View Full Version : More PC bs
Censorship from the left ... again.
Ore. bus driver suspended for Confederate flag
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONFEDERATE_FLAG_SUSPENSION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-03-12-59-15
MEDFORD, Ore. (AP) -- An Oregon school bus driver has been suspended for refusing to remove a Confederate flag from his personal vehicle.
The Mail Tribune reports that 28-year-old Ken Webber of Medford says he's worked for four years at First Student School Bus
Transportation Services, a contractor for the Phoenix-Talent School District in the Medford area.
Webber says he began displaying the Confederate flag in the bed of his pickup truck a year and a half ago, after his father gave it to him as a birthday gift.
A spokeswoman for the school bus company says Webber was asked to remove the flag because it violates school district policy.
Webber says his suspension violates his free speech rights and he plans to hire an attorney.
They can take my confederate flag, but they will have to dig it out of my cold dead skin.
Would have been amusing had he removed it, then gotten a confederate tattoo. ;p
DaBears_85
03-04-11, 18:05
Deleted.
J
This isn't a first amendment thing, no matter how much this guy wants to try and make it. If it's school policy then while you're on their property, you play by their rules.
J
Except the school district is a governmental agency. I don't know how it plays out but that is not the same as a private business asking you to do so.
This isn't a first amendment thing, no matter how much this guy wants to try and make it. If it's school policy then while you're on their property, you play by their rules.
You do not check your constitutional rights at the door when you enter government property. Or private property either. What if Wal Mart said no one could enter its stores wearing a Yarmulke (sp?)? That would not survive court scrutiny.
You do not check your constitutional rights at the door when you enter government property. Or private property either. What if Wal Mart said no one could enter its stores wearing a Yarmulke (sp?)? That would not survive court scrutiny.
Far be it for me to argue with a lawyer, but your 1A rights are checked at the door of a private business. The 1A guarantees you the rights are unchecked by the government. They don't trump private property rights. (Think of the Temple Square controversy for example with the Main Street plaza being private -- since you are here in Utah).
The example you gave of the yarmulke would probably fall under a different statute. I am guessing something like place of public accommodation and/or some sort of anti-discrimination statute.
The difference I think in this case, again not being a lawyer or anything myself, is the the school IS a governmental organization and as such may be constrained by the 1A.
Bolt_Overide
03-07-11, 02:25
This isn't a first amendment thing, no matter how much this guy wants to try and make it. If it's school policy then while you're on their property, you play by their rules.
J
So wrong, in so many ways, I dont think I can point them all out.
So lets go with:
1) School district is government owned, not some asshat liberal's personal fiefdom.
2) It is a form of self expression, and theres plenty of caselaw to backup that employers got shit to say about personal vehicles.
3) Attitudes like the one you are displaying are precisely why our country is in the state it is in. As long as it doesnt affect you, or its over something you dont tend to agree with in the first place, **** it.
Not to get off track with private property issues, I would like to point out that it is HIGHLY LIKELY that several teacher-owned automobiles in the same parking lot as the bus driver's have Obama '08 bumper stickers on them without suffering any disciplinary action.
If this were a private company they would do as they please for the most part in this instance. However he is a governmental employee and I believe they may be required to make an exception for political speech.
In other words DO NOT remove it and let them fire you, then sue them till they cant see straight.
rickrock305
03-07-11, 16:38
Not to get off track with private property issues, I would like to point out that it is HIGHLY LIKELY that several teacher-owned automobiles in the same parking lot as the bus driver's have Obama '08 bumper stickers on them without suffering any disciplinary action.
You don't see the difference?
You don't see the difference?
There is no difference, unless you try to attach an agenda-based opinion to the situation by quenching unpopular expression. The Constitution protects all speech and freedom of expression; it does not differentiate nor did its writers care if you agreed with it or not. It's all or nothing. Now please quit trying to derail this thread.
If this were a private company they would do as they please for the most part in this instance. However he is a governmental employee and I believe they may be required to make an exception for political speech.
They would have to prove his reasons for flying it are political in nature and not, say, emotional or sentimental attachment. ;) Further, if they go the "political" route, then those supposed teachers with Obama bumper stickers are up for grabs too, the only difference being is that the stickers are, by definition, political while the flag is not.
You don't see the difference?
What do you think the difference is?
Cagemonkey
03-07-11, 16:51
More news on the Libs hatred of the Stars and Bars. http://detnews.com/article/20110304/METRO/103040360/Kid-Rock-s-use-of-Confederate-flag-sparks-NAACP-boycott
rickrock305
03-07-11, 16:52
There is no difference, unless you try to attach an agenda-based opinion to the situation by quenching unpopular expression.
