NationStates Jolt Archive

Deep in Dixie’s heart, rebel symbols fall one by one:
South slowly shedding reminders of its still-divisive Civil War past

Over the past few years, more and more references to the Confederacy seem to be vanishing around the South.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6747569/

What do you think?

Since at one time or another, all names will eventually have some historic meaning, (example: "The Green Line", "Reagan Airport") and probably piss off someone who is constantly reminded of something that will be (at the time) offensive, we really should adopt a random numbering scheme (twenty digits or so, never re-using a number) to name buildings, streets, airports, etc., so that no one will ever be offended.

I don't like certain number sequences... ;)

Every memory of the Rebs must be wiped out.

I noticed that the US still has bases named after slimeballs like Lee, Benning, and Hood.

I had not noticed the Germans naming their bases after Goering or Hitler.

I had not noticed the Germans naming their bases after Goering or Hitler.

I guess you missed those little war memorials that they have in some town squares in Germany. You know, the ones they hang wreaths on in the middle of the night to commemorate the loss of some of the local boys in some battle in WW II. Nice artwork.

I guess you missed those little war memorials that they have in some town squares in Germany. You know, the ones they hang wreaths on in the middle of the night to commemorate the loss of some of the local boys in some battle in WW II. Nice artwork.


Well then, I suppose that for once, the US actually takes the lead in doing something good.

Took you freaking long enough.

Every memory of the Rebs must be wiped out.

I noticed that the US still has bases named after slimeballs like Lee, Benning, and Hood.

I had not noticed the Germans naming their bases after Goering or Hitler.

I'm not sure where you're coming from here. Lee chose the losing side only because he was loyal to Virginia. He was never credited with being cruel or viscious towards his enemy, and his house is now Arlington National Cemetary.

Every memory of the Rebs must be wiped out.

I noticed that the US still has bases named after slimeballs like Lee, Benning, and Hood.

I had not noticed the Germans naming their bases after Goering or Hitler.

I agree completely. Not only that, but the president of the confederacy even was let to become a professor at a college (AFTER the war!).

The very man who put in motion the bloodiest war of our history (yes I know the north declared war, but the south knew what would happen if they ceaded, and they did it anyway)... is LET GO, to TEACH A CLASS!

This still boggles my mind.

I'm not sure where you're coming from here. Lee chose the losing side only because he was loyal to Virginia. He was never credited with being cruel or viscious towards his enemy, and his house is now Arlington National Cemetary.

The site of his house becoming Arlington, was done as a means to insult him, not honor him (by placing all the union dead on his own property).

Lee was against everything that the south stood for but he wanted to be loyal to his state.....lee was asked to be the commander of the northern army....

The site of his house becoming Arlington, was done as a means to insult him, not honor him (by placing all the union dead on his own property).

My point was that the man suffered defeat, ruin of his home state, and the loss (basically) of his home. And he wasn't a rabid successionist. He was even offered a commission in the Union Army!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee

I'm not pro-Dixie by any stretch, but this man was IMHO not a scumbag.

My point was that the man suffered defeat, ruin of his home state, and the loss (basically) of his home. And he wasn't a rabid successionist. He was even offered a commission in the Union Army!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee

I'm not pro-Dixie by any stretch, but this man was IMHO not a scumbag.

You're being too easy on him. He lead armies which fought for the right of slavery. He could have just as easily said "NO THANK YOU", and not had the blood of a thousands on his hands.

the options you gave are not adequate.

the confederate flag (which is the confederate naval jack) does not have any racial or hateful undertones. How do i know? I'm a yankee living in the south for the past 12 years. the confederacy doesn't mean slavery to anyone in the south. well, except of course the NAACP and etc...

you are fools to say that every memory should be wiped out. they were americans who fought to defend their states' rights (or so they believed) to the death. That being said, they are responsible for the civil war.

In the times of the revolution, only 1/3 was for it. But do you see our history books trying to wipe out the other 2/3's memory? No. Because they were fighting for what they believed in, and that should be honored. The soldiers were just boys from the country, on both sides, whose only reasons for fighting were conscription or the love of their state (very different from today).

With all that being said, i think it is repugnant that there are minimal union memorials in the south. very hypocritical, if you ask me.

So, should they be removed from courthouses? I suppose, because they have no real purpose there. But on a confederate monument on the property, most definitely. There should be three flags flown at a courthouse, the national, state, and county. any other is unnecessary and doesn't belong. Now if the state flag has the confederate battle flag or naval jack in it, then nothing changes. it is part of the state's history that should be remembered, so it doesn't happen again.

You're being too easy on him. He lead armies which fought for the right of slavery. He could have just as easily said "NO THANK YOU", and not had the blood of a thousands on his hands.

Maybe I am... but I like to think that a man can fight for his convictions.
He himself was anti-slavery and did not want to fight, but wanted to be true to his home and state. I don't agree with his position, but I'd make him out to be more like Rommel than Himmler.

Maybe I am... but I like to think that a man can fight for his convictions.
He himself was anti-slavery and did not want to fight, but wanted to be true to his home and state. I don't agree with his position, but I'd make him out to be more like Rommel than Himmler.

So someone has a right to go out and kill people because they get a warm fuzzy feeling about their state? Why is it we can sentence a murder to life in prison for killing one person.... but when it comes to people responsible for THOUSANDS... we give them a fukkin plaque. :headbang:

well, since they were fighting for the constitution, they were doing exactly what all american soldiers are supposed to do. so for that, they should be honored, but less so than federal troops. you really shouldn't get so worked up about it.

Well, the same Union that freed the slaves also used the Gatling gun first, not in combat, but on New Yorkers who didn't want to fight in the war. So maybe we shouldn't name streets after famous Union generals, either. Sherman burned Atlanta for no politically correct reason. Grant was famous for using his men as though they were disposable.

I think the only way most people would be happy in the long run is my initial plan of naming everything using large random numbers that are never re-used.

the options you gave are not adequate.

the confederate flag (which is the confederate naval jack) does not have any racial or hateful undertones. How do i know? I'm a yankee living in the south for the past 12 years. the confederacy doesn't mean slavery to anyone in the south. well, except of course the NAACP and etc...

Note: I did not single out any specific item -- not the flag, not state highway signs, etc. I'm talking about them all en masse.


you are fools to say that every memory should be wiped out. they were americans who fought to defend their states' rights (or so they believed) to the death. That being said, they are responsible for the civil war.

In the times of the revolution, only 1/3 was for it. But do you see our history books trying to wipe out the other 2/3's memory? No. Because they were fighting for what they believed in, and that should be honored. The soldiers were just boys from the country, on both sides, whose only reasons for fighting were conscription or the love of their state (very different from today).

And that is a fair arguement. Having lived myself in both Connecticut and Virginia, I'm curious as to what people think about this -- thus the poll.


With all that being said, i think it is repugnant that there are minimal union memorials in the south. very hypocritical, if you ask me.

So, should they be removed from courthouses? I suppose, because they have no real purpose there. But on a confederate monument on the property, most definitely. There should be three flags flown at a courthouse, the national, state, and county. any other is unnecessary and doesn't belong. Now if the state flag has the confederate battle flag or naval jack in it, then nothing changes. it is part of the state's history that should be remembered, so it doesn't happen again.

So, what other option(s) would you have liked to have seen on the poll?
Why is "No, we should remember our history and allow these rememberences." not enough?

Well, the same Union that freed the slaves also used the Gatling gun first, not in combat, but on New Yorkers who didn't want to fight in the war. So maybe we shouldn't name streets after famous Union generals, either. Sherman burned Atlanta for no politically correct reason. Grant was famous for using his men as though they were disposable.

I think the only way most people would be happy in the long run is my initial plan of naming everything using large random numbers that are never re-used.

If this is true, then you're right, we shouldn't honor them. How hard is it NOT to kill someone? My god, the way some romanticise war, they make it sound like their enemies WANT to be killed, and they're being done a favor.

yes, they should be removed because they do not belong on any government building, and be kept for civil war monuments.

only from government property where it doesn't belong. any other public place is perfectly acceptable.

you cannot talk about them en masse because trying to remove a region's history from itself is retarded, and unnecessary. Unless this were 1984 Oceania.

I'm not sure where you're coming from here. Lee chose the losing side only because he was loyal to Virginia. He was never credited with being cruel or viscious towards his enemy, and his house is now Arlington National Cemetary.


That is EXACTLY what makes Lee a traitor.

He swore an oath... to the Union, not to Virginia.

An oathbreaker. To be hated and condemned for all time.

yes, they should be removed because they do not belong on any government building, and be kept for civil war monuments.

only from government property where it doesn't belong. any other public place is perfectly acceptable.

you cannot talk about them en masse because trying to remove a region's history from itself is retarded, and unnecessary. Unless this were 1984 Oceania.

The question is, where do you draw the line? If you're going to be open to protecting everyone's sensibilities about which historical figures they find offensive, we're not going to have any monuments to anyone or anything at all. And the schools will be forbidden to teach history.

WRONG he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. And the Constitution allows for states' rights. and they felt at the time that the US government was denying them their states' rights. So they fought for them.

So someone has a right to go out and kill people because they get a warm fuzzy feeling about their state? Why is it we can sentence a murder to life in prison for killing one person.... but when it comes to people responsible for THOUSANDS... we give them a fukkin plaque. :headbang:

I didn't say that. All I'm saying is that while I don't agree with Lee or the Confederacy as a principle, I understand why he made the choices he did. I also don't consider Lee to be evil. That's all.

Dunno if you're from the South, but I sure am. I'm from Tennessee...my great grandfather was a Major in the Confederacy and Jefferson Davis always stayed at our family home when he was in Kentucky. If you've ever been to the "Dixieland" states, you will know that there is no way this symbol's gonna die, we absolutely thrive on it, and have stores that make their living off of merchandise involving Dixie. I've bought a Robert E. Lee/Dixie belt buckle, full-sized confederate war flag, and my car has a front-mounted Dixieland license plate. I was named after Robert E. Lee, who was the paragon of a southern gentleman, and my idol.

It's about heritage to me and a ton of the people I know, and has nothing to do with racial discrimination. As General Ulysses Grant of the Union Armies said, "If the war had been about slavery, I would've been fighting for the other side."

Grant did own slaves, and Lee did not, he didn't believe in it. So God Bless the South, and let us continue to honor people's freedom to wave whatever flag they choose

Maybe I am... but I like to think that a man can fight for his convictions.
He himself was anti-slavery and did not want to fight, but wanted to be true to his home and state. I don't agree with his position, but I'd make him out to be more like Rommel than Himmler.


Fine.. let's compare him with general George Thomas.


Why Thomas stayed with the Union

After Thomas' death, the Southern 'Lost Cause Theory' proponents spread many stories to explain why George H. Thomas of Virginia stayed with the Union. One of the cornerstones of their theory was that honorable southern men as represented by Robert E. Lee had 'no choice' but to fight for their home state. George H. Thomas was a severe threat to their theory and had be be dealt with because if Thomas was allowed to be considered an honorable man, then their house of cards would fall. Their stories range from him being a strident secessionist who 'chickened out' after Fort Sumter, to him staying with the Union because it was an easier way to promotion as both A. S. Johnston and Lee, his superiors in his cavalry regiment had left. Another story had his northern wife browbeat him into remaining with the Union.1

The Lost Cause theory has been handed down from father to son for many generations. Even today southern writers have a hard time saying anything good about George Thomas despite his outstanding combat and personal record.

In reality Thomas knew that staying with the Union would cost him both professionally and personally. Before the war, he had benefited from the influence provided by the Virginia congressional delegation who, from the time of General Washington on through General Winfield Scott, made sure their 'favorite sons' were promoted in a timely manner. Thomas was surprised when Virginia seceded, but must have known that if he didn't follow his state into the Confederacy, his professional career would suffer. During the war Thomas had little support in Congress, while less worthy men who did, were promoted over him time and again.

But, by the start of the war, he had served the national government for over twenty years, and, in contrast to Lee, his postings had allowed very few days in his home state of Virginia, and this had given him a wider view on what was meant by 'The United States'.

Here, from General Thomas himself, is his straightforward explanation of why he stayed with the Union. It was stated in response to the presentation of a gold medal given to him on the second anniversary of the Battle of Nashville by the Governor of Tennessee.

"Some thirty years ago I received my diploma at the Military Academy, and soon after a commission in the Army.

On receiving that commission I took an oath to sustain the Constitution of the United States, and the Government, and to obey all officers of the Government placed over me. I have faithfully endeavored to keep that oath. I did not regard it so much as an oath, but as a solemn pledge on my part to return the Government some little service for the great benefit I had received in obtaining my education at the Academy." 2

_____

1. Francis Macdonnell: The Confederate Spin on Winfield Scott and George Thomas, Civil War History Magazine, December 1998. http://www.aotc.net/Antithomasspin.htm

2. Wilbur Thomas: General George H. Thomas The Indomitable Warrior, New York: Exposition Press, 1964, p. 605.

The question is, where do you draw the line? If you're going to be open to protecting everyone's sensibilities about which historical figures they find offensive, we're not going to have any monuments to anyone or anything at all. And the schools will be forbidden to teach history.

I'm not. I'm arguing solely on the purposelessness of a confederate flag flying on a government building. take out confederate and put anything you want there.

purposelessness of a barney flag
purposelessness of a jolly roger flag
purposelessness of another state's flag

see? none of those belong because they have nothing to do with the local government. that's what i am arguing. as for the rest, that's ridiculous and has nothing to do with removing unnecessary flags from courthouses.

The way I see it, the Confederacy was worse than Osama Bin Laden. To explain that, let's take a look at the scores(in American lives) :

Osama Bin Laden
5,000
'Stonewall' Jackson
300,000


I don't see any signs for Osama Bin Laden Boulevard, so why should there be any Confederate symbols allowed?

Fine.. let's compare him with general George Thomas.

Why Thomas stayed with the Union

After Thomas' death, the Southern 'Lost Cause Theory' proponents spread many stories to explain why George H. Thomas of Virginia stayed with the Union. One of the cornerstones of their theory was that honorable southern men as represented by Robert E. Lee had 'no choice' but to fight for their home state. George H. Thomas was a severe threat to their theory and had be be dealt with because if Thomas was allowed to be considered an honorable man, then their house of cards would fall. Their stories range from him being a strident secessionist who 'chickened out' after Fort Sumter, to him staying with the Union because it was an easier way to promotion as both A. S. Johnston and Lee, his superiors in his cavalry regiment had left. Another story had his northern wife browbeat him into remaining with the Union.1

The Lost Cause theory has been handed down from father to son for many generations. Even today southern writers have a hard time saying anything good about George Thomas despite his outstanding combat and personal record.

In reality Thomas knew that staying with the Union would cost him both professionally and personally. Before the war, he had benefited from the influence provided by the Virginia congressional delegation who, from the time of General Washington on through General Winfield Scott, made sure their 'favorite sons' were promoted in a timely manner. Thomas was surprised when Virginia seceded, but must have known that if he didn't follow his state into the Confederacy, his professional career would suffer. During the war Thomas had little support in Congress, while less worthy men who did, were promoted over him time and again.

But, by the start of the war, he had served the national government for over twenty years, and, in contrast to Lee, his postings had allowed very few days in his home state of Virginia, and this had given him a wider view on what was meant by 'The United States'.

Here, from General Thomas himself, is his straightforward explanation of why he stayed with the Union. It was stated in response to the presentation of a gold medal given to him on the second anniversary of the Battle of Nashville by the Governor of Tennessee.

"Some thirty years ago I received my diploma at the Military Academy, and soon after a commission in the Army.

On receiving that commission I took an oath to sustain the Constitution of the United States, and the Government, and to obey all officers of the Government placed over me. I have faithfully endeavored to keep that oath. I did not regard it so much as an oath, but as a solemn pledge on my part to return the Government some little service for the great benefit I had received in obtaining my education at the Academy." 2

_____

1. Francis Macdonnell: The Confederate Spin on Winfield Scott and George Thomas, Civil War History Magazine, December 1998. http://www.aotc.net/Antithomasspin.htm

2. Wilbur Thomas: General George H. Thomas The Indomitable Warrior, New York: Exposition Press, 1964, p. 605.

And Lee wasn't Thomas. You may as well debate what if the Viennese Art world had let Hitler join the academy. What's done is done.

In summation: I don't care for Lee per se. I don't like the Confederacy as an institution, past, present or future. All I'm saying is that IMHO, Lee is not the antichrist.

apples and oranges, anyone?

And Lee wasn't Thomas. You may as well debate what if the Viennese Art world had let Hitler join the academy. What's done is done.

In summation: I don't care for Lee per se. I don't like the Confederacy as an institution, past, present or future. All I'm saying is that IMHO, Lee is not the antichrist.


In summation.... I consider Lee an Oathbreaker, an objective of unlimited, and well-earned, villification.

well, thankfully our considerations mean exactly jack shit.

The way I see it, the Confederacy was worse than Osama Bin Laden. To explain that, let's take a look at the scores(in American lives) :

Osama Bin Laden
5,000
'Stonewall' Jackson
300,000


I don't see any signs for Osama Bin Laden Boulevard, so why should there be any Confederate symbols allowed?

Bin Laden was not a US citizen, either.

In summation.... I consider Lee an Oathbreaker, an objective of unlimited, and well-earned, villification.

And I have no trouble with you having that opinion.

Every memory of the Rebs must be wiped out.

I noticed that the US still has bases named after slimeballs like Lee, Benning, and Hood.

I had not noticed the Germans naming their bases after Goering or Hitler.

That's because they were some of our best Generals in American history, and have only been villanized in the US, as opposed to Hitler who was (rightly so) villanized glabally.

You can also thank those Southern Generals for the strong military we have today.

You can also thank those Southern Generals for the strong military we have today.

It wasn't worth it. What has our military clout gotten us? All we've done is support puppet regimes, and piss people off. AND ALL IT COST WAS A MILLION LIVES! ;)

So someone has a right to go out and kill people because they get a warm fuzzy feeling about their state? Why is it we can sentence a murder to life in prison for killing one person.... but when it comes to people responsible for THOUSANDS... we give them a fukkin plaque. :headbang:

Yes, one should go out and fight AT TIME OF WAR to protect their HOME and FREEDOMS. That's why the southern States left the Union. Not for slavery, but for state rights. Not all of the States were going to continue with slavery, also, if you dig for truthes. They did it because the central government was too powerful and restrictive on the States.

It wasn't worth it. What has our military clout gotten us? All we've done is support puppet regimes, and piss people off. AND ALL IT COST WAS A MILLION LIVES! ;)

Well, for starters, I don't like speaking German, and I don't think I could get used to saying "Heil!"

The way I see it, the Confederacy was worse than Osama Bin Laden. To explain that, let's take a look at the scores(in American lives) :

Osama Bin Laden
5,000
'Stonewall' Jackson
300,000


I don't see any signs for Osama Bin Laden Boulevard, so why should there be any Confederate symbols allowed?


How in the Hell can you compare General Jackson to that asshole Bin Laden? General Jackson fought against a government that was threatening his, along with fellow Southerners, way of life. Also, General Jackson didnt go attacking innocent civilians. He didnt destory innocent peoples property, unlike Sherman did.

the options you gave are not adequate.

the confederate flag (which is the confederate naval jack) does not have any racial or hateful undertones. How do i know? I'm a yankee living in the south for the past 12 years. the confederacy doesn't mean slavery to anyone in the south. well, except of course the NAACP and etc...

you are fools to say that every memory should be wiped out. they were americans who fought to defend their states' rights (or so they believed) to the death. That being said, they are responsible for the civil war.

In the times of the revolution, only 1/3 was for it. But do you see our history books trying to wipe out the other 2/3's memory? No. Because they were fighting for what they believed in, and that should be honored. The soldiers were just boys from the country, on both sides, whose only reasons for fighting were conscription or the love of their state (very different from today).

With all that being said, i think it is repugnant that there are minimal union memorials in the south. very hypocritical, if you ask me.

So, should they be removed from courthouses? I suppose, because they have no real purpose there. But on a confederate monument on the property, most definitely. There should be three flags flown at a courthouse, the national, state, and county. any other is unnecessary and doesn't belong. Now if the state flag has the confederate battle flag or naval jack in it, then nothing changes. it is part of the state's history that should be remembered, so it doesn't happen again.


