any level, but these calls for the deletion of Civil War games, books, and movies are just scary. How far down this rabbit hole do we want to go?" - Andrew Tuohy / Vuurwapen Blog in a facebook post.
"The flag of a treasonous army should not fly over American governmental buildings at any level, but these calls for the deletion of Civil War games, books, and movies are just scary. How far down this rabbit hole do we want to go?" - Andrew Tuohy / Vuurwapen Blog in a facebook post.
That is one of my points. I don't agree with is flying from the SC capital but it is not. It is on a memorial for CSA veterans near the capital. But yes this is being taken to an extreme, in some kinda of apparent tempt to erase history. The republicans are getting behind it for the elections the dems love it cause they will get the credit anyway.
brickboy240
06-26-15, 13:57
Keep gloating and calling us traitors, you northerners....they will soon be clamoring to take down something YOU like or hold dear.
The statues of Washington, Jefferson or others that maybe owned slaves at one point.
You don't really think they will be quiet and go away after this do you? They smell blood in the water and since this was easy...they will try to tear down other parts of our history.
...it is coming.
Digital_Damage
06-26-15, 14:41
Keep gloating and calling us traitors, you northerners....they will soon be clamoring to take down something YOU like or hold dear.
The statues of Washington, Jefferson or others that maybe owned slaves at one point.
You don't really think they will be quiet and go away after this do you? They smell blood in the water and since this was easy...they will try to tear down other parts of our history.
...it is coming.
So you fought in the Civil War?
brickboy240
06-26-15, 15:10
They basically called any ancestor that fought for the CSA a traitor.
(odd because they probably do not think the same about those that fired on the British troops traitors...no sir!)
Whiskey_Bravo
06-26-15, 15:20
So you fought in the Civil War?
Very grown up of you to erase the second sentence in your post.
Digital_Damage
06-26-15, 15:24
Very grown up of you to erase the second sentence in your post.
Was not me... look at the red card. Got my hand slaped, I deserved it.
Digital_Damage
06-26-15, 15:26
They basically called any ancestor that fought for the CSA a traitor.
(odd because they probably do not think the same about those that fired on the British troops traitors...no sir!)
That is because by definition they were traitors to the United States of America, being a traitor is not a generational standing. It is an action.
Colonist that fired on British troops were traitors to the Crown.
Keep gloating and calling us traitors, you northerners....they will soon be clamoring to take down something YOU like or hold dear.
The statues of Washington, Jefferson or others that maybe owned slaves at one point.
You don't really think they will be quiet and go away after this do you? They smell blood in the water and since this was easy...they will try to tear down other parts of our history.
...it is coming.
No one is calling you a traitor.
I'm also not a northerner.
And you can fly your Confederate Battle Flag or whatever that someone might find politically incorrect. No one's stopping you, not in this thread, and not in the government.
That is because by definition they were traitors to the United States of America, being a traitor is not a generational standing. It is an action.
Colonist that fired on British troops were traitors to the Crown.
Well, that is one perspective. Ever hear of a little concept called the "Social Contract"? You know, as laid out right there in the second paragraph, by Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence?
Why have you ignored my question posed to you early in this debate? Like on page 3.
Are you truly unaware of the MAJOR component of why our country was founded? This is easily one of the most important concepts in the formation of FREE societial governance.
You have probably never heard of Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke - yeah I'm sure you may have heard of Jefferson. You know that whole "Enlightenment Period" where the whole idea of "Free Societies" gathered steam?
Here it is easy - a free government only exists with the consent of the people. Without consent it is tyranny. In a FREE society, the government exists to serve the people. At any time, for any reason, if the people decide on another course of action the folks are FREE to dissolve the ineffectual/corrupt system. When a government, formed by the people, resist the change of direction the people are free to dissolve the government: first - through peaceful means (i.e. voting, referendums, etc.) and lastly- through physical revolt.