So comparing an Obama bumper sticker to a confederate flag isn't attaching "agenda-based opinion"? Riiiiiiight... :blink:
The Constitution protects all speech and freedom of expression; it does not differentiate nor did its writers care if you agreed with it or not. It's all or nothing.
Completely false. There are limits on freedom of speech and expression.
Now please quit trying to derail this thread.
Sorry you don't approve of the discussion. Should I run my posts by you first to make sure they're ok to post? :sarcastic:
Personally I couldn't care less if the guy wants to fly a flag. Doesn't bother me one bit. But if it violates their policy, then it violates their policy and they have the right to remedy that.
from the article...
"We have a policy," he added. "It's about displaying symbols on school property that were racist, or had a potential to be seen as racist might be a better way to say that."
Courts have upheld the right of schools to limit display of the Confederate flag on their property. Last November, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of a Tennessee school district to suspend a student for wearing a T-shirt and belt buckle bearing the image of the Confederate battle flag.
rickrock305
03-07-11, 16:53
What do you think the difference is?
One is widely viewed as a symbol of racism. The other isn't.
One is widely viewed as a symbol of racism. The other isn't.
Hook. Line. Sinker.
That's your opinion. The flag never stood for racism, it stood for the Confederate States which coincidentally supported racism. According to your logic, I could claim that a German Luger is a symbol of aryan supremacy.
Your argument is based on emotion and is the very reason the 1st Amendment exists. You want to assert your opinion because you "feel" it stands for something you don't like. The fact is that its a flag, an inanimate object, that never stood for anything in and of itself except a rally point on a battlefield. If you don't agree, you need to retake high school and take an IQ test. Trying to attach a stigma to an inanimate object is illogical, uneducated, biased, and is ultimately a form of people control.
Further, the school official in your example even had to clarify that it "might be seen as racist." In other words, even he admitted it wasn't racist, it just might be taken that way (read: overly-sensitive opinion).
Lastly, you quoted a ruling in Tennessee as if it has weight in Oregon. It does not.
One is widely viewed as a symbol of racism. The other isn't.
And Obama stickers aren't? Obama pulled the "race" card so many times I lost track.
rickrock305
03-07-11, 17:05
That's your opinion.
I never said it was my opinion. I said it is widely viewed as a symbol of racism. Sorry, try again.
The flag never stood for racism, it stood for the Confederate States which coincidentally supported racism.
Really? :D :rolleyes:
The confederate flag was the battle flag for the confederate states. What were they battling for among other things? Slavery.
It has also been adopted by a whole bunch of racist Aryan brotherhoods, neo nazis, and the klan. So yes, it has stood for racism.
According to your logic, I could claim that a German Luger is a symbol of aryan supremacy.
Wrong. That is completely illogical because the Luger was never a symbol of the Nazis and was never subverted by racist groups as their symbol. Big difference.
Your argument is based on emotion
No, my argument is based on widely viewed public opinion and fact.
You want to assert your opinion because you "feel" it stands for something you don't like.
Maybe you missed the part of my post where I said I really don't care if the dude wants to fly his flag.
The recent ruling of the Supreme Court and its protection of WBC (and their OPENLY discriminatory comments) only underscores it.
Courts have also upheld the right of schools to limit display of the Confederate flag on their property. Last November, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of a Tennessee school district to suspend a student for wearing a T-shirt and belt buckle bearing the image of the Confederate battle flag. (from the article)
Further, the school official in your example even had to clarify that it "might be seen as racist." In other words, even he admitted it wasn't racist, it just might be taken that way (read: overly-sensitive opinion).
You're really reaching here.
Lastly, you quoted a ruling in Tennessee as if it has weight in Oregon. It does not.
A Federal Appeals Court ruling does carry weight in Oregon and everywhere else in the land. A little thing called PRECEDENT.
rickrock305
03-07-11, 17:07
And Obama stickers aren't? Obama pulled the "race" card so many times I lost track.
This is great. Showing your true colors here. Here's a news flash for you...YOU are the one pulling the Obama race card!
No, Obama stickers are not racist. Thats beyond ridiculous and really says more about you than you realize.
Cagemonkey
03-07-11, 17:13
One is widely viewed as a symbol of racism. The other isn't.Well in that case, according to your logic, you might as well throw in the Stars and Stripes. From a legal point racism wasn't officially illegal until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Civil War ended slavery, but it had nothing to do with racism. I also feel Slavery was not the real root cause of the Civil War.
Being viewed as a symbol of racism means jack shit. Because the Battle flag of the Confederacy was co-opted by bunch of freakin complete idiots has no bearing on its real meaning.
...