Does the Natzi Swatzica still stand for opression and racisim ? to those german natzi's im sure it doesn't.. but to everyone else it does.. same with the confederate flag. You say they fought for state rights (ie. the "right" to hold slaves). Should we be honoring the dead natzi soldiers who fought for what they belived in ? Because this is the same type of situation.

We should not be whiping out every memory of the Civil war... we should always remember what happend to the rebels who tried to tear the country apart so they could keep their slaves!! and remember their defeat. But those people in the south should not be allowed to fly their confederate flag above the flag of the United States (which happens often).. In fact the flag SHOULD be striped from all public places.. for the same reason the natzi flag isn't flown in german streets.. it is a repugnant symbol of past travesties and hatrid

It wasn't worth it. What has our military clout gotten us? All we've done is support puppet regimes, and piss people off. AND ALL IT COST WAS A MILLION LIVES! ;)

Well, lets see, they helped revolutionize naval warfare... they changed the concept of Artillery to indirect fire (as it has been used, ever since), they improved field hospitals... restructured military procedures... improved convoy operations... need I go on. It IS my job, after all.

Does the Natzi Swatzica still stand for opression and racisim ? to those german natzi's im sure it doesn't.. but to everyone else it does.. same with the confederate flag. You say they fought for state rights (ie. the "right" to hold slaves). Should we be honoring the dead natzi soldiers who fought for what they belived in ? Because this is the same type of situation.

We should not be whiping out every memory of the Civil war... we should always remember what happend to the rebels who tried to tear the country apart so they could keep their slaves!! and remember their defeat. But those people in the south should not be allowed to fly their confederate flag above the flag of the United States (which happens often).. In fact the flag SHOULD be striped from all public places.. for the same reason the natzi flag isn't flown in german streets.. it is a repugnant symbol of past travesties and hatrid

Will the ignorance ever cease. It is not i.e because slavery was not the issue. It was a PART of the issue. Slavery was provided by Continental Congress. I personally hate the concept of slavery, but still respect the Confederates who did what they felt was right. And I agree, the central government was, and is, too powerful. My State is hurting because of it, and I'm a Yankee.

Addition: I have mixed feelings about the removal of the Battle Flag from public places. I agree, no flag is supposed to be flown above old glory, I have never seen it flown as such, but if I did I would definately say somthing about it. (In actuality, when flown, it is supposed to be flown below a State Flag.) I hang a Battle Flag in my room. I may at any time have to remove it if I upon being inspected, I am ordered to. I have not been ordered to remove it yet, and I continue to hope I can display it. I have no love for slavery, but I admire the courage to stand against tyranny. I think that States should have the right to decide whether or not the flag should be flown. Nothing in the war-ending agreements mention the eternal rest of the Confederate colors, so give the States the right to decide. That's the reason they revolted in the first place.

Yes, one should go out and fight AT TIME OF WAR to protect their HOME and FREEDOMS. That's why the southern States left the Union. Not for slavery, but for state rights. Not all of the States were going to continue with slavery, also, if you dig for truthes. They did it because the central government was too powerful and restrictive on the States.

Oh yes... lets respect someone's right to enslave someone else... :rolleyes:

Well, lets see, they helped revolutionize naval warfare... they changed the concept of Artillery to indirect fire (as it has been used, ever since), they improved field hospitals... restructured military procedures... improved convoy operations... need I go on. It IS my job, after all.


Ummm, who cares? Even if we didn't enter WW2 in Europe, the USSR would have completely wasted Germany anyway. And the thought of Germany mounting a successful trans-continental invasion in excess of 3000 miles... :p :p :p Ya... good one. WE can't even do it right, and we attacked IRAQ! LOL

Oh yes... lets respect someone's right to enslave someone else... :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, I think you forgot to pay attention in Government Class after the word "slave."

Let's stop States from controlling their own development...
...wait...

Let's control inter-State operations because we want to oversee everything....
...wait....

In fact, lets no longer be a Union of States... because even though the concept WAS to give States soverign power on almost ALL of thier operations, I guess we can't trust them to do anything right.... I mean, look at NH. No taxes? How un-American!

Ummm, who cares? Even if we didn't enter WW2 in Europe, the USSR would have completely wasted Germany anyway. And the thought of Germany mounting a successful trans-continental invasion in excess of 3000 miles... :p :p :p Ya... good one. WE can't even do it right, and we attacked IRAQ! LOL

Hold on.... You lost me. Who cares? Why ask me what contributions were made from the civil war if you don't want the information. WWII has nothing to do with anything in this post, and Iraq has nothing to do with WWII.

Try focusing.

*Doctor, can you please get this person some ritalin, thank you.

You're being too easy on him. He lead armies which fought for the right of slavery. He could have just as easily said "NO THANK YOU", and not had the blood of a thousands on his hands.

Your understanding of Civil War Virginia, equates to a festering glob of puss.

He lead an army (That is the Army of Northern Virginia, the ANV), which fought to defend Virginia from Invading Union Armies.

Grant was worse than Lee, Lee freed his own slaves in the 1850's; Grant's slaves had to wait till after the war.

Virginia had the highest per capita number of free blacks.

The Army of Northern Virginia was the first army in the states to use black soldiers (even before the union), and they were integrated at that.

Free Black Virginians acted as spied for the ANV; relying on the ignorant Union forces, and provided much intelligence to the ANV.

Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, one of Lee's leiutenants in the ANV, was not only not a slaveowner and opposed slavery; but helped found many churches for blacks, that still stand to this day. (One of the most famous still stands in Fredericksburg, and has his image in one of the Stained-Glass windows.)

You, sir. Are an idiot of the highest calibre. You should try learning. It may help you in life.

I'm sorry, I think you forgot to pay attention in Government Class after the word "slave."

Let's stop States from controlling their own development...
...wait...

Let's control inter-State operations because we want to oversee everything....
...wait....

In fact, lets no longer be a Union of States... because even though the concept WAS to give States soverign power on almost ALL of thier operations, I guess we can't trust them to do anything right.... I mean, look at NH. No taxes? How un-American!

Where the heck did you pull all that out of? The south ceaded due to slavery (yes, economically as well, but that economy was based on.... SLAVERY!), and they wanted everyone to respect their right to enslave a race of people? Hypocracy.

And the thought of Germany mounting a successful trans-continental invasion in excess of 3000 miles...

Remember Japan. Yeah, they were allied with Germany. Thank God they attacked when they did, instead of AFTER we hit Europe. And thank God Germany betrayed Russia when they did.

Where the heck did you pull all that out of? The south ceaded due to slavery (yes, economically as well, but that economy was based on.... SLAVERY!), and they wanted everyone to respect their right to enslave a race of people? Hypocracy.

Where did I get that from. How about... FACTS? State development is controlled by the Federal government. You cannot increase or decrease State property without the Federal Government in charge. And in terms of economy, look at interstate gambling. The whole purpose of watching interstate economy is so the Federal government can get more money and power; interstate economy wasn't based on slavery, most slave sales were intra-state.

You can stop posting now, because apparently everything in the civil war came down to slavery. Which it didn't. But what do I know? I've only studied that war for 6 years.

Hold on.... You lost me. Who cares? Why ask me what contributions were made from the civil war if you don't want the information. WWII has nothing to do with anything in this post, and Iraq has nothing to do with WWII.

Try focusing.

*Doctor, can you please get this person some ritalin, thank you.

YOU brought up WW2 when you said you didn't like speaking German. Implying we ABLSOLUTELY NEEDED the advancements in killing people, that were made in the civil war... or we would have been all taken over by Germany. However you point isn't even plausible.

YOU brought up WW2 when you said you didn't like speaking German. Implying we ABLSOLUTELY NEEDED the advancements in killing people, that were made in the civil war... or we would have been all taken over by Germany. However you point isn't even plausible.

No, he didn't bring up Germany. I did.

You can stop posting now, because apparently everything in the civil war came down to slavery. Which it didn't. But what do I know? I've only studied that war for 6 years.

I'm sorry, I don't buy into southern apologists' points of views. =P

Is it so hard to admit they were completely wrong? It was over a 100 years ago, get over it.

Now, I'm from 'down south', and I frankly think that we should keep it. It's no different from a state's flag, or a Dale Earnhardt flag. I have a stars and bars tank top (which is cute :)) and I wouldn't want to be kept from going into a post office because of it...

No, he didn't bring up Germany. I did.

Oops, you're right. But my point still stands none the less! :p

I'm sorry, I don't buy into southern apologists' points of views. =P

Is it so hard to admit they were completely wrong? It was over a 100 years ago, get over it.

Being from Maine, I'm suprised you have noticed that I'm defending fellow American Soldiers who faught for freedom. Freedom for some States to have slaves, perhaps, but that was still a freedom that the States had. As far as the south was concerned, this was going to be the start of a larger scale of big government stealing States' rights. Were the Slave-owning States wrong? Only for having Slaves. Was the South wrong? No, what they did is a great example of what your obligation is as an American: to fight for "freedom" regardless of OUR definition of it.

Being from Maine, I'm suprised you have noticed that I'm defending fellow American Soldiers who faught for freedom. Freedom for some States to have slaves, perhaps, but that was still a freedom that the States had. As far as the south was concerned, this was going to be the start of a larger scale of big government stealing States' rights. Were the Slave-owning States wrong? Only for having Slaves. Was the South wrong? No, what they did is a great example of what your obligation is as an American: to fight for "freedom" regardless of OUR definition of it.

Basically, that was an elaborate way of saying state rights relative to the federal government, usurp the civil rights of the people who make up the states.... good going.

Is it so hard to admit they were completely wrong?
Seeing as how they fought only for the principals that our Founding Fathers envisioned, fought against a tyrannical government that was trying to suppress their rights for no reason other than the said gov't's own gain, then no, because, you see, they weren't.

The Federal Government was tromping all over the Constitution, and then, as an excuse to invade the South, they said they were trying to UPHOLD it, even though the South was exercising their guaranteed right to secession (see the 10th Amendment). Hyprocrasy, you say? Look in the mirror, idiot.

It was over a 100 years ago, get over it.
Moron, that is asinine. The Holocaust was over 60 years ago; should we just 'get over' that? Why should anyone study any history, with that view? Please, think about what you post.

And people wonder why Americans are called ignorant. It's because of people like YOU, who are taught something in third grade and then simply REFUSE to look at the facts and you're too narrowminded or cowardly and afraid of what people might think to change your opinion.

Basically, that was an elaborate way of saying state rights relative to the federal government, usurp the civil rights of the people who make up the states.... good going.
Way to completely miss what he was saying. Good going. Now. Stop. Posting.

Seeing as how they fought only for the principals that our Founding Fathers envisioned, fought against a tyrannical government that was trying to suppress their rights for no reason other than the said gov't's own gain, then no, because, you see, they weren't.

The Federal Government was tromping all over the Constitution, and then, as an excuse to invade the South, they said they were trying to UPHOLD it, even though the South was exercising their guaranteed right to secession (see the 10th Amendment). Hyprocrasy, you say? Look in the mirror, idiot.


Moron, that is asinine. The Holocaust was over 60 years ago; should we just 'get over' that? Why should anyone study any history, with that view? Please, think about what you post.

And people wonder why Americans are called ignorant. It's because of people like YOU, who are taught something in third grade and then simply REFUSE to look at the facts and you're too narrowminded or cowardly and afraid of what people might think to change your opinion.


Way to completely miss what he was saying. Good going. Now. Stop. Posting.

I'm sorry.. .I put PERSONAL rights, over STATE rights... anyday of the week. State's don't "feel", nor are they concious. The rights of black people in the south were non-exsistent, and the south wanted to perpetuate that. They can wrap it up and put a bow tie on it and call it "OH ITS OUR RIGHT TO ENSLAVE PEOPLE!!!1!1!!" But it still comes down to their desire to keep half the people in the south brutally oppressed.

Seeing as how they fought only for the principals that our Founding Fathers envisioned, fought against a tyrannical government that was trying to suppress their rights for no reason other than the said gov't's own gain, then no, because, you see, they weren't.

The Federal Government was tromping all over the Constitution, and then, as an excuse to invade the South, they said they were trying to UPHOLD it, even though the South was exercising their guaranteed right to secession (see the 10th Amendment). Hyprocrasy, you say? Look in the mirror, idiot.


Moron, that is asinine. The Holocaust was over 60 years ago; should we just 'get over' that? Why should anyone study any history, with that view? Please, think about what you post.

And people wonder why Americans are called ignorant. It's because of people like YOU, who are taught something in third grade and then simply REFUSE to look at the facts and you're too narrowminded or cowardly and afraid of what people might think to change your opinion.


Way to completely miss what he was saying. Good going. Now. Stop. Posting.

*Salutes. trumpetist1@hotmail.com
Smart people, feel free to send me an email or look for me on MSN Messenger

Virginia didn't seceed till Lincoln wanted to fight.

Lee knew the Virginia Legislature was meeting to talk about secession. And so, refused the Union post of General over the Army of the Potomac, knowing that Virginia would likely seceed, and he did not want to fight his own home (Virginia).

After the decision to press secession. The Legislature called for a by-county, state-wide de-ratification; in the same manner in which the state ratified the constitution. That is, each citizen voted for or against secession. The secessionists won. And the Legislature de-ratified the United States Constitution, officially, and legally, removing Virginia from the US Constitution.

This meant little, in terms of freedom in Virginia, since the bulk of the US Constitution and its bill of rights, were based off of the Virginia State Constitution, and the Virginia Bill of Rights. The Govenor became the supreme executive over the Commonwealth.

The reason why Virginia seceeded, was because Lincoln wanted a war. Virginia did not want to invade another nation, and Virginia knew that Lincoln had started the fight. (From President Lincoln's breaking of Treaty with South Carolina in relation to the union schooner "Star of the West", which was sent to open fire on Confederate Forces, and rearm the Fort, against treaty made with the Govenor of South Carolina).

I'm sorry.. .I put PERSONAL rights, over STATE rights... anyday of the week. State's don't "feel", nor are they concious. The rights of black people in the south were non-exsistent, and the south wanted to perpetuate that. They can wrap it up and put a bow tie on it and call it "OH ITS OUR RIGHT TO ENSLAVE PEOPLE!!!1!1!!" But it still comes down to their desire to keep half the people in the south brutally oppressed.

Wait, didn't you just say that it was over 100 years ago, and to get over it? Now you're oppressing us, and this thread.

"Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"

First, I do not ever defend the Confederacy, I only defend the soldiers of the Confederacy. There were other, peaceful options the Southerners could have taken, but the CSA chose not to. They lost the election because the democrats were split between the north and south. And they cried about it, and seceded because they didn't get their way (over-generalization).

Ultimately they started the Civil War (see Ft. Sumter) and are wholly responsible for the repercussions of it. I have no pity for those who say they were wronged.

BTW, Sherman did what he had to do to end the war. He cut the legs out from under the rebels. In total war, one must do everything to win. One argument is that civilians elected the leaders that started the mess and are susceptible for the consequences, but that's definitely a hot topic.

I'm sorry.. .I put PERSONAL rights, over STATE rights... anyday of the week. State's don't "feel", nor are they concious.
This doesn't even deserve a reply.

The rights of black people in the south were non-exsistent, and the south wanted to perpetuate that. They can wrap it up and put a bow tie on it and call it "OH ITS OUR RIGHT TO ENSLAVE PEOPLE!!!1!1!!" But it still comes down to their desire to keep half the people in the south brutally oppressed.
Yeah, because it would have been so easy for Southerners to say, "Y'know, this slavery thing isn't that great, so let's get rid of it." Slavery had been an integral part of the Southern economy for 200 years; simply abolishing it all at once would have economically destroyed the South, and you know who would have been affected by this other than rich planters? That's right, poor whites and newly freed blacks. Under slavery, the Afro Americans still had food to eat, shelter from the elements, etc.... After emancipation they would have been much worse off than before. No food other than what they could grow themselves (what about the old and invalid?), no house unless they could build it themselves (how many slaves knew how, even assuming that materials were available?). History proves my point; look at what Southerners, black and white, went through during Reconstruction.

Would you trade your house, your food, possibly your family, for the right to vote?

Seeing as how they fought only for the principals that our Founding Fathers envisioned, fought against a tyrannical government that was trying to suppress their rights for no reason other than the said gov't's own gain, then no, because, you see, they weren't.

The Federal Government was tromping all over the Constitution, and then, as an excuse to invade the South, they said they were trying to UPHOLD it, even though the South was exercising their guaranteed right to secession (see the 10th Amendment). Hyprocrasy, you say? Look in the mirror, idiot.

Way to completely miss what he was saying. Good going. Now. Stop. Posting.

Umm, the southern states pissed all over the constitution with slavery. Furthermore, since slaves couldn't VOTE AT ALL, the south wasn't even a representative government. So how is it that the south should have a right to ceade, when those in power who chose to do so weren't even rightfully elected at all? Gee, those are some AMAZING 'rights' you're talking about...

This doesn't even deserve a reply.


Yeah, because it would have been so easy for Southerners to say, "Y'know, this slavery thing isn't that great, so let's get rid of it." Slavery had been an integral part of the Southern economy for 200 years; simply abolishing it all at once would have economically destroyed the South, and you know who would have been affected by this other than rich planters? That's right, poor whites and newly freed blacks. Under slavery, the Afro Americans still had food to eat, shelter from the elements, etc.... After emancipation they would have been much worse off than before. No food other than what they could grow themselves (what about the old and invalid?), no house unless they could build it themselves (how many slaves knew how, even assuming that materials were available?). History proves my point; look at what Southerners, black and white, went through during Reconstruction.

Would you trade your house, your food, possibly your family, for the right to vote?

I traded myself for your right to vote. ;)

This doesn't even deserve a reply.


Yeah, because it would have been so easy for Southerners to say, "Y'know, this slavery thing isn't that great, so let's get rid of it." Slavery had been an integral part of the Southern economy for 200 years; simply abolishing it all at once would have economically destroyed the South, and you know who would have been affected by this other than rich planters? That's right, poor whites and newly freed blacks. Under slavery, the Afro Americans still had food to eat, shelter from the elements, etc.... After emancipation they would have been much worse off than before. No food other than what they could grow themselves (what about the old and invalid?), no house unless they could build it themselves (how many slaves knew how, even assuming that materials were available?). History proves my point; look at what Southerners, black and white, went through during Reconstruction.

Would you trade your house, your food, possibly your family, for the right to vote?

Bare with me... but... THAT WAS THEIR OWN FUKKIN FAULT! They chose to base their economy on slave labor. Now you want to give them some sort of economic pillow to sit on? They didn't deserve it. Their fault, their problem, they shouldn't have based their economy on that in the first place. So yes, the slaves should have all been freed and been free to travel to wherever they liked, IMMEDIATELY. I think you'd feel much different if it was YOUR rights as a human being that were being trampled on.

Umm, the southern states all over the constitution with slavery.
Imbecile. Please, before posting, learn how to write coherent sentences.

Furthermore, since slaves couldn't VOTE AT ALL, the south wasn't even a representative government.
How the hell does that have anything to do with the discussion at hand?

ceade
SECEDE! IT'S SECEDE!

So how is it that the south should have a right to ceade, when those in power who chose to do so weren't even rightfully elected at all? Gee, those are some AMAZING 'rights' you're talking about...
Your stupidity is amazing, yet I have to give you credit. You completely avoided everything I had to say, came up with an answer that symbolizes how little you know on the subject, and still managed to sound self-righteous.

You're making a fool of yourself.

Bare with me... but... THAT WAS THEIR OWN FUKKIN FAULT! They chose to base their economy on slave labor. Now you want to give them some sort of economic pillow to sit on? They didn't deserve it. Their fault, their problem, they shouldn't have based their economy on that in the first place. So yes, the slaves should have all been freed and been free to travel to wherever they liked.

So basically, to get back on subject, since the South had slaves, the South shoud not be alowed to show the Rebel flag, as "punishment?" Why'd we even let them back in the Union?

Imbecile. Please, before posting, learn how to write coherent sentences.


How the hell does that have anything to do with the discussion at hand?


SECEDE! IT'S SECEDE!


