lets talk about the Confederate flag. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : lets talk about the Confederate flag.


Pages : [1] 2 3

speedsix
05-06-2010, 08:30
The Confederate flag is one of those symbols that has recently taken a more negative meaning. Not sure when it happened or why. I remember in the 1980s watching the Dukes of Hazard and nobody thought anything of the "General Lee" and how the roof was painted. There is no way a network show would glorify the Confederate symbol like that today.

In the 1980s, the Dukes of Hazard were seen as lovable rebels. They were the heros of the show. Something happened since then to change the idea of what the flag stands for.

I used to think the flag was kind of cool because I liked the rebel connotations. Now I sense that the flag is more a symbol of racism and ignorance for most people and that is why it has been met with more and more distaste.

I am from the northern Midwest so I don't have an inside view on the south like some of you guys. Not trying to start a flame war but why is the CSA flag seen in such a bad light by most people today? What changed in the past 20 years? I am curious because I can remember a time when it was not only seen as a symbol of hate.

Chad Landry
05-06-2010, 08:32
Because some people really really hate white people.

the iceman
05-06-2010, 08:34
Not trying to start a flame war but why is the CSA flag seen in such a bad light by most people today? What changed in the past 20 years? I am curious because I can remember a time when it was not only seen as a symbol of hate.

I suspect because today people actively look for things that hurt them and if they don't find anything, they make **** up. People will ALWAYS find something to whine about and stick a racist label to it.

The country today isn't what it was 20 years ago either. Pretty f'n sad!

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 08:34
I remember a Military man, who loved his country and fought for it. Afterward his country was poor and broke and being blamed for the War.
But he rebuilt his country, made it an Industrial power, gave the people jobs and their pride back. Helped them put food on the table. He also got their land that was stolen from them.
but that was Hitler.
Should Germans put Swastikas on their Volkswagens in honor of "German Pride"?

Chad Landry
05-06-2010, 08:36
I remember a Military man, who loved his country and fought for it. Afterward his country was poor and broke and being blamed for the War.
But he rebuilt his country, made it an Industrial power, gave the people jobs and their pride back. Helped them put food on the table. He also got their land that was stolen from them.
but that was Hitler.
Should Germans put Swastikas on their Volkswagens in honor of "German Pride"?

Last time I checked, no one called Germany "the land of the free".

barbedwiresmile
05-06-2010, 08:37
I am from the northern Midwest so I don't have an inside view on the south like some of you guys. Not trying to start a flame war but why is the CSA flag seen in such a bad light by most people today? What changed in the past 20 years? I am curious because I can remember a time when it was not only seen as a symbol of hate.

Because of the continued, creeping monopolization of private life by the federal state, which has been able to control the message and paint in inaccurate picture of what the CSA stood for and how it was different than what the federal state stood for. You should bear in mind that the 'north' didn't fight the 'south'. The federal government, with the support of the northern states, invaded the southern states. The first shots fired by the south were not aimed at "the north". They were aimed at the federal state. We're still paying for it to this day. This message has been controlled through state education for generations to where most have a completely inaccurate view of the 'civil war'.

Coincidently, I posted an article in another thread today that may help answer your questions:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo185.html

In 1961 Life magazine invited the Pulitzer Prize-winning poet and novelist Robert Penn Warren (author of All the King’s Men, and nineteen other novels) to record his thoughts on the meaning of the American “Civil War” on the centennial of that event. Warren responded with a long essay on the “symbolic value of the war” which was eventually published as a small book entitled The Legacy of the Civil War.

If Robert Penn Warren were to write this book today, he would be loudly condemned as an Enemy of Society (and a “Neo-Confederate”) by all the usual defenders of the central state, from race-hustling “civil rights” activists to beltway “libertarians” and of course, the Lincoln Cult. For example, he wrote (p. 7) that in addition to slavery, there was a “tissue of causes” of the war, including the dispute over the constitutionality of secession, “the mounting Southern debt to the North, economic rivalry, Southern fear of encirclement, Northern ambitions, and cultural collisions . . .”

There were also economic causes of the war apart from slavery, Robert Penn Warren believed. “The Morrill tariff of 1861 actually preceded the firing on [Fort] Sumter, but it was the mark of Republican victory and an omen of what was to come; and no session of Congress in the next four years failed to raise the tariff.”

“Even more importantly,” Warren wrote, “came the establishment of a national banking system . . . and the issuing of national greenbacks . . . plus government subsidy [to corporations].” “Hamilton’s dream” of a large national debt was also realized, and “this debt meant a new tax relation of the citizen to the Federal government, including the new income tax” [introduced by the Lincoln administration for the first time].