You obviously cannot differentiate between what is fact and what you perceive as fact.
The Confederate states did not fight solely for slavery, therefore the flag does not stand for slavery. It was used solely to represent the South and what they fought for: their way of life, plantations, cotton, trading without being taxed to death, "southern belles" (instead of the northern women the gentleman of that day disliked), small federal government, and finally, slavery. If the Confederate flag stands simply for slavery, then the US flag stands for Watergate, Blackwater, Clinton-Lewinsky, and every other scandal you can imagine.
You aren't comprehending how utterly ridiculous you sound every time you claim the flag is "racist." I'll try one last attempt to explain this. Using the logic method that every great debater, philosopher, and theorist has used for the last 200 years, racism and how it pertains to Stars and Bars can be summed up as this: Racism is an element of the flag, the flag is not an element of racism. If you don't understand that statement, it means that your debating skills are less than that of a high school senior (I'm being very serious) and you need to go back to school and study logic unions and associations.
Claiming the flag is racist is truly, in every meaning of the word, uneducated.
rickrock305
03-07-11, 17:34
Well in that case, according to your logic, you might as well throw in the Stars and Stripes. From a legal point racism wasn't officially illegal until the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Racism is illegal now? Really? Racism isn't illegal. You can go around and call anyone any name you want. You can personally discriminate against any person you want. If you don't want to sell your M4 buttstock because the buyer is black, thats fine and not illegal. Its only illegal when we're talking about government or businesses discriminating.
The Civil War ended slavery, but it had nothing to do with racism. I also feel Slavery was not the real root cause of the Civil War.
The Civil War had a lot to do with racism. But I understand where you're coming from that it was not the real root cause of the Civil War. I agree there.
rickrock305
03-07-11, 17:35
Being viewed as a symbol of racism means jack shit. Because the Battle flag of the Confederacy was co-opted by bunch of freakin complete idiots has no bearing on its real meaning.
Sure it does. It wasn't just co-opted by the idiots. It was CREATED by racists.
Sure it does. It wasn't just co-opted by the idiots. It was CREATED by racists.
Rick feel free to climb back under your rock, The War of Northern Aggression wasnt fought solely because of slavery.
rickrock305
03-07-11, 17:39
You obviously cannot differentiate between what is fact and what you perceive as fact.
And you apparently can't comprehend a simple sentence. I am not saying the flag is racist. I never said that. I said it is widely perceived as such.
The Confederate states did not fight solely for slavery, therefore the flag does not stand for slavery.
Again, I never said it stood for slavery. Try to read my posts before you respond to them.
It was used solely to represent the South and what they fought for.
And one of those things was...SLAVERY!
If the Confederate flag stands for slavery, then the US flag stands for Watergate, Blackwater, Clinton-Lewinsky, and every other scandal you can imagine.
For someone who continually brings up logic...you seem to completely lack any semblance of it.
You aren't comprehending how uneducated you sound every time you claim the flag is "racist." If you still believe it, then you seriously need to go back and study logic unions and associations.
Only problem is, I never claimed the flag is racist. So much for all your talk of logic. Before you worry about logic, you should focus on reading comprehension.
rickrock305
03-07-11, 17:40
Rick feel free to climb back under your rock, The War of Northern Aggression wasnt fought solely because of slavery.
Do you people read? I clearly said this same exact thing a few posts up. :rolleyes:
The Civil War had jack shit to do with slavery, fact.
Do you people read? I clearly said this same exact thing a few posts up. :rolleyes:
So quit treading on one of my flags, back up, back off and drop it.
And you apparently can't comprehend a simple sentence. I am not saying the flag is racist. I never said that. I said it is widely perceived as such.
I can't believe how ridiculous you're being.
If you accept that the flag is not racist, then you don't have an argument whatsoever. Being "perceived" as racist doesn't mean jack crap. It either is, or it is not. You've conceded that it isn't, so every post you make after the fact is simply arguing emotion, which is my first post said precisely:
There is no difference, unless you try to attach an agenda-based opinion to the situation by quenching unpopular expression.
Looks like I nailed it the first time, huh? The irony is that you're a liberal who admits that it isn't racist, but you're arguing that it's viewed that way anyways without addressing the fact that it's completely incorrect, which is what this entire freaking thread is about: morons who think that perception is fact when it is not. The hypocrisy, the sheer hypocrisy...
The Civil War had jack shit to do with slavery, fact.
It's safe to say that anybody who says this knows nothing about the American Civil War.
It's different than saying the Civil War was fought for many reasons, including slavery. Pretending it had nothing to do with slavery is crazy.
Personally I couldn't care less if the guy wants to fly a flag. Doesn't bother me one bit. But if it violates their policy, then it violates their policy and they have the right to remedy that.