Your stupidity is amazing, yet I have to give you credit. You completely avoided everything I had to say, came up with an answer that symbolizes how little you know on the subject, and still managed to sound self-righteous.

You're making a fool of yourself.

Apparently you quoted me wrong, because my sentence was fine, besides, why are you attacking my grammar anyway? What does THAT have to do with the discussion at hand? LOL

And for you to completely skit the issue of human rights when talking about the civil war.... amazes me. :p

Every memory of the Rebs must be wiped out.

I noticed that the US still has bases named after slimeballs like Lee, Benning, and Hood.

I had not noticed the Germans naming their bases after Goering or Hitler.
Besides Lee, Benning, and Hood were not only Confederates, they were Americans. They fought because they lived in the South and what they believed in. Hitler and Goering were just war mongering and hatefull f*cks.

Lee fought purely just because his farm was on the south of the Potomic. He said if it were north, he would have fought for the Union.

Would you trade your house, your food, possibly your family, for the right to vote?

Funny...that's just what the Iraqis are facing...

But I digress.

The Confederacy lost. Their slaving ways were outlawed. Their flag has become a symbol for social injustice, race hatred, and inequity. It is best left to rot on the garbage heap of human stupidity.

Ah, but it's historical. Ah, but it's 'heritage'. Ah, give me a break.

It's a flag. One that makes a lot more people angry than it pleases. A heritage is something to be proud of, not something that makes people angry. Hence Germany got rid of the Swastika. Hence Russia got rid of the Hammer-And-Sickle.

If the knuckleheads who love the Confederate flag really want to know their heritage, why do they insist on this dark chapter? Why not look farther back to their origins in Europe? It's not like the Confederacy developed in a time-bubble. You all came from someplace else - why not rediscover your actual roots, instead of lazily referring to the establishment of your colonies?

Bare
Bear. Go read a dictionary, you'll contribute more to the world.

but... THAT WAS THEIR OWN FUKKIN FAULT!
Way to show how mature YOU are.

They chose to base their economy on slave labor. Now you want to give them some sort of economic pillow to sit on? They didn't deserve it. Their fault, their problem, they shouldn't have based their economy on that in the first place. So yes, the slaves should have all been freed and been free to travel to wherever they liked.
Let me school you a little bit: When slavery was introduced in America, all the colonies had it, NORTH AND SOUTH. The only reason it didn't persist in the North like it did in the South was because it wasn't profitable. If you want to go wallow in your little self-righteous world, go ahead, but I know you'll be at a loss to show me any evidence (heard of that word before?) that I'm wrong.

I actually have a Confederate Battle Flag hanging on the wall behind me. Many people think that the South just wanted to keep their slaves, but thats not the ONLY reason. They wanted a constitution more like our founding fathers had. They wanted a weak Federal government and strtong State governments.
Right now, it doesn't mean anything about slavery. It's more of a way to show southern pride and rebellion against the government.

Besides Lee, Benning, and Hood were not only Confederates, they were Americans. They fought because they lived in the South and what they believed in. Hitler and Goering were just war mongering and hatefull f*cks.

Lee fought purely just because his farm was on the south of the Potomic. He said if it were north, he would have fought for the Union.


Oh okay, I get it.... its okay to kill thousands, as long as you have a good reason... oh this was one of them... right?

Oh my house is over here, I better kill some people, even though I'll be perpetuating a system of brutal oppression upon half the people.

Yes... great reason...

Oh okay, I get it.... its okay to kill thousands, as long as you have a good reason... oh this was one of them... right?

Oh my house is over here, I better kill some people, even though I'll be perpetuating a system of brutal oppression upon half the people.

Yes... great reason...

If you think like that, there would be no America. "WHAT WE CAN'T REBEL AGAINST THE BRITISH, SOME PEOPLE MIGHT DIE." Do you have any pride for anything?

Umm, the southern states pissed all over the constitution with slavery. Furthermore, since slaves couldn't VOTE AT ALL, the south wasn't even a representative government. So how is it that the south should have a right to ceade, when those in power who chose to do so weren't even rightfully elected at all? Gee, those are some AMAZING 'rights' you're talking about...

Minors can't vote. Felon's can't vote. Does that mean we're not in a representative government?

Actually, those who chose so SECEEDE did have the authority. It wasn't the Generals that chose, it was the States themselves, as guaranteed by the 10th Amentment to the United States Constitution.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

And, as far as the U.S. Government is concerned, the States ARE the people. Individuals cannot overturn a Federal Government action. Only a majority of States can.

I'm personally glad to see these things going. All these refrences to "Southern pride" and "Heritage not hate" are bullshit.

The Confederacy engaged in active rebellion against the lawful government of the United States. Pardon my French, but, why the fuck should we praise it if it was treasonous?

And with regards to Lee, he was a good man, and only fought because Virginia fought against the U.S. He felt that he had a higher loyalty to Virginia than the nation at the time, but, otherwise, he was a good man.

Minors can't vote. Felon's can't vote. Does that mean we're not in a representative government?

Actually, those who chose so SECEEDE did have the authority. It wasn't the Generals that chose, it was the States themselves, as guaranteed by the 10th Amentment to the United States Constitution.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

And, as far as the U.S. Government is concerned, the States ARE the people. Individuals cannot overturn a Federal Government action. Only a majority of States can.

The states had no authority to secede in the first place.

Funny...that's just what the Iraqis are facing...

But I digress.

The Confederacy lost. Their slaving ways were outlawed. Their flag has become a symbol for social injustice, race hatred, and inequity. It is best left to rot on the garbage heap of human stupidity.

Ah, but it's historical. Ah, but it's 'heritage'. Ah, give me a break.

It's a flag. One that makes a lot more people angry than it pleases. A heritage is something to be proud of, not something that makes people angry. Hence Germany got rid of the Swastika. Hence Russia got rid of the Hammer-And-Sickle.

If the knuckleheads who love the Confederate flag really want to know their heritage, why do they insist on this dark chapter? Why not look farther back to their origins in Europe? It's not like the Confederacy developed in a time-bubble. You all came from someplace else - why not rediscover your actual roots, instead of lazily referring to the establishment of your colonies?

Thanks to us troopers, they no longer have to give up their lives for their freedoms. Trust me, the media shows half of the reality.

I'm personally glad to see these things going. All these refrences to "Southern pride" and "Heritage not hate" are bullshit.

The Confederacy engaged in active rebellion against the lawful government of the United States. Pardon my French, but, why the fuck should we praise it if it was treasonous?

And with regards to Lee, he was a good man, and only fought because Virginia fought against the U.S. He felt that he had a higher loyalty to Virginia than the nation at the time, but, otherwise, he was a good man.

It wasn't treason. The constitution states you can do that. Lincoln was the one who brought the fight on us.

Bear. Go read a dictionary, you'll contribute more to the world.


Way to show how mature YOU are.


Let me school you a little bit: When slavery was introduced in America, all the colonies had it, NORTH AND SOUTH. The only reason it didn't persist in the North like it did in the South was because it wasn't profitable. If you want to go wallow in your little self-righteous world, go ahead, but I know you'll be at a loss to show me any evidence (heard of that word before?) that I'm wrong.

Attacking my grammEr again? :p

I don't care for what reasons the north didn't have slavery, the point is... THEY DIDN'T HAVE IT! My god, get over yourself and see logic. I thought this horse was thoroughly beaten, but... SLAVERY IS A BAD THING. The old south had slavery. Old South = Bad. Get it?

I think the Confederate symbols should be kept as a reminder of our history, but like all history, should be relegated to a museum and not, as many are fighting for, kept floating above our state capitols and courthouses.

The civil war and the events that led up to it and the subsequent reconstruction are, without a doubt, part of American history and should not be forgotten.

However, there is something that is called "common courtesy" which should be in place. Unfortunately, Americans have lost touch with how to courteously treat their neighbors, so we must legislate it by forcing removal of offensive objects - even if those objects only offend a few. It's the same reason pornographic magazines must be kept either behind the counter or covered with a blank white piece of cardboard if on display in a place that sells day to day objects - because a few parents were offended that their children might see a boobie.

We protect the few in the US. While I may not be offended when I see a rebel flag, I am fully aware that there are people who would be and, well, because I was brought up with a moral obligation to show a certain amount of common decency to the other people who share my planet, I will always agree that such things are best left to quaint historical displays and personal property.

The states had no authority to secede in the first place.

Yeah, actually they do.

^That's where it gets messy.

state's rights comes into play. there is nothing that says in once, in forever.
but theres also nothing that says states can secede.

Furthermore, after ratifying the Constitution they agreed to be under the supreme court. If the Supreme Court ruled it their right or not, there would be no contest. But it never went before the court (to my knowledge), so it's still up in the air.

The states had no authority to secede in the first place.

Yes they did. Have you ever been through Government class, at least after High School?

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or any other legal document which precludes any state or group of states from seceding from the United States.

Yeah, actually they do.

Maybe if those states were actually representative governments. The south wasn't, because black people couldn't vote, and they made up a HUGE part of the population. So a southern state wanting to ceade, wasn't true to what the forfathers envisioned for the right to ceade, as in this case it wasn't even representative of the will of the people.

But when you get past that argument, Fort Sumter closes the case.

the CSA fired on US federal property, an act of war, and began the civil war.

^That's where it gets messy.

state's rights comes into play. there is nothing that says in once, in forever.
but theres also nothing that says states can secede.

Furthermore, after ratifying the Constitution they agreed to be under the supreme court. If the Supreme Court ruled it their right or not, there would be no contest. But it never went before the court (to my knowledge), so it's still up in the air.

Ah, good point my friend. Yet I remind you of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. If the power was not specifically granted to the Federal Gov't, and NOT restricted from the States, then the States have that right, exclusively.

But when you get past that argument, Fort Sumter closes the case.

the CSA fired on US federal property, an act of war, and began the civil war.

U.S. Government property which was on another nation's soil.

Preamble to the Articles of Confederation:
"To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia."

Preamble to the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


The union is permanent and indissolvable by any body of Government. Game set match.

The states that seceded took up arms against the LAWFUL GOVERNMENT of the United States. Therefore, they were in rebellion.

Maybe if those states were actually representative governments. The south wasn't, because black people couldn't vote, and they made up a HUGE part of the population. So a southern state wanting to ceade, wasn't true to what the forfathers envisioned for the right to ceade, as in this case it wasn't even representative of the will of the people.

Slavery wasn't a issue when the fouding fathers came in. Everyone believed in slavery once America just started, it was vital to it's starting economy. They didn't envision blacks to be free. That was the hippocritcal part of the Constitution. All the freedom talk and there was still slavery.

Maybe if those states were actually representative governments. The south wasn't, because black people couldn't vote, and they made up a HUGE part of the population. So a southern state wanting to ceade, wasn't true to what the forfathers envisioned for the right to ceade, as in this case it wasn't even representative of the will of the people.

That would be an issue for the State itself, not the Federal Government.

Maybe if those states were actually representative governments. The south wasn't, because black people couldn't vote, and they made up a HUGE part of the population. So a southern state wanting to ceade, wasn't true to what the forfathers envisioned for the right to ceade, as in this case it wasn't even representative of the will of the people.

se·cede ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-sd)
intr.v. se·ced·ed, se·ced·ing, se·cedes
To withdraw formally from membership in an organization, association, or alliance.

cede ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sd)
tr.v. ced·ed, ced·ing, cedes
To surrender possession of, especially by treaty. See Synonyms at relinquish.
To yield; grant: The debater refused to cede the point to her opponent.

No entry found for ceade.

STOP BEING STUPID ON PURPOSE IN AN ATTEMPT TO SOUND INTELLIGENT

se·cede ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-sd)
intr.v. se·ced·ed, se·ced·ing, se·cedes
To withdraw formally from membership in an organization, association, or alliance.

cede ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sd)
tr.v. ced·ed, ced·ing, cedes
To surrender possession of, especially by treaty. See Synonyms at relinquish.
To yield; grant: The debater refused to cede the point to her opponent.

No entry found for ceade.

STOP BEING STUPID ON PURPOSE IN AN ATTEMPT TO SOUND INTELLIGENT

You're on a sinking ship... you know it. Now get over grammEr, because no one else cares. You accused me of straying from the subject, however this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject. I haven't attacked you once, yet you've come down on me several times, which is just another sign that I'm right. Now either try to rebute my points, or take a chill pill.

Preamble to the Articles of Confederation:
"To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia."

Preamble to the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The union is permanent and indissolvable by any body of Government. Game set match.

Not quite, and don't be arrogant, its unbecoming:

The Articles of Confederation no longer applied after creation of the Constitution, if you knew anything about Law you would know THAT.

The U.S. Constitution does not give the Federal Gov't power over secession, nor does it restrict it from the states, therefore, under Article 10 of the United States Constitution, you can legally seceede from the Union.

You're on a sinking ship... you know it. Now get over grammEr, because no one else cares. You accused me of straying from the subject, however this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject. I haven't attacked you once, yet you've come down on me several times, which is just another sign that I'm right. Now either try to rebute my points, or take a chill pill.

Actually it's not an indication of the accuracy of your argument....

That would be an issue for the State itself, not the Federal Government.

It would be an issue for the *people* of the state, and this a pretty big one. So much so, that it makes the state illegitmate due to the fact its not representative. It didn't have a right to ceAde for this reason, because those who invoked the 'right' to ceade, weren't truly elected at all. So in this case, the ceading wasn't even the will of the people... it was the will of *some* people, who had the right to vote.

The states that seceded took up arms against the LAWFUL GOVERNMENT of the United States. Therefore, they were in rebellion.

History 101. The U.S. was doing crazy unconstitutional things prior to the civil war. Go read something. Come back with knowledge.

Not quite, and don't be arrogant, its unbecoming:

The Articles of Confederation no longer applied after creation of the Constitution, if you knew anything about Law you would know THAT.

The U.S. Constitution does not give the Federal Gov't power over secession, nor does it restrict it from the states, therefore, under Article 10 of the United States Constitution, you can legally seceede from the Union.
Yes quite. The Preamble refers to the Articles of Confederation (the permanent union) and that the new union is even more perfect then the already permanent one.

Get the point?

(By the way, Texas v. White. You lose)

It would be an issue for the *people* of the state, and this a pretty big one. So much so, that it makes the state illegitmate due to the fact its not representative. It didn't have a right to ceAde for this reason, because those who invoked the 'right' to ceade, weren't truly elected at all. So in this case, the ceading wasn't even the will of the people... it was the will of *some* people, who had the right to vote.

Yes they were elected. If blacks could not legally vote (by the FEDERAL government's ruling, no less) than they could not be represented. You are trying to apply modern day law to past scenarios. It doesn't work that way.

Yes they were elected. If blacks could not legally vote (by the FEDERAL government's ruling, no less) than they could not be represented. You are trying to apply modern day law to past scenarios. It doesn't work that way.

It absolutely does because you are trying to justify their actions... today. In any case, we're going in circles.

Yes quite. The Preamble refers to the Articles of Confederation (the permanent union) and that the new union is even more perfect then the already permanent one.

Get the point?

(By the way, Texas v. White. You lose)

Excuse me... the Articles of the Confederation were considered illegitimate by the U.S. Government after the Constitution was enacted. Furthermore, Article 10 undermines your argument because though the Articles of the Confederation said the "union" was permanent it applied no restriction from any member of the union from leaving.... per Article 10, the right was not SPECIFICALLY given to the Fed., nor SPECIFICALLY restricted from the State.

Texas v. White states unilateral secession. That was not the case.

It absolutely does because you are trying to justify their actions... today. In any case, we're going in circles.

I am justifing the Secession, not the Slavery. Pay attention. I can support one without the other.

ACT, not MOTIVE.

Excuse me... the Articles of the Confederation were considered illegitimate by the U.S. Government after the Constitution was enacted. Furthermore, Article 10 undermines your argument because though the Articles of the Confederation said the "union" was permanent it applied no restriction from any member of the union from leaving.... per Article 10, the right was not SPECIFICALLY given to the Fed., nor SPECIFICALLY restricted from the State.

I don't think that the black people in the south cared what article said what. The point is, they were slaves, and the south was looking for excuses. Why is everyone trying to complicate (dehumanize) the matter?

I am justifing the Secession, not the Slavery. Pay attention. I can support one without the other.

ACT, not MOTIVE.

You can't seperate the two. Secession happened because of slavery (directly and indirectly). Its not like this happens all the time, its not hard to look at things like this on a case by case basis. lol

Excuse me... the Articles of the Confederation were considered illegitimate by the U.S. Government after the Constitution was enacted. Furthermore, Article 10 undermines your argument because though the Articles of the Confederation said the "union" was permanent it applied no restriction from any member of the union from leaving.... per Article 10, the right was not SPECIFICALLY given to the Fed., nor SPECIFICALLY restricted from the State.
Not listening are we?

The AoC stated that the Union was Permanent. The Constitution says that the union is being made more perfect by the Constitution. The union is still perfect and permanent.

But if you don't believe me, let's listen to the United States Surpreme Court in the case of Texas v. White, 1868:
" The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,' and that 'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.' 12 Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. [74 U.S. 700, 726] When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion. "

You were saying?

You can't seperate the two. Secession happened because of slavery (directly and indirectly). Its not like this happens all the time, its not hard to look at things like this on a case by case basis. lol

You were so close... drop the directly. Yes I can support an Act without supporting the Motive. Killing a man is a crime. Killing a man before he rapes and kills your 8 year old daughter with a knife however....

ACT and Motive are two different parts of a whole, and they are seperable. Go to a courts-martial and see for yourself.

Slavery wasn't a issue when the fouding fathers came in. Everyone believed in slavery once America just started, it was vital to it's starting economy. They didn't envision blacks to be free. That was the hippocritcal part of the Constitution. All the freedom talk and there was still slavery.
Not true. Most of the representatives at the Continental Congress opposed slavery, but they needed unanimity for the Declaration of Independence to pass.

I totally agree. This is coming from when I was on a class trip to southern Missouri and saw like 2 or 3 Confederate flags. I almost yelled out the bus window, "civil war is over dorks!"

Not listening are we?

The AoC stated that the Union was Permanent. The Constitution says that the union is being made more perfect by the Constitution. The union is still perfect and permanent.

But if you don't believe me, let's listen to the United States Surpreme Court in the case of Texas v. White, 1868:
...
You were saying?

My point is that THIS was the reason for the secession. The Judicial Branch, after the fact that secession occured, established that States are restricted from seceeding. Meaning, it was illegal AFTER it occured. So, basically, you are saying the States are wrong for doing something they were told they cannot do until after the fact.

Before "re-evaluating" the Constitution, the States acted within the law. Yes it is illegal NOW to seceede, but I am not saying it IS legal, I am saying it WAS legal, because, at the time, it was.

You were so close... drop the directly. Yes I can support an Act without supporting the Motive. Killing a man is a crime. Killing a man before he rapes and kills your 8 year old daughter with a knife however....

ACT and Motive are two different parts of a whole, and they are seperable. Go to a courts-martial and see for yourself.

Alright, I can buy act and motive are different parts of a whole. However it is still clear that the south's actions and motivations could not even be known, because half the population could not even vote. If everyone had the right to vote, and they voted to cede... then that's one thing. But when you have a situation where you say "do you want to cede? Oh by the way, only people who agree with me can vote...", that is entirely another.

The Confederate flag is a part of our history. A very important part. They Confederates who fought and died were Americans too. Not all the foot soldiers were fighting for slavery. They were fighting to defend their homes from what they believed was northern aggression. Which, some southerners I know refer to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression. Slavery was an issue, yes. But it was not the main reason for the war.

And yes, to remove the flags and ban them would be a bow to political correctness. It is all the need to be PC that is damaging our country.

The Confederate flag is a part of our history. A very important part. They Confederates who fought and died were Americans too. Not all the foot soldiers were fighting for slavery. They were fighting to defend their homes from what they believed was northern aggression. Which, some southerners I know refer to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression. Slavery was an issue, yes. But it was not the main reason for the war.

And yes, to remove the flags and ban them would be a bow to political correctness. It is all the need to be PC that is damaging our country.