An example, you enter into a marital contract with your wife - by free will. If you are abusive and refuse to change your way, is your wife REQUIRED to remain in the martial contract? Would your force her to stay? You are willing to violate her God Given/Natural Rights to satisfy your needs? You would deny her right to Life, freedom from abuse, freedom of self-determination? What are your beliefs? What sort of man are you -depending on your response?
So according to your logic - right? When the "union" army invaded the South (the South which was exercising their God Given/Natural Rights to self governance) you were using the Constitution as you justification - right? Backed by the justification that separation from King George/England - right? This was "justified" by the Declaration of Independence - written by that racist Jefferson - right?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
And no, the powers of the North had no interest in the rights of slaves. A convenient "moral" excuse (sound familar).
For example, that wonderful Lincoln (some of these already posted)...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-truth-about-abraham-lincoln-slavery/
What an "equals rights" supporter.
In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, “I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.” In a Springfield, Ill., speech, he explained, “My declarations upon this subject of negro slavery may be misrepresented, but can not be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects.” Debating with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of … making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”
Wow, seems to be a supporter of "States Rights" vs. .gov when convenient right? Boy, he is so different from all the other politicians.
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
The old Money $$$$$$ issue. I'm shocked. The north who controlled the .fed golden goose were not about to let that little funding source go away.
Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
Money dude - and more importantly - control over the power system of the Federal Goverment - who would make many wealthy. Plain and simple with "slavery" as the moral excuse. Many more here have offered you a better education - at least another perspective to consider - before levying the worst of insults to many - traitors. You really should study the facts.
Digital_Damage
06-26-15, 18:50
Why have you ignored my question posed to you early in this debate? Like on page 3.
Are you truly unaware of the MAJOR component of why our country was founded? This is easily one of the most important concepts in the formation of FREE societial governance.
You have probably never heard of Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke - yeah I'm sure you may have heard of Jefferson. You know that whole "Enlightenment Period" where the whole idea of "Free Societies" gathered steam?
Here it is easy - a free government only exists with the consent of the people. Without consent it is tyranny. In a FREE society, the government exists to serve the people. At any time, for any reason, if the people decide on another course of action the folks are FREE to dissolve the ineffectual/corrupt system. When a government, formed by the people, resist the change of direction the people are free to dissolve the government: first - through peaceful means (i.e. voting, referendums, etc.) and lastly- through physical revolt.
An example, you enter into a marital contract with your wife - by free will. If you are abusive and refuse to change your way, is your wife REQUIRED to remain in the martial contract? Would your force her to stay? You are willing to violate her God Given/Natural Rights to satisfy your needs? You would deny her right to Life, freedom from abuse, freedom of self-determination? What are your beliefs? What sort of man are you -depending on your response?
So according to your logic - right? When the "union" army invaded the South (the South which was exercising their God Given/Natural Rights to self governance) you were using the Constitution as you justification - right? Backed by the justification that separation from King George/England - right? This was "justified" by the Declaration of Independence - written by that racist Jefferson - right?
And no, the powers of the North had no interest in the rights of slaves. A convenient "moral" excuse (sound familar).
For example, that wonderful Lincoln (some of these already posted)...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-truth-about-abraham-lincoln-slavery/
What an "equals rights" supporter.
Wow, seems to be a supporter of "States Rights" vs. .gov when convenient right? Boy, he is so different from all the other politicians.
The old Money $$$$$$ issue. I'm shocked. The north who controlled the .fed golden goose were not about to let that little funding source go away.
Money dude - and more importantly - control over the power system of the Federal Goverment - who would make many wealthy. Plain and simple with "slavery" as the moral excuse. Many more here have offered you a better education - at least another perspective to consider - before levying the worst of insults to many - traitors. You really should study the facts.
Was not ignore, it is eipc nonsense.
They entered into an agreement, reneged on it then committed an act of aggression by firing on Ft. Sumpter.
The reasons for why they did it have no bearing, does not matter one bit. Just like it does not matter the Colonist had "good reason" to commit treason against the Crown and become Traitors.