Not if their policy is illegal under the Constitution. That is the issue.
It had very little to do with why the war was fought. This may be a better topic for another thread but I'll quote Thomas DiLorenzo on the matter as he's done far more research into the matter than I have.
Thomas DiLorenzo has authored several very good books on Lincoln and the myths that surround him.
With all due respect to you and Mr. DiLorenzo, that's an opinionated commentary of a very small number of excerpts. Lincoln wasn't the sole force behind the war, he was simply one man in the very large scheme of things.
I will agree that the war had very little to do with slavery, but slavery was nonetheless a part of it, as there were others who elevated the status of slavery during the war. I think its just blown out of proportion.
You don't see the difference?
Well yeah, Obama is way more racist than a confederate flag. But still essentially the same.
It had very little to do with why the war was fought. This may be a better topic for another thread but I'll quote Thomas DiLorenzo on the matter as he's done far more research into the matter than I have.
It might be a good topic for another thread, but Thomas DiLorenzo is a historical revisionist. There is a vastly greater body of work refuting his scholarship or supporting a more traditional view and you need to bear that in mind when reading that kind of thing. You can not take quotes made by Lincoln and Congress that were known to be lies/propaganda at the time they were made and use them as "proof" that the war was not at all about slavery.
The Civil War was the culmination of an ongoing years long Constitutional crisis caused by the political and economic domination of the South by the North, the refusal of the North to allow any new states to enter the union as slave states, the growing domination of politics in the North (and thus nationally) by Republicans and Abolitionists, the refusal of the North to recognize the rights of states in the South to nullify federal law and the US Constitution, etc.
rickrock305
03-07-11, 18:18
I can't believe how ridiculous you're being.
Pot...Kettle...ya know.
Being "perceived" as racist doesn't mean jack crap. It either is, or it is not.
It means an awful lot. Perception is quite often reality.
You've conceded that it isn't, so every post you make after the fact is simply arguing emotion, which is my first post said precisely:
I've conceded no such thing. I made a simple statement that it is widely perceived as racist. I didn't say whether I thought it was or wasn't.
All this conjecture is you making sh*t up so you can have an argument.
Looks like I nailed it the first time, huh? The irony is that you're a liberal who admits that it isn't racist, but you're arguing that it's viewed that way anyways without addressing the fact that it's completely incorrect, which is what this entire freaking thread is about: morons who think that perception is fact when it is not. The hypocrisy, the sheer hypocrisy...
Nailed what? The argument you made up in your own mind? Sure, if you say so.
rickrock305
03-07-11, 18:20
Not if their policy is illegal under the Constitution. That is the issue.
Federal courts have already set the precedent that their policy is perfectly legal. If buddy wants to take it all the way to the supreme court over a freaking confederate flag, go ahead i guess. Waste of resources IMO, on both his and the government's side.
The South lost... get over it...
Honestly, I find it a bit silly when people display the Confederate flag, but who am I to judge. I still think they have the right to do so and I can't believe this guy being fired for that. Its not like he put it on the school bus, it was his private vehicle.
rickrock305
03-07-11, 18:23
Well yeah, Obama is way more racist than a confederate flag. But still essentially the same.
Who has Obama discriminated against based on race?
It means an awful lot. Perception is quite often reality.
Wow, man. Just wow. What type of delusional world do you live in? :rolleyes:
rickrock305
03-07-11, 18:26
Wow, man. Just wow. What type of delusional world do you live in? :rolleyes:
So you make up a bunch of sh*t I never said, but I'M the delusional one? :laugh:
You're a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Your perception of me is affecting your reality. You really believe I'm making all these arguments when I've said nothing like that. Your preconceived concepts about my views are altering what you see being written. Therefore your perception has become your reality.
Federal courts have already set the precedent that their policy is perfectly legal. If buddy wants to take it all the way to the supreme court over a freaking confederate flag, go ahead i guess. Waste of resources IMO, on both his and the government's side.
All the sudden liberals care about wasting government resources? How quaint.
rickrock305
03-07-11, 18:35
All the sudden liberals care about wasting government resources? How quaint.
Whatever label you want to put on me, the fact is I've ALWAYS cared about wasting government resources.
So you make up a bunch of sh*t I never said, but I'M the delusional one? :laugh:
No, I actually I haven't made up anything. What I have done is (mistakenly) draw the conclusion that you have some vested interest in your posts and have attempted to genuinely reply in kind. However, it's clear you have no interest in debating or posting anything of intelligence, for that matter.
Your posts have been the equivalent of someone standing with a group during a protest, then following up with "But I never actually supported the protest, I just stood with them."