Here we go again... welcome to page 2. ;) I don't think I can do another 7 pages of repeating the same stuff. lol

Alright, I can buy act and motive are different parts of a whole. However it is still clear that the south's actions and motivations could not even be known, because half the population could not even vote. If everyone had the right to vote, and they voted to cede... then that's one thing. But when you have a situation where you say "do you want to cede? Oh by the way, only people who agree with me can vote...", that is entirely another.

Though I agree that in modern terms it was not a representative State, I am concentrating on the mentality of the Nation at that time. That is why I remark in that manner. It is easy to say something is right or wrong in hind-sight. Everything is 20/20 looking back. But if you grew up in the South, with having slaves being a way of life, I'm sure you can understand southern hostilities.

Though I agree that in modern terms it was not a representative State, I am concentrating on the mentality of the Nation at that time. That is why I remark in that manner. It is easy to say something is right or wrong in hind-sight. Everything is 20/20 looking back. But if you grew up in the South, with having slaves being a way of life, I'm sure you can understand southern hostilities.

Oh absolutely I can see WHY they were so mad, but I still don't think they had *right* to be mad. Slavery was already on the way out (England abolished their slavery and slave trade), and the north was never really into it. So its not like this came out of left field. The black people's right to be free, is infinitely more important than not angering some white guys.

My point is that THIS was the reason for the secession. The Judicial Branch, after the fact that secession occured, established that States are restricted from seceeding. Meaning, it was illegal AFTER it occured. So, basically, you are saying the States are wrong for doing something they were told they cannot do until after the fact.

Before "re-evaluating" the Constitution, the States acted within the law. Yes it is illegal NOW to seceede, but I am not saying it IS legal, I am saying it WAS legal, because, at the time, it was.
...Right.

The Constitution never allowed a state to secede. It didn't magically change in the 7 or so years from 1861 to 1868.

Oh absolutely I can see WHY they were so mad, but I still don't think they had *right* to be mad. Slavery was already on the way out (England abolished their slavery and slave trade), and the north was never really into it. So its not like this came out of left field. The black people's right to be free, is infinitely more important than not angering some white guys.

Just as the saying "Old habits die hard," they didn't want to give up their "culture," despite its immorality.

...Right.

The Constitution never allowed a state to secede. It didn't magically change in the 7 or so years from 1861 to 1868.

Actually it did. The Constitution is really up to speculation until a "difference of opinion" causes the Supreme Court to review it. Really, its a coin toss. We know it's not legal now, but did they at the time? No one knows. All we know is that they did it.

Just as the saying "Old habits die hard," they didn't want to give up their "culture," despite its immorality.

I couldn't agree more, it is hard to kick a habit. However, like I said before, the right of the black person to be free, is more important than the right of white people 'not to be angry'. If we were talking about... smoking laws and such, then you would be right, a slow transition would be merited if they truly felt that spirited about it. However, we are talking about human lives in this case.

I couldn't agree more, it is hard to kick a habit. However, like I said before, the right of the black person to be free, is more important than the right of white people 'not to be angry'. If we were talking about... smoking laws and such, then you would be right, a slow transition would be merited if they truly felt that spirited about it. However, we are talking about human lives in this case.

I was saying that slavery wasn't the ONLY issue the Confederacy fought for. Yes, it was a major one but like someone else posted earlier, the government was doing a lot of unconstitutional things before the Civil war broke out. Plus, the south was wanting a weaker Fed and stronger State government for a while by then.

Actually it did. The Constitution is really up to speculation until a "difference of opinion" causes the Supreme Court to review it. Really, its a coin toss. We know it's not legal now, but did they at the time? No one knows. All we know is that they did it.
1861 had the same court as 1868, I think. Or near enough so it doesn't matter...

And it doesn't really matter, as that court case ruled that Texas never left the union.

I couldn't agree more, it is hard to kick a habit. However, like I said before, the right of the black person to be free, is more important than the right of white people 'not to be angry'. If we were talking about... smoking laws and such, then you would be right, a slow transition would be merited if they truly felt that spirited about it. However, we are talking about human lives in this case.

Don't ever think I disagreed with that.

When I debate, i avoid having an emotional response to anything put out there because it weakens a case. I agree that the human life was important, but in cold hard logic, if they can't vote, that doesn't mean its not representative. But of course I agree, Human life is more important than a practice, unless human "life" is under an oppresive government. (ex. "liberating prisoners from a torture jail and releasing them to the government that put them there.....) but that's off topic.

I was saying that slavery wasn't the ONLY issue the Confederacy fought for. Yes, it was a major one but like someone else posted earlier, the government was doing a lot of unconstitutional things before the Civil war broke out. Plus, the south was wanting a weaker Fed and stronger State government for a while by then.

You're skirting the fact that if the south won, then slavery would have not been abolished, which is a huge deal. If the south didn't have slaves, and everyone had the right to vote, and they still chose to cede, then it would be merited. However this not the case.

The war had little to do with slavery, and everything to do with states rights.


“Liberals, Slavery, and our Founding Fathers"
"If you’ve spent any degree of time in the company of a white-male-bashing, holier-than-thou liberal literati—and God knows there’s no shortage of these leftwing shit-stains—you’ve undoubtedly heard Captain Sensitivity talking smack about the Founding Fathers of the United States of America… that is, when he’s not putting ‘peace signs’ on the back of his Volvo van or munching on some pesticide-free Granola bars. His usual gripe falls along the lines of, “Sure, Jefferson, Madison, and Washington wrote ‘All men are created equal’ but they somehow overlooked blacks, Indians, women, slaves, Hispanics, and non-landowners. What a bunch of arrogant hypocrites! Our Founding Fathers were nothing more than a group of wealthy white slave owners—who wanted to be free!” And lately, these ex-hippie pseudo-intellectuals are speaking louder and bolder than ever before.

The opinion of Last Story? These revisionist cocksuckers are out of their tie-dyed-colored minds.

Folks, Jefferson, Madison, and Washington were genius revolutionaries of the highest possible order who transformed the very fabric of the world—and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. These Founding Fathers were exceptional intellectuals, brilliant scholars, and American patriots who drafted the master plan for the world’s first democracy since Ancient Greece—and Professor Tolerance wants to bust their balls over slavery? Listen, societal evolution develops slowly. It doesn’t happen overnight. And you gotta keep in mind that American luminaries such as Washington and Adams were only born about 250 years after Columbus proved the world wasn’t flat.

Condemning our Founding Fathers over slavery is akin to chastising Jonas Salk for not also curing cancer—or blaming Neil Armstrong for not also walking on Mars.

And let’s face facts—the American public simply wasn’t ready for anything more drastic. I mean, imagine if old Ben Franklin hobbled before his fellow patriots, stood before the podium, and bellowed: “Well, okey dokey, boys… Right after we overthrow the English crown, defeat the most powerful nation on earth—despite not having a real military of our own, risk our lives in battle and potentially HANG for treason… and right after we establish the modern world’s first representative democracy—complete with an elected president with limited, enumerated powers—and right after we become the ONLY nation in history to guarantee its people the inalienable right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of religion, jury trials, freedom of expression, a free press, the right to bare arms, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures… let’s free all the slaves! In fact, let’s make it legal for ****** Joe out in the cotton field to own weapons and marry our daughters! Are you with me?”

For Christ’s sake, old Ben Franklin would’ve gotten laughed off the stage and sent to a nut house. The American people themselves—not just the Founding Fathers—weren’t ready for anything that sweeping. The bottom line is, our Founding Fathers did an amazing job at pushing the envelope as far as they did—don’t condemn them for failing to also establish harmony among all the races.

Look around, guys. We were still barring interracial marriages and actively practicing government-sanctioned segregation in the 1960s—nearly 200 years after the American Revolution began. So cut Jefferson, Madison, and Washington some slack, will ya? Racism isn’t an easy problem to solve… and I don’t know if you noticed it or not, but it’s still a major problem in the world today. Remember, our revolutionaries lived in a time when doctors used leaches and dentists distributed wooden dentures. During the 1700s, the only forms of government on the face of the planet were monarchies, dictatorships, theocracies, and nomadic tribal rule. It was in this cultural backdrop that these “wealthy white land owners” risked their wealth, lives, and land, exhibited amazing courage and tenacity, demonstrating an unheard of faith in their fellow man. They voluntarily forfeited power upon winning the Revolutionary War because of their ideals, namely the divine right of man to live free from the shackles of government tyranny. No, they didn’t create a Utopia, but they came closer than anyone before them and designed the blueprint that inspired everyone that came after them—and they should have their collective asses kissed for doing so. No one at Last Story is saying that the institution of slavery was a good thing; obviously, it was an evil of ungodly proportions. But the ideals behind the American Revolution—along with the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights—were the greatest quantum leap in societal evolution since the advent of The Holy Scriptures. And that’s not hyperbole, boys and girls. The ripple effects of the Revolutionary War still reverberate around the farthest reaches of the globe.

Any of these elitist liberals who systematically attack our Founding Fathers for being “ethnocentric” or lacking sufficient “enlightenment” is a pretentious hack who missed the fucking point."

Slavery was slowlt being phased out, eventually it would of been gone anyway, the war was about government forcing laws on states, that diddnt want them.

1861 had the same court as 1868, I think. Or near enough so it doesn't matter...

And it doesn't really matter, as that court case ruled that Texas never left the union.

Same court, but it never made the decision between those times. We're in the same union, aren't we, even though the laws have been re-reviewed and definitions changed. Our government is designed to be that way. Constantly changing, even if the only change is an interpretation.

You're skirting the fact that if the south won, then slavery would have not been abolished, which is a huge deal. If the south didn't have slaves, and everyone had the right to vote, and they still chose to cede, then it would be merited. However this not the case.

If the south would have won, slavery would have been around longer, they would be free for a long time by now (modern times). They would have simply and slowly been merged into society. Besides, your also applying modern laws to laws back then. They WERE slaves, and there COULD NOT vote. What your saying is not the case at all like you juts said, so stop arguing it.

The war had little to do with slavery, and everything to do with states rights.


“Liberals, Slavery, and our Founding Fathers"

...

Slavery was slowlt being phased out, eventually it would of been gone anyway, the war was about government forcing laws on states, that diddnt want them.

I agree, slavery would have been weeded out... but not yet. We'd still have slaves, and I would assume that this would continue until the 2020s after international pressure from Europe.

Same court, but it never made the decision between those times. We're in the same union, aren't we, even though the laws have been re-reviewed and definitions changed. Our government is designed to be that way. Constantly changing, even if the only change is an interpretation.
Except that in the case at hand the rebellion was ruled never to have happened (they never left). So in this matter, it is irrelevent what a later court thinks...

Except that in the case at hand the rebellion was ruled never to have happened (they never left). So in this matter, it is irrelevent what a later court thinks...

So if there was no secession, then the U.S. Government attacked States practicing free speach? JK.

Aggreed. Except this case applied exclusively to Texas, technically, as difined in its writing.

So all in all, the South attempted to form its own nation in the image it felt the founding forefathers wished, and were reinserted into the Union after agressive negotiations. ^^

The war had little to do with slavery, and everything to do with states rights.


“Liberals, Slavery, and our Founding Fathers"
"If you’ve spent any degree of time in the company of a white-male-bashing, holier-than-thou liberal literati—and God knows there’s no shortage of these leftwing shit-stains—you’ve undoubtedly heard Captain Sensitivity talking smack about the Founding Fathers of the United States of America… that is, when he’s not putting ‘peace signs’ on the back of his Volvo van or munching on some pesticide-free Granola bars. His usual gripe falls along the lines of, “Sure, Jefferson, Madison, and Washington wrote ‘All men are created equal’ but they somehow overlooked blacks, Indians, women, slaves, Hispanics, and non-landowners. What a bunch of arrogant hypocrites! Our Founding Fathers were nothing more than a group of wealthy white slave owners—who wanted to be free!” And lately, these ex-hippie pseudo-intellectuals are speaking louder and bolder than ever before.

The opinion of Last Story? These revisionist cocksuckers are out of their tie-dyed-colored minds.

Folks, Jefferson, Madison, and Washington were genius revolutionaries of the highest possible order who transformed the very fabric of the world—and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. These Founding Fathers were exceptional intellectuals, brilliant scholars, and American patriots who drafted the master plan for the world’s first democracy since Ancient Greece—and Professor Tolerance wants to bust their balls over slavery? Listen, societal evolution develops slowly. It doesn’t happen overnight. And you gotta keep in mind that American luminaries such as Washington and Adams were only born about 250 years after Columbus proved the world wasn’t flat.

Condemning our Founding Fathers over slavery is akin to chastising Jonas Salk for not also curing cancer—or blaming Neil Armstrong for not also walking on Mars.

And let’s face facts—the American public simply wasn’t ready for anything more drastic. I mean, imagine if old Ben Franklin hobbled before his fellow patriots, stood before the podium, and bellowed: “Well, okey dokey, boys… Right after we overthrow the English crown, defeat the most powerful nation on earth—despite not having a real military of our own, risk our lives in battle and potentially HANG for treason… and right after we establish the modern world’s first representative democracy—complete with an elected president with limited, enumerated powers—and right after we become the ONLY nation in history to guarantee its people the inalienable right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of religion, jury trials, freedom of expression, a free press, the right to bare arms, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures… let’s free all the slaves! In fact, let’s make it legal for ****** Joe out in the cotton field to own weapons and marry our daughters! Are you with me?”

For Christ’s sake, old Ben Franklin would’ve gotten laughed off the stage and sent to a nut house. The American people themselves—not just the Founding Fathers—weren’t ready for anything that sweeping. The bottom line is, our Founding Fathers did an amazing job at pushing the envelope as far as they did—don’t condemn them for failing to also establish harmony among all the races.

Look around, guys. We were still barring interracial marriages and actively practicing government-sanctioned segregation in the 1960s—nearly 200 years after the American Revolution began. So cut Jefferson, Madison, and Washington some slack, will ya? Racism isn’t an easy problem to solve… and I don’t know if you noticed it or not, but it’s still a major problem in the world today. Remember, our revolutionaries lived in a time when doctors used leaches and dentists distributed wooden dentures. During the 1700s, the only forms of government on the face of the planet were monarchies, dictatorships, theocracies, and nomadic tribal rule. It was in this cultural backdrop that these “wealthy white land owners” risked their wealth, lives, and land, exhibited amazing courage and tenacity, demonstrating an unheard of faith in their fellow man. They voluntarily forfeited power upon winning the Revolutionary War because of their ideals, namely the divine right of man to live free from the shackles of government tyranny. No, they didn’t create a Utopia, but they came closer than anyone before them and designed the blueprint that inspired everyone that came after them—and they should have their collective asses kissed for doing so. No one at Last Story is saying that the institution of slavery was a good thing; obviously, it was an evil of ungodly proportions. But the ideals behind the American Revolution—along with the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights—were the greatest quantum leap in societal evolution since the advent of The Holy Scriptures. And that’s not hyperbole, boys and girls. The ripple effects of the Revolutionary War still reverberate around the farthest reaches of the globe.

Any of these elitist liberals who systematically attack our Founding Fathers for being “ethnocentric” or lacking sufficient “enlightenment” is a pretentious hack who missed the fucking point."

Slavery was slowlt being phased out, eventually it would of been gone anyway, the war was about government forcing laws on states, that diddnt want them.

And you sir, ironically missed the point. No one has said what the founding fathers DID get done, was bad. However it is easy to see that they were hypocrates. This is a huge point of contention, as hypocracy is the kiss of death to anyone's argument. The founding fathers could have just as easily created racial equality, it wouldn't have taken more than a pen stroke. Their constitution isn't *NEARLY* as revolutionary people believe, as most of it is based off the Magna Carta. Nice try though...

Dunno if you're from the South, but I sure am. I'm from Tennessee...my great grandfather was a Major in the Confederacy and Jefferson Davis always stayed at our family home when he was in Kentucky. If you've ever been to the "Dixieland" states, you will know that there is no way this symbol's gonna die, we absolutely thrive on it, and have stores that make their living off of merchandise involving Dixie. I've bought a Robert E. Lee/Dixie belt buckle, full-sized confederate war flag, and my car has a front-mounted Dixieland license plate. I was named after Robert E. Lee, who was the paragon of a southern gentleman, and my idol.

It's about heritage to me and a ton of the people I know, and has nothing to do with racial discrimination. As General Ulysses Grant of the Union Armies said, "If the war had been about slavery, I would've been fighting for the other side."

Grant did own slaves, and Lee did not, he didn't believe in it. So God Bless the South, and let us continue to honor people's freedom to wave whatever flag they choose


It is all about heritage. Our southern heritage. No matter what people say we will never forget.

And you gotta keep in mind that American luminaries such as Washington and Adams were only born about 250 years after Columbus proved the world wasn’t flat.

Actually ... the Pagan Greeks figured out the Earth wasn't flat thousands of years before Columbus and it was confirmed by "Heathen Musselmen" (Muslims) nearly a thousand years before Columbus. Just because the Christian world didn't accept it until Columbus doesn't mean he proved it.


Condemning our Founding Fathers over slavery is akin to chastising Jonas Salk for not also curing cancer—or blaming Neil Armstrong for not also walking on Mars.

More like condemning Jonas Salk for discovering Penicillin and only distributing to white male land-owners or condemning Neil Armstrong if he had said, "That's one small step for man, a giant leap for white male land-owners."

On a side note: The Founding Fathers, Ben Franklin in particular, would be very proud of the fact that many of us openly condemn them and have the free speech to get away with it. They founded a country, but they're not gods and they're far from perfect. Hell, Jefferson shit in a bucket and he was President!

They were men, mere men, mortal men, and to deify them is plain un-American.

It's about heritage to me and a ton of the people I know, and has nothing to do with racial discrimination. As General Ulysses Grant of the Union Armies said, "If the war had been about slavery, I would've been fighting for the other side."

and Grant is no shining star of this nations history either.. he is a pox and a black smear on everything this country stands for.. and is considered among the worst if not worst president to ever have held office, spreading corruption and ineffenciy to every corner of government function. Grant led the north simply because there were no other generals ready to do so.

and to infer that slavery was beeing phased out is a farse at best.. it was the South that was violently resisting any notion of the idea of phasing out slavery simply because it was central to their economies, thier own economic well being was as well a critical factor in their considering secession.

however, reasons why the war began have little to do with why the confederate flag is a symbol of intolerance and oppression.. The reasons behind hitlers plan in world war two was not simply focused around the jews and this anniahaltion.. but the buildin of a perfect facioust state.. and yet the natzi flag is a symbol for all the atrocities against the jews. In comparison so the confederate flag is a symbol of a rebellion infavor of slavery and the move to maintain it.

I agree, slavery would have been weeded out... but not yet. We'd still have slaves, and I would assume that this would continue until the 2020s after international pressure from Europe.

Hardly likely. The Euros can't stop slavery in Saharan Africa... :(

What people want to display is the Confederate Battle Flag, not the actual Confederate Flag. I would count the Stars and Bars as offensive, but not the battle flag. If memory serves, 75% of the white folks in the South did not own slaves, and it was mostly poor folks who were the soldiers, so even fewer of the soldiers were slave owners. Most of those soldiers were fighting for their rights to be left alone, not slavery. This war was not only about slavery. It was about states' rights, slavery just being the one in question at the time. I have no problem with honoring the dead of the South.

As for naming bases after Confederate generals, I see nothing wrong with that. I would have a problem naming one after, say, Nathan Bedford Forrest (KKK founder), but guys like Lee and Hood, I have no problem with it. I would have a problem with Germany naming an air base after Goering, but I see nothing wrong with naming a base after Rommel.

What people want to display is the Confederate Battle Flag, not the actual Confederate Flag. I would count the Stars and Bars as offensive, but not the battle flag.

What the flags look like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_flag

Excepting the "Bonnie Blue" and the 1st National Flag (discontinued in 1863), they are ALL the stars n' bars!

The Battle Flag IS the same as the Stars N Bars, just a different shape!

The states had no authority to secede in the first place.

All constitutional and legal precedent up to the Civil War, said they did. And in fact, Lincoln himself argued in the 1840's within the Legislature, which gave Massechusettes the ability to secede (though it never happened).

Your statement is one of blank stupidity, and an ignorance of history.

Untill the Civil War, states could leave the union just as they entered. After the Civil War, the Federal Tyrany became lord over all.

The Traitors were Lincoln and his bunch of petty dictators and war criminals.