Those are the Facts.
To add to the irony and ignorance of all this.... I walk past the tv today and see Obama singing acapella at a funeral... I'm thinking wtf? I mean he looked like he was going to go into a performance. Amazing Grace. Later I hear on the radio Anne Coulter has brought up the origin of that song....
A Slave trader. A ships Captain slave trader. Not only that but apparently he was quite a piece of work. He deserted the Royal Navy. He was apparently one of the most foul mouthed crew members on one of his ships. He practically admits that he and the sailors on the slave ships raping the women that were taken aboard.... AND... after all this guys falling in and out with his acceptance of Religion and God, he never denounced slavery and only ended his term at sea after a stoke.
So Obama is speaking at a Funeral that is steeped in slavery and racism and he breaks into song with a tune from one of the most ardent slave traders out there. Oh well... it's said truth is stranger than fiction. If this were a SNL skit the country would demand the show be taken of the air.
They entered into an agreement, reneged on it then committed an act of aggression by firing on Ft. Sumpter.
Kind of forgetting the whole Federal blockade of the harbor thing... SC felt, with some justification, that was the first act of aggression
I would heavily recommend going to Ft Sumter and reading the exact sequence of events. National Park Service even has it accurate.
The blockade was economic war. It gets even more complicated.. more than I ever originally understood, without sources of northern ice most southern crops could not be exported. So they were trying to buy the first refrigeration plants from England and France, which were trying to slip through the blockade.
I'll leave you with this. If it was about slavery, why was England inclined to support the South as they were completely anti-slavery at the time?
Was not ignore, it is eipc nonsense.
They entered into an agreresement, reneged on it then committed an act of aggression by firing on Ft. Sumpter.
The reasons for why they did it have no bearing, does not matter one bit. Just like it does not matter the Colonist had "good reason" to commit treason against the Crown and become Traitors.
Those are the Facts.
Huh? I literally can not understand your response.
Are you going to respond to each question poised back out you? Are you going to dodge the basic facts?
So, as I stated earlier - and according to your logic...
For example: Your wife married. She (- apparently to you - is unloyal )decides she wants to divorce according to some issues. You force her to stay in the "union". You refuse the separation, and perhaps, beat her around a bit to enforce your Point Of View. Cool right?
Since you started this thread, it would appear it is upon you to answer the challenges....
How about a logical/reasonable response to our numerous (not just my several posts) queries?
There have been many factual responses to this argument - thank you for expanding the knowledge base. Most folks are floored by the true facts to northern motivation.
Look away...look away..... Look away...... Dixie land
Cincinnatus
06-26-15, 21:07
"Whooped 'em again, Josey. Damn'd blue scum-bellies."
:cool:
Digital_Damage
06-26-15, 21:40
Huh? I literally can not understand your response.
Are you going to respond to each question poised back out you? Are you going to dodge the basic facts?
So, as I stated earlier - and according to your logic...
For example: Your wife married. She (- apparently to you - is unloyal )decides she wants to divorce according to some issues. You force her to stay in the "union". You refuse the separation, and perhaps, beat her around a bit to enforce your Point Of View. Cool right?
Since you started this thread, it would appear it is upon you to answer the challenges....
How about a logical/reasonable response to our numerous (not just my several posts) queries?
I'm not sure how simpler it could get... you are just being intentionally obtuse, dodging the facts and the dictionary at this point.
Until they change the definition of what being a traitor means the facts remain. There is not an obscure enough analogy you can put on the table to obfuscate the definition to make it irrelevant. It was not a marriage or some other trivial matter. You can not opt out of it because it does not suit you. Even if it was a more serious situation it does not matter, you can't change the definition of the word traitor.
They entered into an agreement, reneged on it took up arms against their country. this is kinda getting stupid at this point... it is very clear your only goal is to marginalize the seriousness of the crime they committed against the United States of America. A crime that cost the lives of almost 1 million people.
The confederacy lost... a loooong time ago. It is time to give it up.