You've posted no less than three times that the flag was "perceived" as racist, therefore it would follow you're making a case that you believe that it is (otherwise, you're simply posting for the sake of posting, which this forum has a rule against doing so). Perception is not fact, it's opinion, and therefore without weight.
When called on the fact that you said it was perceived, you claimed that you didn't say that. It then followed you were making a case that it wasn't perceived, but you also denied that. Therefore, it's clear you haven't made any effort to contribute to this thread but instead are, predictably, being the typical leftist troll that you usually are, trying to hide behind the mass opinion of other leftists without actually posting anything of quality yourself. Again, not surprising.
In other words, you've contributed nothing to this discussion other than to alert us to the fact some people "perceive" the flag as racist. We already knew that. They're called "idiots."
Whatever label you want to put on me, the fact is I've ALWAYS cared about wasting government resources.
So how best to stop wasting government resources in this case? The employee just bends to the will of the employer, or the employer stops discriminating against his free expression and allows him to display the flag? I would be inclined to the latter. I bet they allow other people to display political bumper stickers, flags, etc., they are just discriminating against him.
I thought liberals were in favor of the little guy?
rickrock305
03-07-11, 18:55
No, I actually I haven't made up anything. What I have done is (mistakenly) draw the conclusion that you have some vested interest in your posts and have attempted to genuinely reply in kind. However, it's clear you have no interest in debating or posting anything of intelligence, for that matter.
Your posts have been the equivalent of someone standing with a group during a protest, then following up with "But I never actually supported the protest, I just stood with them."
You've posted no less than three times that the flag was "perceived" as racist, therefore it would follow you're making a case that you believe that it is (otherwise, you're simply posting for the sake of posting, which this forum has a rule against doing so). Perception is not fact, it's opinion, and therefore without weight.
When called on the fact that you said it was perceived, you claimed that you didn't say that. It then followed you were making a case that it wasn't perceived, but you also denied that. Therefore, it's clear you haven't made any effort to contribute to this thread but instead are, predictably, being the typical leftist troll that you usually are, trying to hide behind the mass opinion of other leftists without actually posting anything of quality yourself. Again, not surprising.
In other words, you've contributed nothing to this discussion other than to alert us to the fact some people "perceive" the flag as racist. We already knew that. They're called "idiots."
You're obviously way more interested in arguing with me or painting me as something I'm not than you are in actually discussing anything. You want to paint me with the leftist brush so bad that you are willing to go so far as to make up things I never said in a lame attempt to do so. Stop trying so hard, its pretty tired.
DaBears_85
03-07-11, 19:03
Deleted.
J
rickrock305
03-07-11, 19:15
So how best to stop wasting government resources in this case? The employee just bends to the will of the employer, or the employer stops discriminating against his free expression and allows him to display the flag?
Generally in cases like this the employer has the right to do exactly what they've done. Its been upheld as perfectly legal under the Constitution to do so, in multiple cases and courts. They didn't outright fire him, they gave him a choice. Either take down the flag or find yourself without a job. He made the choice that his confederate flag is more important. Feel free to go get yourself a job that will allow you to fly your flag freely.
I would be inclined to the latter. I bet they allow other people to display political bumper stickers, flags, etc., they are just discriminating against him.
So if he was flying a Black Panther flag or Nation of Islam or Hamas flag, that would be ok with you? Would you still be defending it?
I thought liberals were in favor of the little guy?
Liberals and conservatives both think they're in favor of the little guy. Unfortunately none of the politicians they elect actually are.
So if he was flying a Black Panther flag or Nation of Islam or Hamas flag, that would be ok with you? Would you still be defending it?
Sure, the flag itself is not the issue.
Liberals and conservatives both think they're in favor of the little guy. Unfortunately none of the politicians they elect actually are.
Censorship from the left ... again.
Ore. bus driver suspended for Confederate flag
If he had worn it on his head they would not have had a problem with it.
rickrock305
03-07-11, 20:16
If he had worn it on his head they would not have had a problem with it.
He has a couple of tattoos of the flag. According to the article there seems to be no issue with those.
I do not dismiss the fact that some of the reasons for the war between the states was slavery for some states,But It was a Major States rights issue ,the north was built by slaves also .
I had family fight in the war and Not one one my ancestors owned slaves.
other than the racist Idiots ,that Flag Stands for heritage not Hate for a lot of us Southerns .
Also a good read Blacks in Blue and Gray: Afro-American Service in the Civil War, by H.C. Blackerby.
This will always be a heated debate But , I Don't see the right to tell someone to remove a Flag from a personal vehicle Be it a Confederate Flag,Black Panther ,Or Islamic symbol .