Keep them up. Confederate flags are a symbol of the South's struggle for independence. Communists hate independence, and become rabid dogs at even the mention of it. They hate the Confederate flag and the fact that it stands for independence, the thing they hate most (after liberty). Henceforth, it should be retained.

Every memory of the Rebs must be wiped out.

I noticed that the US still has bases named after slimeballs like Lee, Benning, and Hood.

I had not noticed the Germans naming their bases after Goering or Hitler.

Explain why Lee was a slimeball.

What people want to display is the Confederate Battle Flag, not the actual Confederate Flag. I would count the Stars and Bars as offensive, but not the battle flag. If memory serves, 75% of the white folks in the South did not own slaves, and it was mostly poor folks who were the soldiers, so even fewer of the soldiers were slave owners. Most of those soldiers were fighting for their rights to be left alone, not slavery. This war was not only about slavery. It was about states' rights, slavery just being the one in question at the time. I have no problem with honoring the dead of the South.

As for naming bases after Confederate generals, I see nothing wrong with that. I would have a problem naming one after, say, Nathan Bedford Forrest (KKK founder), but guys like Lee and Hood, I have no problem with it. I would have a problem with Germany naming an air base after Goering, but I see nothing wrong with naming a base after Rommel.

It was more than that, 84% did not own slaves in the south.

Oh and lets not forget about the blacks who owned slaves.

And no, dont tell me that they wouldnt do that to there brodas!

It was more than that, 84% did not own slaves in the south.

Oh and lets not forget about the blacks who owned slaves.

And no, dont tell me that they wouldnt do that to there brodas!

Actually, it was 94%.

Explain why Lee was a slimeball.
Who IS this jerk-off? ( below )

Originally Posted by Dunbarrow
"Every memory of the Rebs must be wiped out. I noticed that the US still has bases named after slimeballs like Lee, Benning, and Hood. I had not noticed the Germans naming their bases after Goering or Hitler."

Who IS this jerk-off? ( below )

Originally Posted by Dunbarrow
"Every memory of the Rebs must be wiped out. I noticed that the US still has bases named after slimeballs like Lee, Benning, and Hood. I had not noticed the Germans naming their bases after Goering or Hitler."

Why the hell are Lee, Benning, or Hood slimeballs?

BTW, it's the bleeding heart, asshole, mother-fucking union revisionists who have been wrecking out heritage for decades. With their shrouded racism, and petty moronic panderings against hard truth. Fuck them, fuck the lot of them puss riden' morons. That's all they are, all they ever will be; non-thinking, incapable of formulating independent thoughts, conformists, and historical revisionists to support their pathetic cause.

http://www.forrestsescort.org/blacks_files/black1.jpg


Their idiot revisionism is catching up with them now. Black Confederates destroy their very fallacious foundations. Because, they are morons, born, bred, and will die, morons. Incapable of formulating a single original thought. Never to understand one ray of truth.

http://www.flagwire.com/data/FWedgerton.jpg
http://www.ashevilletribune.com/edgerton2.jpg
http://www.wingcomltd.com/Articles/Old%20GA%20Flag_files/image004.jpg

Unlike these twerps, acting like the petty little children they are. The truth is destroying their kind. We can only hope, not too long from now; that their breed of idiocy will be dead.

Many of us are learning more; but they are the dying breed. Being slowly pushed out by the wheels of progress, and the search for honest truth.

Sic Semper Tyrannis..... The Epiteth thrown as equally upon King George, as upon King Abraham Lincoln.....

Again, in the very ratification of the US Constitution, presented to the Constitutional Congress by Virginia, Virginia retained the right to secede.

"Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of [b]the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by any authority of the United States."

Before Virginia's own "dis"-ratification, Lincoln had newspapermen arrested (without writ), state legislatures, and other elected representatives in Kentuky, Maryland and Deleware arrested (without writ), and officially, by declaration suspended the writ of habeus corpus.

As such, by violence, and oppression, President Abraham Lincoln, violated his powers and authorities, with the aid of Congress also, violated the powers and authorities given them by the United States Constitution, to which violations, led to the immediate violation of personal treatise of ratification of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and to which, Virginia answered through Secession Convention, public vote, her own right, through provided original ratification to the Constitutional Congress in 1788, by Virginia of said Constitution. Thereby authorizing the Commonwealth of Virginia, by original agreement, the power and authority to repeal her original ratification; to which the Constitutional Convention accepted the right of, in 1788, her secession. The Repeal was approved by public ballot, of all citizens in all counties of the Commonwealth of Virginia, repeal of the Constitution, and secession from the Union, and readoption, by proper legal authority, of all former powers, by 78% in favor.

Anyone who disagrees with the fact that Virginia had the right, power and authority to secede. Is proven wrong by all original documents of her own ratification agreement, and by the 73 years of case-law leading up to the Civil War.

Abraham Lincoln's subsequent invasion of Sovereign, Commonwealth lands, was an illegal, declaration of war upon the Sovereign, independent, Commonwealth of Virginia, and a malicious violation of her lawful authorotative powers granted to her by the people of the Commonwealth, and the original Convention in 1788 of the colonies who were to become the United States of America. And a violation of his powers, granted under the same constitution; to which the Commonwealth abrogated, for such.

Idiots may have put that bastard Lincoln's statue up in Richmond, VA. but Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson's statue will foreever stand higher than that criminal Lincoln's!

It was more than that, 84% did not own slaves in the south.

Oh and lets not forget about the blacks who owned slaves.

And no, dont tell me that they wouldnt do that to there brodas!

"Brodas?" Well, if that doesn't prove the point, I'm not sure what does.

Let's make it very, very simple, shall we? The use of the Confederate battle flag did NOT end with the conclusion of the Civil War (as one might well have expected should have occurred.) They did, after all, lose the war, but were allowed by the "traitorous?" Northerners to continue to display their colors.

Interesting military and historical paradox, yes?

The battle flag was co-opted by those Southerners who DID believe in racial dichotomy, and the inferiority of one group to another (a general trend which, incidentally, was use by many "educated" men and women to justify slavery.) I would have much less of problem with the display of the Confederate battle flag if not for its concomittant use by:

KKK
Skinheads
Aryan Nation
White Citizens Council
Disneyland (sorry, couldn't resist--LOL)

and

Those who seem insistent on confusing the antebellum culture of the South with the post-Civil War vitriol of the wound-licking, racist, resentful southern contingent which gave birth to the KKK and its modern-day grandchild organizations.

He said.

"Brodas?" Well, if that doesn't prove the point, I'm not sure what does.

Let's make it very, very simple, shall we? The use of the Confederate battle flag did NOT end with the conclusion of the Civil War (as one might well have expected should have occurred.) They did, after all, lose the war, but were allowed by the "traitorous?" Northerners to continue to display their colors.

Interesting military and historical paradox, yes?

The battle flag was co-opted by those Southerners who DID believe in racial dichotomy, and the inferiority of one group to another (a general trend which, incidentally, was use by many "educated" men and women to justify slavery.) I would have much less of problem with the display of the Confederate battle flag if not for its concomittant use by:

KKK
Skinheads
Aryan Nation
White Citizens Council
Disneyland (sorry, couldn't resist--LOL)

and

Those who seem insistent on confusing the antebellum culture of the South with the post-Civil War vitriol of the wound-licking, racist, resentful southern contingent which gave birth to the KKK and its modern-day grandchild organizations.

He said.
Racists in my country display our national flag (the Union Jack) but what we should not do is let them own it, we should be proud of it and what it actually stands for not what some biggots now think it stands for, same with the stars and bars. It stood for people who stood up against what they percieved as agression and heavy handedness of a remote and to them none representavive government. Right or wrong that is what they thought, and is that such a bad cause to fight for?

Racists in my country display our national flag (the Union Jack) but what we should not do is let them own it, we should be proud of it and what it actually stands for not what some biggots now think it stands for, same with the stars and bars. It stood for people who stood up against what they percieved as agression and heavy handedness of a remote and to them none representavive government. Right or wrong that is what they thought, and is that such a bad cause to fight for?


Technically it is only the Union Jack when flown from the Jackstaff of H.M. Ships and Vessels. Otherwise it is the Union Flag.

They way I see it if people didn't make such a big deal, it wouldnt matter; while I dont exactly like the Confederacy I'm not a PC freak who wants to ban symbol X Y or Z

This doesn't exactly seem to be an important issue. I say let the southerners do what they want with their silly old flag.
Why is it we can sentence a murder to life in prison for killing one person.... but when it comes to people responsible for THOUSANDS... we give them a fukkin plaque. :headbang:
"One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." - Stalin

What the flags look like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_flag

Excepting the "Bonnie Blue" and the 1st National Flag (discontinued in 1863), they are ALL the stars n' bars!

The Battle Flag IS the same as the Stars N Bars, just a different shape!

"Stars and Bars" is the term for the 1861 flag.
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/stars_ba.gif

The "Southern Cross" aka Battle Flag was the basis of the other 2.
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/confed2.gif
(1863)
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/confed3.gif
(1865)
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/confed_b.gif
(Battle)
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/scross.gif
(Naval Jack)

The Bonnie Blue was a precursor flag. It was not an adopted national flag, but a representative of a single state republic.
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/bonnie_blue.jpeg
(Bonnie Blue)

Oh yes... lets respect someone's right to enslave someone else... :rolleyes:


The Union was trying to fuck around with interstate trade as well, mind you. I'd most definitely fight someone trying to interfere with trade.

Hardly likely. The Euros can't stop slavery in Saharan Africa... :(

Yeah. Does anyone ever stop to think about it? The Africans SOLD their fellow Africans, WHO WERE ALREADY ENSLAVED, to Americans and anyone else who would pay for them.

Translation: It's not just a white thing.

Yeah. Does anyone ever stop to think about it? The Africans SOLD their fellow Africans, WHO WERE ALREADY ENSLAVED, to Americans and anyone else who would pay for them.

Translation: It's not just a white thing.
Never was, some of the best slavers in Africa were Black. They saw other tribes as lesser poeple so thought as little about enslaving them as thier white partners.

Looks like the North (Union) vs South (Confederate) thing is still alive.

Truth be told, I support state's rights. Including the right to secede, although the only state whose right to secede was expressly guaranteed, to my understanding, was Texas. The others had it as an assumed right because nobody said they couldn't, which falls in line with the articles of the Constitution.
Was Lincoln wrong? Well, maybe not. Was he a bad man? Heck no. Was he possibly mistaken? I'll go there.
Was he a great deliverer of freedom and equality unto the masses? Not exactly. He was a good man with very different priorities and he feared for the safety of the nation, in whole or in part, if it were to split. He probably feared that, if a whole bunch split off at once, the rest might fragment, thus destroying what freedoms and unique experiment had been garnered. And he may have been right in that respect; the states were probably stronger together than apart.

On the other hand, he set a trend of federal over states rights with no state ability to argue that point. This was, as far as I can tell, exacerbated during the Great Depression, when huge, nation-spanning programs and projects were put into place to try to salvage an ailing nation. Bothering to salvage these United States may have been a mistake then, too, as the trends that have come from that have left a different place in their wake. We are a different United States from our inception, and different from World War II. I'm not sure if I like us better this way or not.

Regardless of how this adds up, there were many motivations behind the Emancipation Proclamation. As low a priority as freeing black slaves was, it was tactically useful (and thus logical as a weapon of war) and may have been partially inspired by Lincoln's long correspondence with the adamant Frederick Douglass. There is little evidence to disprove that, though little evidence for it, either. The fact is that the North didn't have any real investment in freeing slaves except as a weapon of war. It wasn't a terribly big deal either way to the Union, making them little better than the Confederacy in terms of racism and callousness.

Now, a Confederate flag may stand for many things. The Civil War was not fought over slaves. It was fought for economic and political reasons, and was driven by a battle between federalists and those who felt state's rights were more important, whatever that viewpoint is called. However, the Confederate flag may stand, now in this misunderstanding, for a time in the South when blacks were legally inferior; when it was okay to subjugate an entire people on the basis of blood and the color of their skin. It might also stand for a hatred of the federalist standpoint that leaves us with so little recourse in the face of a president that many despise, be he Democrat or Republican; so little recourse before a very large central government that has little sympathy for the rights of an individual territory.

In the name of freedom of speech and the proper representation of history, these symbols must be preserved and the people educated on their many, many meanings to many, many people both past and present. That is my opinion.

Never was, some of the best slavers in Africa were Black. They saw other tribes as lesser poeple so thought as little about enslaving them as thier white partners.


Then what I want to know is how people can get away with making this strictly a racism issue, not realizing that "Hey, if other blacks hadn't sold my people to Americans/Europeans, then they most likely wouldn't have been enslaved!"

Go to the root of the problem before destroying the fruit.

"Stars and Bars" is the term for the 1861 flag.
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/stars_ba.gif

The "Southern Cross" aka Battle Flag was the basis of the other 2.
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/confed2.gif
(1863)
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/confed3.gif
(1865)
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/confed_b.gif
(Battle)
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/scross.gif
(Naval Jack)


So like I said... they're ALL the same!

So like I said... they're ALL the same!

Not all, I was reffering to your mis-lable.

"Stars and Bars" is not the term for the Battle-flag... Is is the term for the first official Confederate Flag. The term for the Battle-flag and subsequent, is "Southern Cross".

Not all, I was reffering to your mis-lable.

"Stars and Bars" is not the term for the Battle-flag... Is is the term for the first official Confederate Flag. The term for the Battle-flag and subsequent, is "Southern Cross".

Seems we have a disconnection...

They *ALL* contain the same blue X with the same star pattern. They're about as dissimilar as the US flag after they removed the 14th & 15th stripes: minor alterations, but the same basic pattern.

I didn't call one or the other the Battle Flag. I was saying that I think you're off by calling one more offensive than another since they're basically the same.

Seems we have a disconnection...

They *ALL* contain the same blue X with the same star pattern. They're about as dissimilar as the US flag after they removed the 14th & 15th stripes: minor alterations, but the same basic pattern.

I didn't call one or the other the Battle Flag. I was saying that I think you're off by calling one more offensive than another since they're basically the same.

I don't consider any of them offensive.

I was merely saying, against what you were saying about them "all containing the stars and bars"... that the term "Stars and Bars" is the name for the flag that looks like this:
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/stars_ba.gif
Which is the 1861 to 1863 Confederate States of America national flag.

The "Southern Cross" is the Battle Flag:
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/confed_b.gif
And the basis for the 1863-1865 flag:
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/confed2.gif
and as well the 1865 flag:
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/confed3.gif

IOW This flag is not the "Stars and Bars":
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/confed_b.gif
It is the "Southern Cross".
This flag is the "Stars and Bars":
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/stars_ba.gif

I was arguing against your misclassification of terminology. Not on the issue of offensiveness. None of them are offensive in my book.

Hmpf?

Well my spin on it would be how they are used.

If they are used as a tool for racism *edit* and the promotion of violence (for example the Stars and Bars at KKK rallies) then yes take them down.

They are part of our history.

People forget that part of freedom of speech and expression is the ability to say or display stupid and or hateful things.

Matter of opinion of course.......

I don't consider any of them offensive.

I was merely saying, against what you were saying about them "all containing the stars and bars"... that the term "Stars and Bars" is the name for the flag that looks like this:
http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/stars_ba.gif
Which is the 1861 to 1863 Confederate States of America national flag.

I was arguing against your misclassification of terminology. Not on the issue of offensiveness. None of them are offensive in my book.

I understand that YOU don't consider any of them offensive. I also understand what you are saying.

What I'm saying is this:
No matter WHAT flag we're talking about, to just about everybody else out there, they ALL still have the blue X and the white stars on a red field on it. To the majority of people, that means "Stars and Bars". It's kind of like how people refer to any copier as a Xerox or any tissue as Kleenex...

The differences between them, while of historical interest, for most people are moot since the people who ARE offended by these flags of the Confederacy see them as being the same.

The Union was trying to fuck around with interstate trade as well, mind you. I'd most definitely fight someone trying to interfere with trade.
Well, the Constitution gives Congress the express power to "fuck around with interstate trade," so I really don't see what right they had to bitch about that particular issue.

I don't care, honestly. I doubt that there will be another Civil War in the US, and there's nothing you can do that won't offend SOMEBODY, so trying to prevent small groups of whiny people from being offended is PC at best, censorship at worst. Although there ARE several situatinos where going the least offensive route possible is best, this isn't one of them. WTF happened to freedom of speech & the press? Did people just forget about it or what?

Mwahaha!
http://flagmanstore.com/images/cherokeeLG.jpg

White Stars:
South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Virginia.

Red Stars:
Cherokee Nation, Choctaw Nation, Chickasaw Nation, Creek Nation, and Seminole Nation. (Allied with the C.S.A.)

Mwahaha!
White Stars:
South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Virginia.

Red Stars:
Cherokee Nation, Choctaw Nation, Chickasaw Nation, Creek Nation, and Seminole Nation. (Allied with the C.S.A.)
Are you proud of having a flag that represents hatred to such a large portion of the country? Forget the historical significance it might have for you for a moment--that flag and the others like it represent the deaths of black Americans throughout the deep south for no crime other than that they were black and some white people felt that mean they were less valuable than dogs, and that apparently doesn't matter to you.

You're being too easy on him. He lead armies which fought for the right of slavery. He could have just as easily said "NO THANK YOU", and not had the blood of a thousands on his hands.

He lead armies that believed they were Virginians first, and Americans second against other armies that believed they were Americans first and Virginians second.

Buy a clue.

Are you proud of having a flag that represents hatred to such a large portion of the country? Forget the historical significance it might have for you for a moment--that flag and the others like it represent the deaths of black Americans throughout the deep south for no crime other than that they were black and some white people felt that mean they were less valuable than dogs, and that apparently doesn't matter to you.

Obviously all the Black Confederate Soldiers (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=black+confederate+soldiers) disagreed with you.

Honestly, does anyone even pay attention to American history beyond the second grade level anymore?

Obviously all the Black Confederate Soldiers (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=black+confederate+soldiers) disagreed with you.

Honestly, does anyone even pay attention to American history beyond the second grade level anymore?
Had I been talking about the Confederacy, you might have a point, but no, I'm talking about the African-Americans who have been lynched in the last hundred years by white supremacists who were waving that flag with pride as though they were representatives of the old Confederacy. Try pulling your own head out of your ass, why don't you.

You all are totally missing the issue here. Its not about whether Lee or Jackson or any Confederate Army Officer was a good or bad person or what they stood for. Its about heritage. Malcolm X Street should be just as controversial as any of these. He was a radical black Muslim whose drive was to overthrow the government as we knew it. Yet there are hundreds of streets named after him throughout America. The reason that these public areas are named after these people is because of their contributions as Americans. It is the duty of all Americans to challenge their government when it does not represent them any longer, whether they be Jefferson Davis or Malcolm X. The past is something that you cannot escape from, so it might as well be something that one embraces. All of these men deserve to be honored for their civic duties just as they are today, and no narrow minded individual should take that away from them.

Are you proud of having a flag that represents hatred to such a large portion of the country? Forget the historical significance it might have for you for a moment--that flag and the others like it represent the deaths of black Americans throughout the deep south for no crime other than that they were black and some white people felt that mean they were less valuable than dogs, and that apparently doesn't matter to you.

No, because it does not represent that.

I can find a flag that perfectly represented the death of countless millions of people, the displacement and acquisition of stollen land, and nazi style concentration camps.....

It looks something like this:
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/flags/35star.gif

It was under flags like this, that blacks were carried from Africa to America.

It was under this flag, that being a free black in states like Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and New Jersey was illegal.

It was under this flag that countless Native American's were removed by military force from their lands, and hudled into small camps.

....

We do not need your revisionism. You festering glob of human excrement. You would be dangerous, had you actually known anything about history past what they teach you in some pathetic, dishonest, incomplete elementary textbook written by some revisionist historian.

It was under the CSA Flag, that countless free whites and blacks fought for their homes, where slaves fought beside their masters, and where Native American tribes fought for their own homes as well.