At this point...given all that I have seen change in the last 20 years, given my strong respect for history and a true telling of the same, if it were up to me RIGHT NOW I think I'd replace it with a Pride flag.
With SCOTUS rulings lately, might as well jump on the band wagon.
wildcard600
06-26-15, 23:45
I'm not sure how simpler it could get... you are just being intentionally obtuse, dodging the facts and the dictionary at this point.
Until they change the definition of what being a traitor means the facts remain. There is not an obscure enough analogy you can put on the table to obfuscate the definition to make it irrelevant. It was not a marriage or some other trivial matter. You can not opt out of it because it does not suit you. Even if it was a more serious situation it does not matter, you can't change the definition of the word traitor.
They entered into an agreement, reneged on it took up arms against their country. this is kinda getting stupid at this point... it is very clear your only goal is to marginalize the seriousness of the crime they committed against the United States of America. A crime that cost the lives of almost 1 million people.
The confederacy lost... a loooong time ago. It is time to give it up.
Can i get some soap out of that box ? looks like i've run out.
Moose-Knuckle
06-26-15, 23:47
Keep gloating and calling us traitors, you northerners....they will soon be clamoring to take down something YOU like or hold dear.
The statues of Washington, Jefferson or others that maybe owned slaves at one point.
You don't really think they will be quiet and go away after this do you? They smell blood in the water and since this was easy...they will try to tear down other parts of our history.
...it is coming.
Well "they" already have. The Gadsden flag which originated in the "north" during the Revolutionary War is considered by this admin/DOJ to be the flag of domestic terrorists.
this is kinda getting stupid at this point... it is very clear your only goal is to marginalize the seriousness of the crime they committed against the United States of America. A crime that cost the lives of almost 1 million people.
Actually their 'crime' was trivial. The north had nothing left at Sumter and they were destroying the fort across the river before they went to Sumter. The attack was nothing more than a friendly exchange among reasonable soldiers who happened to be under different orders. They were ready to starve out anyway. It was afterwards that Lincoln ordered 75,000 troops south that all hell broke loose. The blood was on his hands. All he had to say was ok guys, look, you want to secede, you got the forts now, nobody has been hurt yet, let's sit down and talk this out..... but that's not what he did and his actions ultimately caused the death of nearly 1 million Americans.
I mean I know you are trolling but really the whole 'attack on Sumter' was pretty much a nothing deal and it damn sure wasn't enough to really be the cause of the Civil War. Things led up to Sumter and then Lincoln over reacted.
Also notice that even the President of the USA at the time said... you guys can't secede per the Constitution but I can't stop you per the Constitution. IOW, even the POTUS at the time didn't believe your take on the matter. Remember the Union was supposed to be Union for the people,.... telling the southern half what they were going to do because it suited the north was not part of the deal.
So for all practical purposes about 6 or 8 states had left the Union --- BEFORE ---- Sumter. So in attacking Sumter they were not Traitors because they were not part of the Union and the POTUS admitted... he had no Constitutional right to keep them as part of the Union...... So he did the proper thing... which was nothing. Then Lincoln gets elected and turns Americans on Americans.... probably why Obama likes Lincoln. Lincoln and Davis were simply a bad mix. Buchanan and Toombs could have probably talked it out. Slavery would have gone on for a while longer but naturally died out along with the whole rest of the world.
But the word traitor is poorly applied to any of this. The word traitor is more appropriate for someone like the Ft Hood killer and not several states of people. I know it's an easy troll, but that's about it.
I'll leave you with this. If it was about slavery, why was England inclined to support the South as they were completely anti-slavery at the time?
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/secession.html
"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."
...
A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens [editor's note: this is refering to former slaves or their descendants]; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. . . .
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
Adopted December 24, 1860" - South Carolina
England sort of supported the South because they wanted the resources in the South. It was about money, plain and simple.
This has outlived it's usefulness. Everyone thinks they are right and the other wrong. Read the history books again and make your own decisions.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.