From the US History Site "The war... was an unnecessary condition of affairs, and might have been avoided if forebearance and wisdom had been practiced on both sides.
This war is not about slavery. " Robert E Lee
This war is not about slavery. " Robert E Lee
Several states specifically mentioned threats to their slavery rights by Republicans and other abolitionist groups entrenched in the Federal government in their statements accompanying secession.
So apparently these legislatures didn't know why they were seceeding.
:rolleyes:
So if he was flying a Black Panther flag or Nation of Islam or Hamas flag, that would be ok with you? Would you still be defending it?
On a personally owned vehicle? Yeah!
If he was flying a flag inside the bus while on school time that would be something else, but this is just on his car as it is parked in the parking lot is my understanding.
Several states specifically mentioned threats to their slavery rights by Republicans and other abolitionist groups entrenched in the Federal government in their statements accompanying secession.
So apparently these legislatures didn't know why they were seceeding.
:rolleyes:
The war was not about or because of slavery. It was a federal vs states rights issue and economic issue that did involve slavery. The North however did not go to war to free the slaves, and the South did not secede because the North threatened to free the slaves. They seceded because they felt their rights as states to manage their own affairs was under threat by the federal govt and that they would lose management of their economies. Slavery was deeply involved in it but was not the issue itself.
The war was not about or because of slavery.
Again, several of the seceeding legislatures said otherwise. The purpose of the war according to the North was to bring the seceeding states back into the Union and preserve said Union, many of the seceeding states specifically stated they were leaving because of threats to slavery. To say the war wasn't at all about slavery as some are doing in this thread is both sad and funny. Slavery and economic and political consequences associated with it are the biggest reasons.
Again, several of the seceeding legislatures said otherwise.
Can you point to what they said? Exactly? I am betting that what they said supports my POV. I did not say slavery had nothing to do with it. I said that slavery was not the main impetus directly. It certainly was involved. It was probably the straw that broke the camels back form an economic standpoint, but problems had been long brewing that were not mainly slavery.
And no, I am not from the South, nor have any interest myself in the South. I grew up in Massachusetts, a Yankee, I guess, after having been born in Arizona. I am mainly interested in historical accuracy, and from what I have seen, the war was not directly about slavery, but perhaps indirectly you can say it was.
The purpose of the war according to the North was to bring the seceeding states back into the Union and preserve said Union, many of the seceeding states specifically stated they were leaving because of threats to slavery. To say the war wasn't at all about slavery as some are doing in this thread is both sad and funny. Slavery and economic and political consequences associated with it are the main reason.
Can you point to what they said? Exactly? I am betting that what they said supports my POV.
Your POV seems to be kinda talking out of both sides of your mouth, no offense. It wasn't about slavery but it was about the rights of people to control their economy (dependent on slavery) and property (slaves), and about their right to protect themselves from Federal interference (in their slave rights).
I could only find this website with statements from four of the states.
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South Carolina
Denying the war was about slavery seems like a fairly recent phenomenon as far as looking back on it historically goes. During the war people in power in the North and South made statements about it not being about slavery for propaganda purposes. The North because they still had slave states on their side and didn't want to scare them off, the South because even back then most people knew slavery was wrong, with only a tiny fraction of Southerners being slave holders.
I have no problem acknowledging it was about slavery, and still have respect for our slave owning Founding Fathers, and my forefathers, many of whom are from the South and owned slaves.
Excerpt from South Carolina's statement:
"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.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. 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."
Gutshot John
03-07-11, 22:21
The South, in particular South Carolina started the war with secession and the bombardement of Fort Sumter.
If you read the secession document slavery is mentioned multiple times as the reason for secession and more so than any other cause. In fact there is almost no other cause mentioned.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=432
You can't separate slavery from secession.
rickrock305
03-07-11, 22:34
If he was flying a flag inside the bus while on school time that would be something else, but this is just on his car as it is parked in the parking lot is my understanding.
Thats my understanding as well. Problem is its still school property.
Your POV seems to be kinda talking out of both sides of your mouth, no offense. It wasn't about slavery but it was about the rights of people to control their economy (dependent on slavery) and property (slaves), and about their right to protect themselves from Federal interference (in their slave rights).
I could only find this website with statements from four of the states.
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South Carolina
Denying the war was about slavery seems like a fairly recent phenomenon as far as looking back on it historically goes. During the war people in power in the North and South made statements about it not being about slavery for propaganda purposes. The North because they still had slave states on their side and didn't want to scare them off, the South because even back then most people knew slavery was wrong, with only a tiny fraction of Southerners being slave holders.