You all are totally missing the issue here. Its not about whether Lee or Jackson or any Confederate Army Officer was a good or bad person or what they stood for. Its about heritage. Malcolm X Street should be just as controversial as any of these. He was a radical black Muslim whose drive was to overthrow the government as we knew it. Yet there are hundreds of streets named after him throughout America. The reason that these public areas are named after these people is because of their contributions as Americans. It is the duty of all Americans to challenge their government when it does not represent them any longer, whether they be Jefferson Davis or Malcolm X. The past is something that you cannot escape from, so it might as well be something that one embraces. All of these men deserve to be honored for their civic duties just as they are today, and no narrow minded individual should take that away from them.

It's funny you mention confederate officers.

I remember a story about some Church in Virginia just after the war. It was mass and a black fellow got up for communion. The Church was stunned. Even the minister didn't know what to do. It was a few seconds then an elderly gentlemen walked up and nelt next to the black man. The black man turned and saw it was Robert E. Lee.

Out of all the sourtherners, I have heard(correct me if I am wrong), he is the only one not to be pardoned.

Its heritage not hate. Its part of this great nations history, and it shouldnt be over looked. Hell, even the north had slaves at one point, does that mean that we are going to start hating the first flag?? Or should we hate the Brits for allowing us to have slaves. Or the Africans themselves for selling the slaves to us.

It's funny you mention confederate officers.

I remember a story about some Church in Virginia just after the war. It was mass and a black fellow got up for communion. The Church was stunned. Even the minister didn't know what to do. It was a few seconds then an elderly gentlemen walked up and nelt next to the black man. The black man turned and saw it was Robert E. Lee.

Out of all the sourtherners, I have heard(correct me if I am wrong), he is the only one not to be pardoned.

It's an apocryphal story. It was recently recited on 60 Minutes, though they didn't say it was Lee, just "some old white gentleman". It's a good story, don't get me wrong -- I just consider it about as valid as one of granddad's yarns. :)

Had I been talking about the Confederacy, you might have a point, but no, I'm talking about the African-Americans who have been lynched in the last hundred years by white supremacists who were waving that flag with pride as though they were representatives of the old Confederacy. Try pulling your own head out of your ass, why don't you.

You are correct. The flag is now being flown (or has been) by KKK members, pro-segragationists, and racist no-account bigots of every level of ignorance. I even argued the point in another thread that the battle-flag of the confederacy is as much a symbol of hate as it is of anything else and that people were deluding themselves if they didn't realize it.

I intended my reply to be directed at another post which specifically mentioned the Confederacy. Obviously I errored.

Robert E. Lee, December 27th, 1856


I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

Robert E. Lee, to his sister, Anne Marshal, April 20th, 1861


I am grieved at my inability to see you. I have been waiting for a more convenient season, which has brought to many before me deep and lasting regret. Now we are in a state of war which will yield to nothing. The whole South is in a state of revolution, into which Virginia, after a long struggle, has been drawn; and though I recognize no necessity for the state of things, and would have forborne and pleaded to the end for redress of grievances, real or supposed, yet in my own person I had to meet the question whether I should take part against my native State.

With all my devotion to the Union, and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relative, my children, my home. I have, therefore, resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State (with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed) I hope I may never be called upon to draw my sword.

I know you will blame me, but you must think as kindly as you can, and believe that I have endeavored to do what I thought right. To show you the feeling and struggle it has cost me I send you a copy of my letter of resignation. I have no time for more. May God guard and protect you and yours and shower upon you everlasting blessings, is the prayer of

Every memory of the Rebs must be wiped out.

I noticed that the US still has bases named after slimeballs like Lee, Benning, and Hood.

I had not noticed the Germans naming their bases after Goering or Hitler.
Goering and Hitler were a lot slimier than Lee... but otherwise I agree. If southern memorabilia are used as nostalgic symbols of a racist past, then they should disappear.

If people want to pretend that the Confederacy won that's fine. No one said people have to be rational.

Then what I want to know is how people can get away with making this strictly a racism issue, not realizing that "Hey, if other blacks hadn't sold my people to Americans/Europeans, then they most likely wouldn't have been enslaved!"

Go to the root of the problem before destroying the fruit.
That's like saying someone that shot someone isn't to blame but the guy that sold him the weapon is. Both are wrong.

Confederate flag is a symbol of subversive social measures. It is not acceptable.

Burn it.

It's an apocryphal story. It was recently recited on 60 Minutes, though they didn't say it was Lee, just "some old white gentleman". It's a good story, don't get me wrong -- I just consider it about as valid as one of granddad's yarns. :)

Hmfffff

To think I got it from the history channel. Must of missed the disclaimer.

Bastard now I have to go look for validity! :p

Every memory of the Rebs must be wiped out.

I noticed that the US still has bases named after slimeballs like Lee, Benning, and Hood.

I had not noticed the Germans naming their bases after Goering or Hitler.

do you actually know anything about the three men in question? Or are you simply assuming that since they fought for a bad cause they were evil?

Postwar Germany kept Rommel as a hero for example, and he certainly fought for an evil cause. The moral integrity of Robert E. Lee has never been called into question by any serious historian.

So what are you basing your point on?

Confederate flag is a symbol of subversive social measures. It is not acceptable.

Burn it.

No question the Confederate States of America and its primary reason for seccession (slavery) were a bad cause.

On the other hand...

more Americans died in that war than all other wars the US has fought combined. More southerners died in that war than Americans killed in World War 2. Most of them didn't own slaves, and they fought to defend what they thought were their rights... States rights, defense of their home, etc...a certain amount of honor is attached to that flag. Its not just a symbol of hateful oppression, but for many whose ancestors fought in that war for the Southern side, it is a symbol of history.

In the scheme of things, the Southern Cause was a bad one, but certainly more worthy than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.

do you actually know anything about the three men in question? Or are you simply assuming that since they fought for a bad cause they were evil?

Postwar Germany kept Rommel as a hero for example, and he certainly fought for an evil cause. The moral integrity of Robert E. Lee has never been called into question by any serious historian.

So what are you basing your point on?
There's no Rommel-day like there is a Robert E. Lee day in Virginia... No German in WW2 that sided with Hitler has ever been celebrated unless he tried to kill him later on, and even those have recently undergone a serious debate whether or not we should honor them.

more Americans died in that war than all other wars the US has fought combined. More southerners died in that war than Americans killed in World War 2. Most of them didn't own slaves, and they fought to defend what they thought were their rights... States rights, defense of their home, etc...a certain amount of honor is attached to that flag. Its not just a symbol of hateful oppression, but for many whose ancestors fought in that war for the Southern side, it is a symbol of history.

In the scheme of things, the Southern Cause was a bad one, but certainly more worthy than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.

It's a symbol of shameful history. The fact that ur comparing the southern cause to the nazi or divine wind cause says something already.

Those who forget the past are deemed to repeat the past....

Those who forget the past are deemed to repeat the past....
In Germany, we don't forget the past but we ban the symbols of Nazism for all other than historical or educational purposes. Banning is not the same thing as forgetting.

No it certainly isnt the same thing...all i'm saying is to forget is to repeat

There's no Rommel-day like there is a Robert E. Lee day in Virginia... No German in WW2 that sided with Hitler has ever been celebrated unless he tried to kill him later on, and even those have recently undergone a serious debate whether or not we should honor them.

RE Lee day in Virginia is still worth remembering. In Texas, for example, that same day is called Confederate Heros Day. Essentially in the post Civil War South it was Southern Memorial Day... remembering the hundreds of thousands who died in that war. As it happens, Texas celebrates Confederate Heros day on January 17, and Martin Luther Kings Birthday sometimes happens to fall on that day as well (3rd monday of January). I don't think Lee would have minded a bit. I can't speak for MLK, but I suspect if King knew about where Lee actually stood on the issues, he might not have minded either.

Robert E. Lee chose to consider his state his country, a very common decision at that time in America. He was anti slavery himself, and condemned the institution on many occasions. For his day he was a very liberal man.

So he is worth remembering. He is also probably one of the greatest generals in military history, and one of only two men in American history other than George Washington who could have done what George Washington did.

George Hood is remembered for having led the Texas Brigade in the Civil War in many battles, and was informally adopted by Texans post war. Certainly not the great man that Lee was, but still worth remembering.

I have no idea who Benning was, but since Fort Benning wasn't established until World War I, whether it was named after a Civil War hero requires some research.

Most US Army bases are named after men from either the Civil War or Indian War period, so most likely he was a Southern General.

There's no Rommel-day like there is a Robert E. Lee day in Virginia... No German in WW2 that sided with Hitler has ever been celebrated unless he tried to kill him later on, and even those have recently undergone a serious debate whether or not we should honor them.

Robert E. Lee was a Union Colonel, and Later General over the Army of Northern Virginia.

His faithfulness, reserve, compassion and humility have never been called into question.

In historical american figures, he is considered second only to General George Washington (another Virginian).

Even though an attempt was made to indict him for Treason, the indictment was thrown out by President Johnson (mostly from the fact that General Grant threatened to resign, should the President fail to honor the surrender, which specifically forbade the trial of confederate soldiers to which surrender had been accepted).

Robert E. Lee fought to defend his state, to the best of his ability. And his Statue, stands next to George Washington's, in the Old Hall of the House of Representatives in Washington D.C., both submited by Virginia. And he is memorialized at the Arlington National Cemetary.

In Virginia, it is Lee/Jackson/King day. And Rightly so, all three men did much to end the stain on US histories treatment of the black people. Despite what your own school history books choose to omit.

Lee, who freed his own slaves (which he had inherited from his wife) in 1853. Who saw them as equals in his troops, fighting along side him in defense of his home. And who continued to do much after the war.

Thomas Jackson, "Stonewall", who did much to establish churches, and teach the blacks. Making them literate and fit during his tenure on earth, not surviving the war.

Omitting what they truly believed in, to villanize them, is no way to handle history.

It's a symbol of shameful history. The fact that ur comparing the southern cause to the nazi or divine wind cause says something already.

No, actually the Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol for a whole lot of things...

for some it was a symbol of defiance against US Federal authority, and a symbol of southern racism.

for others it was a symbol of family tradition, honoring ancestors who fought for the South.

for others its the flag of the shameful episode of Whites owning Blacks

depends on how you look at it doesn't it?

The difference between the Rebel Battle Flag and the Nazi Swastika also has to do with degrees of evil. The worst thing the South did was Andersonville prison (a hell hole as bad as Dachua or the Japanese prison camps in World War II)... but its wasn't CSA policy for prisoners to be starved to death, it was lack of Southern resources and a generally deplorable understanding of how to treat prisoners reasonably (and the Union had prisons almost as bad as Andersonville too). Blacks were not executed in mass, and were generally treated shabbily, but within the general moral standards of the day.

the Nazis didn't even pretend to have morality, and tried like hell to cover up the mess before the Allies got to the camps. They were knowingly doing evil.. a substantial difference wouldn't you say?

As for the question of Germany today. Well, a lot of the German constitution was pretty much dictated by the Allies, and also by serious German guilt of the Nazis (commendable that). Waving the Nazi Swastika around isn't good for good relations with the neighbors either. Laws restricting that are only natural.

But the bottom line is this. Under the US Constitution, Free Speech is enshrined. So Nazis can march in Jewish neighborhoods if they get a permit, and Black Civil Rights protesters could march in Georgia. People can burn the American flag anywhere, wave the Rebel flag all they want, and give generally say anything they want as long as it does not directly incite violence.

The Rebel Battle Flag will be around a while yet.

RE Lee day in Virginia is still worth remembering. In Texas, for example, that same day is called Confederate Heros Day. Essentially in the post Civil War South it was Southern Memorial Day... remembering the hundreds of thousands who died in that war. As it happens, Texas celebrates Confederate Heros day on January 17, and Martin Luther Kings Birthday sometimes happens to fall on that day as well (3rd monday of January). I don't think Lee would have minded a bit. I can't speak for MLK, but I suspect if King knew about where Lee actually stood on the issues, he might not have minded either.

Robert E. Lee chose to consider his state his country, a very common decision at that time in America. He was anti slavery himself, and condemned the institution on many occasions. For his day he was a very liberal man.

So he is worth remembering. He is also probably one of the greatest generals in military history, and one of only two men in American history other than George Washington who could have done what George Washington did.

George Hood is remembered for having led the Texas Brigade in the Civil War in many battles, and was informally adopted by Texans post war. Certainly not the great man that Lee was, but still worth remembering.

I have no idea who Benning was, but since Fort Benning wasn't established until World War I, whether it was named after a Civil War hero requires some research.

Most US Army bases are named after men from either the Civil War or Indian War period, so most likely he was a Southern General.

Fort Benning is named after Henry Lewis Benning, a general in the Confederate army.

No, because it does not represent that.

I can find a flag that perfectly represented the death of countless millions of people, the displacement and acquisition of stollen land, and nazi style concentration camps.....

It looks something like this:
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/flags/35star.gif

It was under flags like this, that blacks were carried from Africa to America.

It was under this flag, that being a free black in states like Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and New Jersey was illegal.

It was under this flag that countless Native American's were removed by military force from their lands, and hudled into small camps.

....

We do not need your revisionism. You festering glob of human excrement. You would be dangerous, had you actually known anything about history past what they teach you in some pathetic, dishonest, incomplete elementary textbook written by some revisionist historian.

It was under the CSA Flag, that countless free whites and blacks fought for their homes, where slaves fought beside their masters, and where Native American tribes fought for their own homes as well.
I'm willing to bet that I know more about US history, especially recent southern US history, than you do. If anyone is indulging in revisionism, it's you. No one doubts that there were reasons other than slavery for the Civil War, but the issue at play today has little to do with the Civil War and much more to do with the actions of the Ku Klux Klan and white supremacists in general in the last 50-80 years.

Regardless of what the Confederate flag once stood for, it has now been taken over by white supremacists, and used as a symbol of terror, hate and oppression against African-Americans and those who would ensure that all citizens are treated as equals before the law in the United States. It has been forever tainted, just like the swastika has been tainted by its association with the Nazi Party. It may be possible to reclaim the Confederate flag one day, assuming it is ever de-linked from the racism of groups like the Klan or the Knights of the White Camellia, but that day is not now, and it won't be coming anytime soon by my reckoning.

Bleat on if you must about the historical significance of the flag and the reasons other than slavery for the Civil War--it's all moot. The flag lost whatever historical significance it had once it was co-opted by racists. Put it in a museum--fine. Show it as an artifact--I don't care. Fly it in front of your goddamn house if you want--but know that if you choose to do so, you are linking yourself with the modern racist usage of the flag for all to see. You are proudly proclaiming yourself in allegiance with the Klan, with lynchmobs, and with the stereotype that springs from a segment of the country that just can't let go of the past.

I'm willing to bet that I know more about US history, especially recent southern US history, than you do. If anyone is indulging in revisionism, it's you. No one doubts that there were reasons other than slavery for the Civil War, but the issue at play today has little to do with the Civil War and much more to do with the actions of the Ku Klux Klan and white supremacists in general in the last 50-80 years.

Regardless of what the Confederate flag once stood for, it has now been taken over by white supremacists, and used as a symbol of terror, hate and oppression against African-Americans and those who would ensure that all citizens are treated as equals before the law in the United States. It has been forever tainted, just like the swastika has been tainted by its association with the Nazi Party. It may be possible to reclaim the Confederate flag one day, assuming it is ever de-linked from the racism of groups like the Klan or the Knights of the White Camellia, but that day is not now, and it won't be coming anytime soon by my reckoning.

Bleat on if you must about the historical significance of the flag and the reasons other than slavery for the Civil War--it's all moot. The flag lost whatever historical significance it had once it was co-opted by racists. Put it in a museum--fine. Show it as an artifact--I don't care. Fly it in front of your goddamn house if you want--but know that if you choose to do so, you are linking yourself with the modern racist usage of the flag for all to see. You are proudly proclaiming yourself in allegiance with the Klan, with lynchmobs, and with the stereotype that springs from a segment of the country that just can't let go of the past.

Well said.

I would also add that both slavery and the Civil War were devastating for the southern states. The profitability of slavery prior to the Civil War meant that almost all southern venture capital went into cotton and slaves, strangling the South's growth in manufacturing, education, and infrastructure.

The South was nearly a feudal society for the 100 years after the end of the Civil War. The Civil War, in affect, resulted in the South becoming an economic colony of the North until the end of the 20th century.

No one who cares for the South or its heritage would look back on that time or its symbols as anything other than a sad, sad mistake.

I'm willing to bet that I know more about US history, especially recent southern US history, than you do. If anyone is indulging in revisionism, it's you. No one doubts that there were reasons other than slavery for the Civil War, but the issue at play today has little to do with the Civil War and much more to do with the actions of the Ku Klux Klan and white supremacists in general in the last 50-80 years.

Regardless of what the Confederate flag once stood for, it has now been taken over by white supremacists, and used as a symbol of terror, hate and oppression against African-Americans and those who would ensure that all citizens are treated as equals before the law in the United States. It has been forever tainted, just like the swastika has been tainted by its association with the Nazi Party. It may be possible to reclaim the Confederate flag one day, assuming it is ever de-linked from the racism of groups like the Klan or the Knights of the White Camellia, but that day is not now, and it won't be coming anytime soon by my reckoning.

Bleat on if you must about the historical significance of the flag and the reasons other than slavery for the Civil War--it's all moot. The flag lost whatever historical significance it had once it was co-opted by racists. Put it in a museum--fine. Show it as an artifact--I don't care. Fly it in front of your goddamn house if you want--but know that if you choose to do so, you are linking yourself with the modern racist usage of the flag for all to see. You are proudly proclaiming yourself in allegiance with the Klan, with lynchmobs, and with the stereotype that springs from a segment of the country that just can't let go of the past.

And the same group flies the US Flag as well.

Your argument is the ranting of a bigot.

I could give a damn about bigots like the KKK, I shove my Confederate flag in THEIR face. And hit them on their inappropriate usage of it, and usurpation of it.

You're a bigot, Incertonia. A sick bigot, a bigot just as bad as the KKK.

If you can't see it, you're fucking blind. Just like the bigots of the KKK.

Merely because they inappropriately use the Confederate Flag, does not give them exclusive usage of it.

And I will not bow to the whim of perverted little bigots. The Confederate Flag stays. It stays because I am a Confederate American, it stays in honor of all my ancestors who fought for my home. It stays for all the men who gave their life for liberty and freedom in my state. It stays right along with my Virginia State Flag, and alongside my US Flag.

And you know what? There is not a fucking thing you, or any other bigoted assholes can do about it. The KKK, the Aryan Nation, and you can all kiss my ass.

http://www.3dflags.com/assets/QW21CD/gif/2/u/3dflagsdotcom_usa_2fawm.gif
http://www.fetherbay.com/AnimatedFlags/Conf-3rdOfficial.gif
http://www.3dflags.com/assets/QW21CD/gif/2/u/3dflagsdotcom_us_va_2fawm.gif

And the same group flies the US Flag as well.

Your argument is the ranting of a bigot.

I could give a damn about bigots like the KKK, I shove my Confederate flag in THEIR face. And hit them on their inappropriate usage of it, and usurpation of it.

You're a bigot, Incertonia. A sick bigot, a bigot just as bad as the KKK.

If you can't see it, you're fucking blind. Just like the bigots of the KKK.

Merely because they inappropriately use the Confederate Flag, does not give them exclusive usage of it.

And I will not bow to the whim of perverted little bigots. The Confederate Flag stays. It stays because I am a Confederate American, it stays in honor of all my ancestors who fought for my home. It stays for all the men who gave their life for liberty and freedom in my state. It stays right along with my Virginia State Flag, and alongside my US Flag.

And you know what? There is not a fucking thing you, or any other bigoted assholes can do about it. The KKK, the Aryan Nation, and you can all kiss my ass.
I'm a bigot? Because I actually give a damn about the feelings of my African-American friends, some of whom lost grandparents to those self-same sons of the south who lynched them in the name of racial purity, I'm a bigot? Because I look at the sorry-ass history of the part of the country where I was born and raised and dare to criticize them for refusing to let go of an idyllic past that never fucking existed, I'm a bigot? Sorry bub--you're the one who has decided to ally yourself with racists and lynch mobs. Who gives a damn who you think is a bigot? Not me--I know who I am and who my friends are, and what my beliefs are, and I know what side of the fight I've been on my whole damn life. I've got nothing to prove to you, nor you to me--your actions and your defense of that reprehensible flag show you for what you are.