I have no problem acknowledging it was about slavery, and still have respect for our slave owning Founding Fathers, and my forefathers, many of whom are from the South and owned slaves.
Excerpt from South Carolina's statement:
"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.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. 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."
No, I am not talking out of both sides of my mouth. I said that slavery was involved, but the actual issue was not slavery. This is actually quite clear in the documents you linked to above.
The actual issue was the relationships of states to each other and the federal government according to the Constitution and how the South felt that that was being abrogated. Slavery was the issue that was behind of drove this but was not the actual issue that the war was about. Tensions had been rising for 10 or 20 years prior. Also related to questions about slavery, but rooted in what the South believed the Constitution and the Country meant versus the North.
The North fought the Civil War to keep the Union together, not to free the slaves. The South seceded because they felt that their rights as equal and sovereign states under the Constitution were not being upheld. The flashpoints that drive this home in their mind were rooted around Slavery.
This explains it ok: http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0215469/before_the_civil_war.htm
montanadave
03-07-11, 22:42
Tread very carefully
Gutshot John
03-07-11, 22:50
The North didn't want to fight the war at all. Secession occurred months before shots were even fired. Who fired those shots? It was the South, and in particular South Carolina, that made the war about slavery, especially at the beginning.
Politically Lincoln had to make the war about "union" at the outset in order to preserve the slaveholding states that did not secede. In the end however he was forced to recognize that the war was indeed about slavery and issued the Emancipation Proclamation in an attempt to give the war moral suasion.
There were certainly other reasons for the war, but without slavery you don't have the war. It was the prime reason.
Many wars start for reasons that change by the end.
.....................edit
No, I am not talking out of both sides of my mouth. I said that slavery was involved, but the actual issue was not slavery.
Again, this reads like double speak to me. Slavery was the root of the whole issue. This is clear by reading what the secessionists said when they seceded.
Whatever nuanced point you are trying to make is lost on me.
Except the school district is a governmental agency. I don't know how it plays out but that is not the same as a private business asking you to do so.
Government employees put political stickers on their POV's and drive them on government property, and nobody screams about Hatch Act violations. So, I don't know either.
As for the whole slavery thing during the Civil War, I'm with Gutshot John. Good summary of the motivations and how they shifted as the war evolved.
If you're going to argue that the war was based on economic pressure, consider these oddities:
(1) Mountainous, forested West Virginia dropped out of the Confederacy because they had no economic interest in slavery.
(2) Meanwhile, agricultural Maryland was pro-slavery and was occupied by the Union from square one, and so never was in a position to join the CSA. Read about the 1861 Baltimore riots. (http://www.mdoe.org/riots_balt_1861.html) Maryland didn't care for Lincoln one bit.
(3) Then you've also got pockets of West-Virginia-like demographics in the Deep South, such as Nickajack (E. Tennessee), and Winston County Alabama. Those areas had no plantations, no slaves, and no vested interest in slavery. And guess what? They were neutral with Union sympathies.
You can cite quotes till you're blue in the face, but I think actions speak louder than words. The 1st Alabama Cavalry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Alabama_Cavalry_Regiment_%28Union%29) came from the Winston and Nickajack regions. Conversely, you ought to check the details on CSA cavalry commander Nathan Bedford Forrest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest), in particular, how he made a living before the war and what organizations he worked with afterward.
My kid wears a Confederate flag helmet for skiing. There have only been a few comments about it and they were all positive. My other kid has a flag on his dirt bike (as required by law for desert riding) that has an iron cross on it. He also has a Russian army hat with a red star on it. No one has had a heart attack over any of this.
Again, this reads like double speak to me. Slavery was the root of the whole issue. This is clear by reading what the secessionists said when they seceded.
Whatever nuanced point you are trying to make is lost on me.
Let me put it this way.
The war was not about slavery. The North did not go into the war to stop slavery. The South did not secede to keep slavery, as the North was not forcing some sort of slavery prohibition on them.
The South seceded because they felt that their constitutional protections and the structure of the union in terms of states rights was not being respected. THIS feeling/attitude was because of slavery, more specifically, came about because of Northern actions related to slavery (not sending escaped slaves back, and a myriad of other actions related to slavery, but not demanding the stop of slavery or prohibiting of it etc). The Southern states went into the Constitution feeling they were equal sovereign states with all other states and having certain rights. They went willingly in, so they figured they could willingly withdraw as well. Their reasons were related to slavery, but the specific reasons were related to states rights and Constitutional issues.
The North went into the war not to free slaves (and the Emancipation Proclamation was not done to end slavery but rather as a punitive punishment on the South), but to force the South to stay in the Union under the Constitution.