EDIT: One last point. This is my last word on the subject. I feel I've explained myself and my position adequately, and if you don't like it, tough shit. Call me any name you wish--you did it in your first reply to me even though I've been mostly polite in this exchange--I don't care. I'm through with the subject and I'm through with you.

Of the centuries since the discovery of North Amercia by the Europeans why do some people insist on a symbol that reflects only the 5 years there were under the confederacy? The lack of proportion boggles me.

-snip-

Wow.

Better hope someone doesn't report you-that's warnable-if not bannable-flaming right there.

I guess everyone who flies a Confederate Flag is automatically a racist pig who lynches minoity members.

And everyone who uses a swastika, even the Hindi, are Nazi's wanting to kill all the jews and purify the white race.

And everyone who wears or has a cross displayed approves of the Crusades.

And everyone who displays an U.S. Flag approves of the forced relocation of Native Americans.

---

Is this not proof enough of the rank stupidity of this view?

Judging someone displaying a symbol, based off of what one or more other people view the symbol as; is prejudice. You are PRE-JUDGING, (sic. prejudice of) them and whatever they hold to, without actually asking the person.

It is funny, that prejudice has become the norm of the "tollerant" people. So much for the "tollerant". You scream prejudiced epiteths at anyone who displays something, without first asking them about it.

So much for tollerance. So much for liberality. The tollerant have become intollerant; the liberal has become oppressive.

Does it make you mad that I call you prejudiced? It should... But your anger should be directed at yourself. Not me, or other people who may display some image you seem not to like because of prejudice. You should stand in judgment over your own actions, and condemn them for what they are; instead of living in denial of said prejudice.

I hope this pisses everyone off. Because it should. I hope you swear epiteths at me for being a "lynch mob supporter" merely because I honor people who died for my state.

I'll still fly my flag, I'll still stand by my brothers who do the same, regardless of race; and you will still be prejudiced.

I look at it simply this way. The confederate flag is the symbol of an attempt to break from the United States federal government. Breaking from that government is, by its laws, treason. SO therefore the confederate flag is a symbol for treason inside the United States of America. It's probably only the first amendment rights provided by our federal government which prevents symbollic acts of treason from being punished with our laws traditional action. Which is: to execute to traitors.

I'll stick with my jolly roger.

ermm.....without the rebel flag, where would the DUKES OF HAZARD be ?


YEEEEE HA

I'd say that the General Lee would have to change it's color.

Say... yellow.

Again, my beef with people who fly the Confederate flag is not about whether or not they're racist, but it's about supporting active and open TREASON agains the legal government of the United States.

Do you support committing treason?

Here's my two cents.

I believe that the confedarate flag should be banned In PUBLIC PLACES(excluding for educational purposes) because 1. It's what all the Klannies use(or at least most of 'em), 2. To alot of people it is racist because the Confederate States of America was built on slavery,and 3. That by having a flag of Another state inside of our own state could by the grounds for unrest.

Now, I believe that this war shouldn't be forgotten unless we wish to fall back to that day. This war was a vital part of America's history, and by taking that away we kill off our most important war. That war solidified what America is. America THENwas little more than a bunch of arguing state's that sometimes even went to WAR with each other(Points to Missouri/Arkansas). After the war, the government brought down the hammer and united the people.

Also, while I believe that it shouldn't be in Public Places, it SHOULD be allowed in schools, libraries, and museums for EDUCATIONAL purposes. I also believe that if you wanna hang up confederate flags all along the wall of your dining room, go ahead.

And the same group flies the US Flag as well.

Your argument is the ranting of a bigot.

I could give a damn about bigots like the KKK, I shove my Confederate flag in THEIR face. And hit them on their inappropriate usage of it, and usurpation of it.

You're a bigot, Incertonia. A sick bigot, a bigot just as bad as the KKK.

If you can't see it, you're fucking blind. Just like the bigots of the KKK.

Merely because they inappropriately use the Confederate Flag, does not give them exclusive usage of it.

And I will not bow to the whim of perverted little bigots. The Confederate Flag stays. It stays because I am a Confederate American, it stays in honor of all my ancestors who fought for my home. It stays for all the men who gave their life for liberty and freedom in my state. It stays right along with my Virginia State Flag, and alongside my US Flag.

And you know what? There is not a fucking thing you, or any other bigoted assholes can do about it. The KKK, the Aryan Nation, and you can all kiss my ass.

http://www.3dflags.com/assets/QW21CD/gif/2/u/3dflagsdotcom_usa_2fawm.gif
http://www.fetherbay.com/AnimatedFlags/Conf-3rdOfficial.gif
http://www.3dflags.com/assets/QW21CD/gif/2/u/3dflagsdotcom_us_va_2fawm.gif

Sorry to break it to ya, but your ancestors were NOT fighting for freedom. Freedom? HA! They were fighting so that the central government couldn't infringe on their state's powers, and not to mention if the North Won the south couldn't have it's oh-so-important slaves anymore. So the rich aristocrats (who practically ruled down there) decided "To hell with this! We'll just make our own slawe-holding feudal state!". So they decide to call up all the poor farm boys and all the black slaves to fight. The rest is history.

Now, I agree that you SHOULD have your flag. In your own home. You could make it into your bedsheet for all I care! But what I DON'T agree with is you parading your flag in public, because what about all the black people? Huh?

GO THE FREEDOM LOVING NORTH!

http://www.3dflags.com/assets/QW21CD/gif/2/u/3dflagsdotcom_usa_2fawm.gif
http://www.3dflags.com/assets/QW21CD/gif/2/u/3dflagsdotcom_us_ma_2fawm.gif

(By the way, Slavery was ILLEGAL in most northern states by around 1810. Sure, illegal slavers went through, but illegal slavers don't represent the majority.)

Hi. Protector of Wector here... I'm a history student. I'd just like to point out something real quick. When the south succeded from the union, they made only two changes to their constitution. But for these two changes, they were an identical country to the United States of America.

The two changes? 1. Extended the presidential term from 4 to 6 years. 2. Made an amendment which protected the practice of slavery.

Now... call me crazy, but I don't think they went to war just so Jefferson Davis could serve a six year term.

Again, my beef with people who fly the Confederate flag is not about whether or not they're racist, but it's about supporting active and open TREASON agains the legal government of the United States.

Do you support committing treason?

Under the 10th Amendment the states did have the right to secede.

Under the 10th Amendment the states did have the right to secede.

Your statement may or may not have been true before the Civil War. However, the fact there was a civil war cannot be ignored.

It is an interesting intellectual exercise to re-debate the merits of the secessionist arguments; not unlike arguing the merits of the American invasion of Mexico or imagining how history might have been changed if Archduke Franz Ferdinand had not taken a wrong turn and met an assassin’s bullet.

However, an interesting intellectual exercise is all it is.

What every secessionist apologist and Confederate dead-ender fails to recognize, in all their Constitutional arguments, is what modern day Middle East experts call “the facts on the ground.” They argue endlessly as if there had never been a civil war. Yet, of all the salient bits of information in this discussion, the most important is the war in which more than 3 million Americans fought, and over 600,000 men (2 percent of the U.S. population) died. The Civil War changed many things about the American social, economic, and political landscape. It also forever settled the question of whether or not states are entitled to leave the Union.

They unequivocally cannot.

This matter was settled by force of arms. Argue all day about whether or not this was right or if you agree or disagree, but the fact remains that some issues are decided by war. The American Civil War was not the first or last time great issues were resolved by force.

Was the U.S. correct in forcibly taking land from the Native Americas?

No.

Did the U.S. have a legal right to take Texas, California, New Mexico, and Arizona from Mexico?

No.

Did the U.S. have a Constitutional or internationally legal argument for occupying and annexing Hawaii?

No.

Is the United States going to give back any of that land?

No.

Whether you call it the War Between the States, the War Against Northern Aggression, the Second American Revolution, the Lost Cause, the War of the Rebellion, the Brothers’ War, the Late Unpleasantness, or as Walt Whitman called it, the War of Attempted Secession, it long ago settled the question of whether or not states are entitled to leave the nation. In the blood of 600,000 Americans is the answer written:

“One nation, undivided....”

Again, my beef with people who fly the Confederate flag is not about whether or not they're racist, but it's about supporting active and open TREASON agains the legal government of the United States.

Do you support committing treason?

Yes. And so did the founding fathers.

you are fools to say that every memory should be wiped out. they were americans who fought to defend their states' rights (or so they believed) to the death. That being said, they are responsible for the civil war.


I'll go one further. They weren't responsible for the Civil War. The Federal government was taxing them to death. Just like the brits did to the colonies in the 1700s. They wanted out. But the North couldn't function without all the money coming in from the South.

Lincoln decided to go to war--not the South.

The emancipation proclamation wasn't signed until two years into the Civil
War, so I suggest that no one use that as a reason that the war was fought. It was propaganda part way through the war.

I'll go one further. They weren't responsible for the Civil War. The Federal government was taxing them to death. Just like the brits did to the colonies in the 1700s. They wanted out. But the North couldn't function without all the money coming in from the South.


Man, you are totally out of your depth. The federal government collected no internal revenue during the four decades leading up to the Civil War (they briefly imposed an excise tax during the War of 1812, but Congress repealed it in 1817). Instead, the Government received most of its revenue from high customs duties and through the sale of public land.

The southern states had approximately 10% of the nation's capital by 1860 and only 8% of the country's total manufacturing. Of course both of those figures dropped as a result of the devastation of the Civil War (another reason why southerners have no cause to look back on that part of their history with fondness).

Reliance on slaves and plantation cotton turned the south into an economic colony of the northern states. By 1860 the southern states were increasingly falling behind the rest of the country in wealth, manufacturing, capital improvements, infrastructure, and almost every other economic measurement.

It wasn't the North that needed the South, but rather the other way around.

Under the 10th Amendment the states did have the right to secede.

Well there isn't an official ruling on that.

The fact that Madison himself argued against the claims of Nullification and secession and the fact he argued against the misuse of his 1798 Virginia Resolutions and Report of 1800 as justification tends to suggest otherwise....

Your statement may or may not have been true before the Civil War. However, the fact there was a civil war cannot be ignored.

*snip*


Just have to say well said!

Again, my beef with people who fly the Confederate flag is not about whether or not they're racist, but it's about supporting active and open TREASON agains the legal government of the United States.

Do you support committing treason?

Yes.... I do.

Our founding fathers did as well; when they broke from Brittain it was an act of Treason against a legal government authority.

Your words fall on deaf ears, my friend. Because a traitor can also be a patriot.

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." - Thomas Paine.

Patriots are rebels; Patriots are traitors....

Those who stand by their government right or wrong; are not Patriots... They are cowards.

Yes.... I do.

Our founding fathers did as well; when they broke from Brittain it was an act of Treason against a legal government authority.

Your words fall on deaf ears, my friend. Because a traitor can also be a patriot.

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." - Thomas Paine.

Patriots are rebels; Patriots are traitors....

Those who stand by their government right or wrong; are not Patriots... They are cowards.

Where is Brittain? Never heard o' it.

Anyhoo, are you calling me a coward? Tell me, have you ever walked through a minefield? Have you ever walked through the slums of a Lahore, one of the biggest cities in Pakistan? Have you ever been through a nation that has just come out of civil-war?

I didn't think so. So before you start calling me a coward for loving my country, take a look at yourself.

Deep in Dixie’s heart, rebel symbols fall one by one:
South slowly shedding reminders of its still-divisive Civil War past

Over the past few years, more and more references to the Confederacy seem to be vanishing around the South.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6747569/

What do you think?

Most symbols weren't even added until the '50s or '60s and were added specificaly to be divisive. Any that were there from the Civil War on may stay, but those added much later should fall by the wayside.

(By the way, Slavery was ILLEGAL in most northern states by around 1810. Sure, illegal slavers went through, but illegal slavers don't represent the majority.)

(By the way, Being black was ILLEGAL in most of the northern states by around 1840. Freedom loving north? Hmhmm, bullshit.... Pure bullshit... There were more free blacks in Virginia in 1860 than their were in the entirety of the Northern states combined...)

On a further note; long before the North, or even the Continental Congress, and later the Constitutional Congress even began addressing the slavery, in fact, before the Revolution; The Virginia colonial legislature had petitioned the Royal Crown in 1772 for the placement of higher tariffs on the importation of slaves into the colonies.


The importation of slaves into the colonies from the coast of Africa hath long been considered as a trade of great inhumanity, and under its present encouragement, we have too much reason to fear will endanger the very existence of your majesty's American dominions. We are sensible that some of your majesty's subjects of Great Britain may reap emoluments from this sort of traffic, but when we conside that it greatly retards the settlement of the colonies with more useful inhabitants, and may, in time, have the most destructive influence we presume to hope that the interest of a few will be disregarded when placed in competition with the security and happiness of such numbers of your majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects. Deeply impressed with these sentiments, we most humbly beseech your majesty to remove all those restraints on your majesty's governors of this colony, which inhibit their assenting to such laws as might check so very pernicious a commerce.

The petition was denied.

Later in 1776; Virginia listed this as one of their reasons for rebellion under the issue of their refusal to pass laws towards the common good in their own State Constitution at the time of the Declaration.

In 1774 the Virginia colonial legislator official banned slave import and export into the colony, from overseas, and other brittish colonies.

This was again re-affirmed in the 1776 Virginia State Constitution, when the entirety of slave import and export was banned.

In 1786, (still before the US Constitution was heard of) with Jefferson as a key player. Legislation was passed in the Virginia legislature, implimenting plans of manumission and apprenticeship for the gradual freedom of training of blacks. It took the Northern states a full 30 years to reach this level; and even then, they only compensated masters; most of the free blacks died from starvation. Other Northern states, simply made black settlement in their states illegal... deporting any who settled their. New Jersy being more "liberal" implimented a system whereby blacks could settle, provided they supply a $2,000 dollar bond. Yes, freedom loving North.

By 1810, their were more than 30,000 free blacks in the Commonwealth of Virginia, more than twice that by 1850...

It was leading into this time period when men like Robert E. Lee freed the slaves he inherited from his wife's family. And when Thomas Jackson began his missionary work to free-blacks in the Commonwealth, establishing churches which still stand to this day.

During the war, one of Lee's first acts was to submit a request to the new Confederate Government for the enlistment and integration of blacks into the Confederate Army. The Legislature turned him down; but not actually being answerable to the Confederate Government, he began to allow the enlistment of blacks into his own command, the Army of Northern Virginia; where blacks served in line duty alongside white Virginians; and as spies for his forces. (Something the North did not do till near the end of the war; and even at that; used them as cannon fodder, in non-integrated companies. In the Attack on Richmond, black Union troops were marched in the front of the line, to take most of the cannon fire from the Confederate Forces, keeping their white union soldiers in relative safety.) Out of the 75,000 Confederate troops under Lee at Gettysburg, 13,000 of them were black-confederates. On an interesting note, in 1913, the 50th aniversary of the Battle was held. Provision was made for white confederate and union, as well as black confederate soldiers (segregated).... The commission was surprised when several hundred black-confederate veterans arrived; but refused to supply provision.... The white confederate veterans shared their accomodations with their former brothers at arms.

The simple fact is; while many want to make this a (no pun intended) black and white issue.... It is far from that... Nothing is ever "black and white"... only differing shades of grey.

Where is Brittain? Never heard o' it.

Anyhoo, are you calling me a coward? Tell me, have you ever walked through a minefield? Have you ever walked through the slums of a Lahore, one of the biggest cities in Pakistan? Have you ever been through a nation that has just come out of civil-war?

I didn't think so. So before you start calling me a coward for loving my country, take a look at yourself.

Speaking from ignorance.....

Have you ever done an under-hull survey of an enemy battle-group?

Didn't think so....

(By the way, Being black was ILLEGAL in most of the northern states by around 1840. Freedom loving north? Hmhmm, bullshit.... Pure bullshit... There were more free blacks in Virginia in 1860 than their were in the entirety of the Northern states combined...)

On a further note; long before the North, or even the Continental Congress, and later the Constitutional Congress even began addressing the slavery, in fact, before the Revolution; The Virginia colonial legislature had petitioned the Royal Crown in 1772 for the placement of higher tariffs on the importation of slaves into the colonies.

The petition was denied.

Later in 1776; Virginia listed this as one of their reasons for rebellion under the issue of their refusal to pass laws towards the common good in their own State Constitution at the time of the Declaration.

In 1774 the Virginia colonial legislator official banned slave import and export into the colony, from overseas, and other brittish colonies.

This was again re-affirmed in the 1776 Virginia State Constitution, when the entirety of slave import and export was banned.

In 1786, (still before the US Constitution was heard of) with Jefferson as a key player. Legislation was passed in the Virginia legislature, implimenting plans of manumission and apprenticeship for the gradual freedom of training of blacks. It took the Northern states a full 30 years to reach this level; and even then, they only compensated masters; most of the free blacks died from starvation. Other Northern states, simply made black settlement in their states illegal... deporting any who settled their. New Jersy being more "liberal" implimented a system whereby blacks could settle, provided they supply a $2,000 dollar bond. Yes, freedom loving North.

By 1810, their were more than 30,000 free blacks in the Commonwealth of Virginia, more than twice that by 1850...

It was leading into this time period when men like Robert E. Lee freed the slaves he inherited from his wife's family. And when Thomas Jackson began his missionary work to free-blacks in the Commonwealth, establishing churches which still stand to this day.

During the war, one of Lee's first acts was to submit a request to the new Confederate Government for the enlistment and integration of blacks into the Confederate Army. The Legislature turned him down; but not actually being answerable to the Confederate Government, he began to allow the enlistment of blacks into his own command, the Army of Northern Virginia; where blacks served in line duty alongside white Virginians; and as spies for his forces. (Something the North did not do till near the end of the war; and even at that; used them as cannon fodder, in non-integrated companies. In the Attack on Richmond, black Union troops were marched in the front of the line, to take most of the cannon fire from the Confederate Forces, keeping their white union soldiers in relative safety.) Out of the 75,000 Confederate troops under Lee at Gettysburg, 13,000 of them were black-confederates. On an interesting note, in 1913, the 50th aniversary of the Battle was held. Provision was made for white confederate and union, as well as black confederate soldiers (segregated).... The commission was surprised when several hundred black-confederate veterans arrived; but refused to supply provision.... The white confederate veterans shared their accomodations with their former brothers at arms.

The simple fact is; while many want to make this a (no pun intended) black and white issue.... It is far from that... Nothing is ever "black and white"... only differing shades of grey.

None of this has anything to do with the fact that most of the Confederate symbols we see today were added at the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement with the express purpose of being discriminatory.

I would like to point out that its not the job of and invidual in a democratic government to make a choice for the masses. State citizens should be able to vote as to which flags they want to fly over thier courthouses. If the want to fly the USSR's flag it is thier choice since it's thier state and thier courts. And if you dont like seeing the flag flown somewhere then dont look at it.

I would like to point out that its not the job of and invidual in a democratic government to make a choice for the masses. State citizens should be able to vote as to which flags they want to fly over thier courthouses. If the want to fly the USSR's flag it is thier choice since it's thier state and thier courts. And if you dont like seeing the flag flown somewhere then dont look at it.

I would like to point out that there is a damn good reason we are not a pure democracy. Ever heard the one about the sheep and the wolves?

I would like to point out that its not the job of and invidual in a democratic government to make a choice for the masses. State citizens should be able to vote as to which flags they want to fly over thier courthouses. If the want to fly the USSR's flag it is thier choice since it's thier state and thier courts. And if you dont like seeing the flag flown somewhere then dont look at it.


You are right that state citizens should be able to vote on decisions regarding the flags. A few years ago, Georgia's state flag was changed without allowing citizens to vote, and it was completely hideous (it looked like a freaking Mastercard ad). Last year, it was protested, and finally we were allowed to vote on our own damn state flag. Needless to say, that ugly piece of crap got tossed in favor of something a little more...subtle.

Well, the Constitution gives Congress the express power to "fuck around with interstate trade," so I really don't see what right they had to bitch about that particular issue.

Congress wasn't doing it. There's the right to bitch.

I agree completely. Not only that, but the president of the confederacy even was let to become a professor at a college (AFTER the war!).

The very man who put in motion the bloodiest war of our history (yes I know the north declared war, but the south knew what would happen if they ceaded, and they did it anyway)... is LET GO, to TEACH A CLASS!

This still boggles my mind.

No, the man who put the war into motion had his brains blown out of his skull by JWB.

That's like saying someone that shot someone isn't to blame but the guy that sold him the weapon is. Both are wrong.

I admit that. What I don't admit is that I am personally responsible for my ancestors' actions. (Of course, my ancestors were on both sides of the fight, so nobody can really pin me down.) I'm just tired of everyone who even looks white getting bitched at by a small group of rather ignorant people who think that they are personally affected by my decision to have a Confederate flag in my room. If I had an old Union flag, I'd stick it right beside the Confederate one. I merely choose to remember the people in my family who were lost to war.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that the Americans and Europeans who BOUGHT slaves and brought them to North America are often the only ones who are blamed. If you're going to blame someone, blame everyone involved.

No, we should remember our history and allow these rememberences.

Stay off the Rebel flags, ok? Just because Dixie fought for slavery does not mean that a)that was the only reason they fought or b)that the North was all that innocent either. If we can outlaw the Stars and Bars or Confederate Battle Flag for predjudice, let us remember that there were 4 Union Slave States, Maryland Delaware Kentucky and Missouri.

That is EXACTLY what makes Lee a traitor.

He swore an oath... to the Union, not to Virginia.

An oathbreaker. To be hated and condemned for all time.

Umm.. No actually. The whole Issue of the Civil war was NOT about Slavery. and I'm sorry if I may seem unsensitive to you screwball PC types. if anything the Slavery angle was an afterthought. something to help get good PR, cause insurrection in the south, etc.

THE ISSUE OF THE CIVIL WAR WAS THE DECIDING FACTOR OF STATES RIGHTS VS FEDERAL RIGHTS.

remember, before then, the federal government was always in a tenuous position. from teh end of the revolutionary war, through teh continental congressess, through it all, The stripling government was being molded and formed. eventually those who favored strong states rights and a weak federal system (i.e. the confederacy) versus those that favored a stronger federal system (the Union).

this being teh case, how can you say he swore an oath to the union? as a citizen of virginia, one of his first duties was to be a member of virginia's militia. and as his commonwealth was part of the "confederacy" It seems that he was fighting for home and country now, wasn't he. So how was he an oathbreaker or traitor?

and to put ANY of our war veterans in the same boat as the SS or other groups is and should be an insult to the American war veteran. Despite the north and south being enemies over the political power struggle, they were all americans.

or maybe my sense of PC inclusion isn't highly toned enough to notice the difference between nationalistic fervor and hatemongering.

Actually, it is true; prior to the Civil War, there was no such thing as a "United States Citizen", people were citizens of their State.

Lee had beliefs along the same line as Jackson.

"My duty must always be first to my home, Virginia. Her decision must lead mine." -Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.

In addition, Robert E. Lee resigned his commission in the United States Army. And then was comissioned by the Governor of Virginia on behalf of his call by the Virginia House of Delegates and Senate as the Commander of the Armies of Virginia. His oath was to the Commonwealth of Virginia, not the United States Army or the President.

Umm.. No actually. The whole Issue of the Civil war was NOT about Slavery. and I'm sorry if I may seem unsensitive to you screwball PC types. if anything the Slavery angle was an afterthought. something to help get good PR, cause insurrection in the south, etc.

THE ISSUE OF THE CIVIL WAR WAS THE DECIDING FACTOR OF STATES RIGHTS VS FEDERAL RIGHTS.


Yes and such states rights involved slavery.

Why else would Alabama, Texas, and Virginia mention slave owning states in their secession document?

http://www.dixiescv.org/secession.html

Then there is the Constitution of the Confederacy

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/csa.constitution.html

Sure it said no new slaves but it has many provisions about traveling with your property and the returning to property.

To suggest slavery had nothing to do with the war is as wrong as claiming it was only about the elimination of slavery.

No, we should remember our history and allow these rememberences.

Stay off the Rebel flags, ok? Just because Dixie fought for slavery does not mean that a)that was the only reason they fought or b)that the North was all that innocent either. If we can outlaw the Stars and Bars or Confederate Battle Flag for predjudice, let us remember that there were 4 Union Slave States, Maryland Delaware Kentucky and Missouri.

Please go back and read post #1. That's the whole point of debate: should the flags (etc.) be banned?

You guys sure don't live in the south!!!!!!!!!! Here, every redneck and person wearing that flag, hates BLACK and Jewish people. You guys need to visit the south more often... these people are a disgrace to Americans..... and the world!!!!

You are right that state citizens should be able to vote on decisions regarding the flags. A few years ago, Georgia's state flag was changed without allowing citizens to vote, and it was completely hideous (it looked like a freaking Mastercard ad). Last year, it was protested, and finally we were allowed to vote on our own damn state flag. Needless to say, that ugly piece of crap got tossed in favor of something a little more...subtle.

Do notice, however, that (regardless of what good ole' Sonny said when he ran for governor), the 1950's flag was *not* on the ballot. =)

Do notice, however, that (regardless of what good ole' Sonny said when he ran for governor), the 1950's flag was *not* on the ballot. =)


Yeah..that did kind of bug me. I'm still glad that we at least got to vote on it, no matter how limited our choices were.

You guys sure don't live in the south!!!!!!!!!! Here, every redneck and person wearing that flag, hates BLACK and Jewish people. You guys need to visit the south more often... these people are a disgrace to Americans..... and the world!!!!

Actually I have been all over these 50 states.

My relatives from there are rednecks and they are a disgrace.

Now the obvious question would the mixed relationships. Do you see many mixed couples? Would people look twice at say a black man and a white woman?

There are many levels of bigotry and racism. I have been to areas that I would declare bigotry is the norm.

However, such areas and people exist in all states and the world for that matter.....

You guys sure don't live in the south!!!!!!!!!! Here, every redneck and person wearing that flag, hates BLACK and Jewish people. You guys need to visit the south more often... these people are a disgrace to Americans..... and the world!!!!
No. That is absolutely not true. A very small percentage of people displaying the Confederate flag are racist, most are just proud of the South and their Southern heritage.

You guys sure don't live in the south!!!!!!!!!! Here, every redneck and person wearing that flag, hates BLACK and Jewish people. You guys need to visit the south more often... these people are a disgrace to Americans..... and the world!!!!

In case you haven't read, I live in Georgia. I do not hate black and Jewish people. I hate stupid and militantly ignorant people. I also hate trolls and flamers.

There, you have been properly informed. Chill out now.

You guys sure don't live in the south!!!!!!!!!! Here, every redneck and person wearing that flag, hates BLACK and Jewish people. You guys need to visit the south more often... these people are a disgrace to Americans..... and the world!!!!

I do, Richmond, capitol of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and former Capitol of the Confederate States of America. I can get to the State Capitol Complex in about 30 minutes. And I can tell you that not everyone who flies that flag hates black and jewish people. In fact, I know many blacks and jews who fly it with me.

Actually, it is kinda ironic. The CSA Government was more Jewish than the any government except the present state of Israel. So seeing Aryans and KKK's flying CSA flags is kinda funny in my book.... Which, of course, I never miss telling them when I see them ;)

Yeah..that did kind of bug me. I'm still glad that we at least got to vote on it, no matter how limited our choices were.

I was a little bugged by it too - until I realized something that all the people who didn't want it changed won't tell you.

It wasn't like that flag was any kind of time-honored tradition. It had been changed in the '50s *specifically* to institutionalize racism. Georgia wanted to make a point that they weren't lettin' them coloreds get equal rights or have access to their pretty white daughters. After I found that out, I didn't mind so much that it wasn't on the ballot.

Kind of like how "under God" was added into the pledge around the same time to discriminate against them "Godless atheist commies." I used to think it was pretty silly to complain about the pledge - then I found out that the original didn't even have the phrase. It was added specifically to be discriminatory, so I think we should go back to the original.

Yes and such states rights involved slavery.

Why else would Alabama, Texas, and Virginia mention slave owning states in their secession document?

http://www.dixiescv.org/secession.html

Then there is the Constitution of the Confederacy

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/csa.constitution.html

Sure it said no new slaves but it has many provisions about traveling with your property and the returning to property.

To suggest slavery had nothing to do with the war is as wrong as claiming it was only about the elimination of slavery.

I am a native southerner (now transplanted) whose ancestors fought for the South during the Civil War (one from 1st Bull Run until the Surrender to Grant), the Civil War was also a field of study for me way back in college and I am a lifetime student of it.

First of all... if there had not been slavery, there would not have been a Civil War in all likelihood. That said, it was one but not the only one of the causes of the war. Many people either don't know or don't remember that the New England states discussed secession during the War of 1812, and only the victories in upper New York State and Lake Erie in 1813 and 1814 shifted the mood enough to prevent that from occuring.

Most historians agree that prior to the Civil War, the republic was the United STATES of America, and after the war was the UNITED States of America. You were more than a Vermonter or Virginian after the war, but an American while before the war your state was more important. Another important point is that the exact definition of a US Citizen was not established until the 14th Amendment was passed (post civil war), before that there was no such exact concept.

Lee and the other Southern Officers did however swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. They resigned from the Army and went to their home states. Technically they violated that oath, especially the West Pointers. In practice though, most people at the time did not fault their decision for that reason, as going with your state was the norm, and those that stayed with the Federal Army when their state didn't were the exception (by the way, a noted General who lost at Vicksburg, Pemberton, was from Pennsylvania and 'went south' because his wife as a southerner)

My own feeling on the a matter of displaying the Rebel Flag is this. Why is it being displayed? For historical purposes or to add flavor to a theme park (Six Flags comes to mind), or because of family tradition?

Or to foster hatred and show rebellion against Federal rules (common during the civil rights era)

A couple hundred thousand southerners died serving that flag, and for those of us of that ancestry, it means something to us.

In my view, the only people who should have a reasonable gripe against the Rebel Flag would be Americans who had ancestors who were slaves from one of the states that seceded from the Union (and 4 slave states did not, plus slavery was legal even in some of the 'Free' states), and perhaps an occasional Yankee whose ancestors died in in that war and even then I wouldn't be inclined to listen to the Yankee (and most of the Yankee veterans didn't complain in the postwar period)

The South can in no way be compared to Nazi Germany. The points of difference are so vast as to require a thread or paper in themselves. Suffice to say though, the Rebs weren't Nazis, just wrong. Most Southerners at the time by the way called the war a "Rich Man's War, and a Poor mans fight"

Most of those who fought in the South fought to defend their rights (as they saw it), under the concept of State and Individual rights being supreme to Federalism. To a lesser extent and indirectly were they fighting to defend slavery. That doesn't mean they weren't wrong, but does mean they weren't evil.

I was a little bugged by it too - until I realized something that all the people who didn't want it changed won't tell you.

It wasn't like that flag was any kind of time-honored tradition. It had been changed in the '50s *specifically* to institutionalize racism. Georgia wanted to make a point that they weren't lettin' them coloreds get equal rights or have access to their pretty white daughters. After I found that out, I didn't mind so much that it wasn't on the ballot.

Kind of like how "under God" was added into the pledge around the same time to discriminate against them "Godless atheist commies." I used to think it was pretty silly to complain about the pledge - then I found out that the original didn't even have the phrase. It was added specifically to be discriminatory, so I think we should go back to the original.


The only reason it bugged me was because I genuinely liked the way it looked, and it was the flag that I grew up seeing.

I was a little bugged by it too - until I realized something that all the people who didn't want it changed won't tell you.

It wasn't like that flag was any kind of time-honored tradition. It had been changed in the '50s *specifically* to institutionalize racism. Georgia wanted to make a point that they weren't lettin' them coloreds get equal rights or have access to their pretty white daughters. After I found that out, I didn't mind so much that it wasn't on the ballot.

Kind of like how "under God" was added into the pledge around the same time to discriminate against them "Godless atheist commies." I used to think it was pretty silly to complain about the pledge - then I found out that the original didn't even have the phrase. It was added specifically to be discriminatory, so I think we should go back to the original.

I am in the same boat as you. I was really pissed about the flag being changed, until I recognized the reason it was designed that way. Same way about the pledge and money having under god (even though I am an atheist). When I found out they were specifically there for such outlandishly stupid reasons, and not to celebrate some historically signifigant fact, my ire was stilled and I grew to dislike those who were vehemently in support of it.

I was a little bugged by it too - until I realized something that all the people who didn't want it changed won't tell you.

It wasn't like that flag was any kind of time-honored tradition. It had been changed in the '50s *specifically* to institutionalize racism. Georgia wanted to make a point that they weren't lettin' them coloreds get equal rights or have access to their pretty white daughters. After I found that out, I didn't mind so much that it wasn't on the ballot.

Kind of like how "under God" was added into the pledge around the same time to discriminate against them "Godless atheist commies." I used to think it was pretty silly to complain about the pledge - then I found out that the original didn't even have the phrase. It was added specifically to be discriminatory, so I think we should go back to the original.

And ironically, the new flag has the Stars and Bars on it. Guess some things never change...

It was obviously a ploy to keep the PC police off of Georgia because they ring giant alarm bells when they see the Confederate Battle Flag but are silent when they see an actual Confederate Flag.

I am a native southerner (now transplanted) whose ancestors fought for the South during the Civil War (one from 1st Bull Run until the Surrender to Grant), the Civil War was also a field of study for me way back in college and I am a lifetime student of it.

First of all... if there had not been slavery, there would not have been a Civil War in all likelihood. That said, it was one but not the only one of the causes of the war. Many people either don't know or don't remember that the New England states discussed secession during the War of 1812, and only the victories in upper New York State and Lake Erie in 1813 and 1814 shifted the mood enough to prevent that from occuring.

Most historians agree that prior to the Civil War, the republic was the United STATES of America, and after the war was the UNITED States of America. You were more than a Vermonter or Virginian after the war, but an American while before the war your state was more important. Another important point is that the exact definition of a US Citizen was not established until the 14th Amendment was passed (post civil war), before that there was no such exact concept.

Lee and the other Southern Officers did however swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. They resigned from the Army and went to their home states. Technically they violated that oath, especially the West Pointers. In practice though, most people at the time did not fault their decision for that reason, as going with your state was the norm, and those that stayed with the Federal Army when their state didn't were the exception (by the way, a noted General who lost at Vicksburg, Pemberton, was from Pennsylvania and 'went south' because his wife as a southerner)

My own feeling on the a matter of displaying the Rebel Flag is this. Why is it being displayed? For historical purposes or to add flavor to a theme park (Six Flags comes to mind), or because of family tradition?

Or to foster hatred and show rebellion against Federal rules (common during the civil rights era)

A couple hundred thousand southerners died serving that flag, and for those of us of that ancestry, it means something to us.

In my view, the only people who should have a reasonable gripe against the Rebel Flag would be Americans who had ancestors who were slaves from one of the states that seceded from the Union (and 4 slave states did not, plus slavery was legal even in some of the 'Free' states), and perhaps an occasional Yankee whose ancestors died in in that war and even then I wouldn't be inclined to listen to the Yankee (and most of the Yankee veterans didn't complain in the postwar period)

The South can in no way be compared to Nazi Germany. The points of difference are so vast as to require a thread or paper in themselves. Suffice to say though, the Rebs weren't Nazis, just wrong. Most Southerners at the time by the way called the war a "Rich Man's War, and a Poor mans fight"

Most of those who fought in the South fought to defend their rights (as they saw it), under the concept of State and Individual rights being supreme to Federalism. To a lesser extent and indirectly were they fighting to defend slavery. That doesn't mean they weren't wrong, but does mean they weren't evil.

I couldn't agree with ya more!

Man, you are totally out of your depth. The federal government collected no internal revenue during the four decades leading up to the Civil War (they briefly imposed an excise tax during the War of 1812, but Congress repealed it in 1817). Instead, the Government received most of its revenue from high customs duties and through the sale of public land.

The southern states had approximately 30% of the nation's wealth by 1860 and only 8% of the country's total manufacturing. Of course both of those figures dropped as a result of the devastation of the Civil War (another reason why southerners have no cause to look back on that part of their history with fondness).

Reliance on slaves and plantation cotton turned the south into an economic colony of the northern states. By 1860 the southern states were increasingly falling behind the rest of the country in wealth, manufacturing, capital improvements, infrastructure, and almost every other economic measurement.

It wasn't the North that needed the South, but rather the other way around.


This was from Gettysburg National Military Park:

"One of the main quarrels was about taxes paid on goods brought into this country from foreign countries. This tax was called a tariff. Southerners felt these tariffs were unfair and aimed toward them because they imported a wider variety of goods than most Northern people. Taxes were also placed on many Southern goods that were shipped to foreign countries, an expense that was not always applied to Northern goods of equal value. An awkward economic structure allowed states and private transportation companies to do this, which also affected Southern banks that found themselves paying higher interest rates on loans made with banks in the North. The situation grew worse after several "panics", including one in 1857 that affected more Northern banks than Southern. Southern financiers found themselves burdened with high payments just to save Northern banks that had suffered financial losses through poor investment."

Fine, customs and tariffs then--could be compared to sales TAX today--geez. The North was still charging the lifestyle of the South. Note I never mentioned anything about the hated IRS. You're the one that made that particular jump.

http://www.nps.gov/gett/gettkidz/cause.htm

Tell me again how I'm out of my depth?

Thanks all for such an interesting thread. That, and 254 votes in about a week...

Yes, ban: 83 votes (32.68%)
No ban: 130 votes (51.18%)
Don't Care: 41 votes (16.14%)

Fine, customs and tariffs then--could be compared to sales TAX today--geez. The North was still charging the lifestyle of the South. Note I never mentioned anything about the hated IRS. You're the one that made that particular jump.
I never mentioned the IRS either. My exact statement was:
The federal government collected no internal revenue during the four decades leading up to the Civil War (they briefly imposed an excise tax during the War of 1812, but Congress repealed it in 1817). Instead, the Government received most of its revenue from high customs duties and through the sale of public land.

Your exact statement was:
The Federal government was taxing them to death. Just like the brits did to the colonies in the 1700s.
A tariff is not a tax, nor (even if you think of it as similar to a tax), does the comparison with taxes imposed by the British hold up, because federal tariffs were actually lowered prior to the Civil War (see below). Tariffs were an issue with the North (which felt they were too low), not the South (which was quite happy with the rate).
This was from Gettysburg National Military Park:

"One of the main quarrels was about taxes paid on goods brought into this country from foreign countries. This tax was called a tariff. Southerners felt these tariffs were unfair and aimed toward them because they imported a wider variety of goods than most Northern people. Taxes were also placed on many Southern goods that were shipped to foreign countries, an expense that was not always applied to Northern goods of equal value. An awkward economic structure allowed states and private transportation companies to do this, which also affected Southern banks that found themselves paying higher interest rates on loans made with banks in the North. The situation grew worse after several "panics", including one in 1857 that affected more Northern banks than Southern. Southern financiers found themselves burdened with high payments just to save Northern banks that had suffered financial losses through poor investment."
Far be it from me to correct the Gettysburg National Military Park; however the source you cite (created for young children by the way) is too simplistic and confuses issues from different decades. Also, you have confused the issue of Southern banks paying higher interest rates to Northern banks with the issue of tariffs. The web site includes the two issues together in one paragraph, but they are distinctly different.

The tariff of “abominations” of 1828 did piss off the people of South Carolina and pressures came to a head when South Carolina threatened succession (although no other state joined them in that threat). Eventually a compromise tariff was passed in 1833 and the issue was diffused.

Because of the Panic of 1857 Northern industrialists did indeed want a higher tariff (this was a political issue for Northerns - not Southerners), however, several months before the crash, under pressure by Southern politicians, the Congress passed the Tariff of 1857, which reduced tariffs to the lowest point since the war of 1812.

Neither tariffs, nor taxes, were an issue leading to the Civil War. However, once the South succeeded Northern industrialist were able to pressure Republican politicians into dramatically raising the tariff in order to protect northern manufacturing. Just another example of how the decision to leave the Union had drastic negative consequences for the southern states.
Tell me again how I'm out of my depth?
You remain way out of your depth. But, hey, don't take it personally. This is my area and I'm guessing that it isn't yours.