So the backdrop was slavery. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that kids learn that the Civil War was about ending slavery and freeing the slaves. It was not. It was about states rights and the right to secede when a state felt like it. The specific pressures the Southern states felt that made them want to secede were based on slavery issues. No dispute there. The war was about the right to secede.
Btw, I have no feelings either way personally about "the Stars and Bars." I personally would not fly it as some people have negative connotations and I would try and be a bit sensitive about it, and I have no personal connection to it either, not being from the South nor having any familial roots really (my dad has one line that goes back to Kentucky I think but they were not slave holders and left for the west before the civil war AFAIK).
The question is whether in America a person has the right to do so without governmental persecution. I think the answer is YES (should be YES).
Heavy Metal
03-08-11, 23:23
Federal courts have already set the precedent that their policy is perfectly legal. If buddy wants to take it all the way to the supreme court over a freaking confederate flag, go ahead i guess. Waste of resources IMO, on both his and the government's side.
That precident applies to a minor student, who courts recognize does not have the same rights to freedom of expression that applies to adults.
An apple is not an orange.
Heavy Metal
03-08-11, 23:30
The South lost... get over it...
Honestly, I find it a bit silly when people display the Confederate flag, but who am I to judge. I still think they have the right to do so and I can't believe this guy being fired for that. Its not like he put it on the school bus, it was his private vehicle.
They held off the Union Army for 4 years outnumbered 3 to 1 with 1/5 the industrial base of the North.
By every objective measure, on a one-on-one basis, the southern fighting man ouclassed his northern cousins by leaps and bounds all the while fighting in tatters and rags with meager rations.
It isn't about pride in the cause, which was not a good one IMO, it is about the pride in the line and the valor.
I may not agree with the cause Erwin Rommel fought for before he gallantly turned on it and paid for his failed attempt to end it with his life but I sure admire him as a Warrior, a Gentleman and a Tactician.
Frankly, if I was a northerner, I would want to forget about it too:p
Gutshot John
03-08-11, 23:43
The South did not secede to keep slavery, as the North was not forcing some sort of slavery prohibition on them.
The secession documents of several states contradicts this theory.
It also fails to take into account things like the Kansas-Nebraska Act which upended the tenuous balance created by the Missouri Compromise. The Republican party was created with the explicit purpose of stopping the expansion of slavery. If slavery could not be expanded than it was inevitably going to disappear. Every slave state knew this.
While political expediency in the North may have made "union" the primary battle cry of the Army of the Potomac, the preservation of slavery was the main purpose of the South.
Heavy Metal
03-08-11, 23:48
Slavery was going to die soon anyways, automation was going to see to that. The industrial revolution was already putting nails in it's coffin.
rickrock305
03-08-11, 23:52
That precident applies to a minor student, who courts recognize does not have the same rights to freedom of expression that applies to adults.
An apple is not an orange.
If you read the ruling, no mention is made of age.
Gutshot John
03-08-11, 23:55
Slavery was going to die soon anyways, automation was going to see to that. The industrial revolution was already putting nails in it's coffin.
While perhaps true in hindsight, the South wasn't going to give up its "peculiar institution" without a fight. Hence the nonsense about "states rights".
Had the South really cared about states' rights, and if slavery was never really an issue, the Confederacy would have simply given up slavery and called the Union bluff.
Of course the entrenched political interests, reliant on a slaveholding elite that supported them, refused and sent many man, most of whom owned no slaves, to fight for the institution under the pretense of liberty.
Of course claims of liberty that rely on the enslavement of others is a house built on a rotten foundation.
Heavy Metal
03-09-11, 00:09
If you read the ruling, no mention is made of age.
Other rulings already established the limited rights of minors. Cases that preceeded that ruling and laid the groundwork for it. It was already established case law.
Just like a minor can't walk into a gunstore and buy a firearm prior to age 18 or a pistol at 21. Nor can they vote prior to 18.
and I would try and be a bit sensitive about it,
From time to time I like to help the sensitive folks develop a thicker skin. ;)
It can be done.
http://www.jessejoyce.com/v2/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/black_confederates-246x300.jpg
Had the South really cared about states' rights, and if slavery was never really an issue, the Confederacy would have simply given up slavery and called the Union bluff.
I forget who said it and can't quote it exactly, but one Confederate leader basically said that if blacks made good soldiers their entire system was wrong, in response to a suggestion gaining traction that slaves be put into the Confederate ranks en masse in exchange for freedom.
Also had the South given up slavery very early in the war countries in Europe would have been more inclined to give aid or even intervene on their behalf.
If it wasn't about slavery why did not the South gain itself much needed political capital in Europe and the North and many hundreds of thousands of troops by freeing the slaves through a conscription deal?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.