“Out of the Civil War came the concept of total war,” i.e., the bombing, plundering, and mass murdering of civilians. In this regard, Warren quotes an 1862 speech by Lincoln in which he said, “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present . . . . As our case is new, we must think anew, and act anew.” That is, “we” must abandon the law of nations with regard to the criminality of waging war on civilians, and “we” must abandon the U.S. Constitution as well, since it is one of the chief “dogmas of the quiet past.”

A major theme of The Legacy of the Civil War is that the war left the North (which is to say, the U.S. government) with “a treasury of virtue” (p. 54). This is the “psychological heritage” left to the North, and it is an insidious heritage, wrote Robert Penn Warren. “The Northerner, with his Treasury of Virtue, feels redeemed by history . . . . He has in his pocket, not a Papal indulgence peddled by some wandering pardoner of the Middle Ages, but an indulgence, a plenary indulgence, for all sins past, present, and future . . .” (emphasis added).

Thus, this “treasury of virtue” would become the excuse for why the U.S. government would commence a twenty-five year campaign of extermination against the Plains Indians just three months after Appomattox; shamelessly rob the treasury for the benefit of railroad corporations; plunder the South for a decade after the war under the laughable guise of “reconstruction”; murder more than 200,000 Filipinos who opposed being ruled by the American empire after having escaped from the imperialistic clutches of the Spanish empire; and enter a European war that was none of our business to supposedly “make the world safe for democracy.” It was all done in the name of virtue, freedom, and democracy, or so we are told.

Robert Penn Warren called this “moral narcissism” (p. 72). It is “a poor basis for national policy,” he wrote, but is the “justification” for “our crusades of 1917–1918 and 1941–1945 and our diplomacy of righteousness, with the slogan of unconditional surrender and universal spiritual rehabilitation for others” (emphasis added).

Posing as The Most Virtuous Humans to Ever Inhabit the Planet requires that many “facts get forgotten,” wrote Robert Penn Warren. For example:

It is forgotten that the Republican platform of 1860 pledged protection to the institution of slavery where it existed, and that the Republicans were ready, in 1861, to guarantee slavery in the South, as bait for a return to the Union. It is forgotten that in July, 1861, both houses of Congress, by an almost unanimous vote, affirmed that the War was waged not to interfere with the institutions of any state but only to maintain the Union. It is forgotten that the Emancipation Proclamation . . . was limited and provisional: slavery was to be abolished only in the seceded states and only if they did not return to the Union before the first of the next January (p. 61).

It must also be forgotten, wrote Warren, that most Northern states “refused to adopt Negro suffrage” and that Lincoln was as much a white supremacist as any man of his time. “It is forgotten that Lincoln, at Charlestown, Illinois, in 1858, formally affirmed: I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.”

Thus, after so much history is forgotten, and much of the rest of it rewritten as a string of fairy tales, “the War appears, according to this doctrine of the Treasury of Virtue, as a consciously undertaken crusade so full of righteousness that there is enough overplus stored in Heaven, like the deeds of the saints, to take care of all small failings and oversights of the descendants of the crusaders, certainly unto the present generation” (p. 64).

Warren quotes the historian Samuel Eliot Morison as commenting that one effect of this Treasury of Virtue on his (Morison’s) native New England was that “In the generation to come that region would no longer furnish the nation with teachers and men of letters, but with a mongrel breed of politicians” obsessed with “profiteering” through their political connections.

Among other effects are that “the man of righteousness tends to be so sure of his own motives that he does not need to inspect consequences.” And, “the effect of the conviction of virtue is to make us lie automatically and awkwardly . . . and then in trying to justify the lie, lie to ourselves and transmute the lie into a kind of superior truth.” This, I would argue, is a perfect definition of so-called “Lincoln scholarship,” especially the Straussian variety.

Warren believed that most Americans are content with all of these lies about their own history, the results of “the manipulations of propaganda specialists, and their sometimes unhistorical history” (p. 79). For they “are prepared to see the Civil War as a fountainhead of our power and prestige among the nations” (p. 76). They have been good and brainwashed as obedient little nationalists, in other words, who place a very high value on the “prestige” of the American state as bully of the world.

This is yet another dire consequence of the war: Americans came to believe in Alexander Hamilton’s notion that the “prestige” of the state through its pursuit of “imperial glory” was a legitimate function of government. Limiting the role of government to the protection of God-given natural rights to life, liberty, and property became one of Lincoln’s “dogmas of the quiet past.”

the iceman
05-06-2010, 08:37
Should Germans put Swastikas on their Volkswagens in honor of "German Pride"?

Apples and oranges.

Natty
05-06-2010, 08:38
I believe most people who have issues against the Confederate flag just are ignorant of American history.

What is racist about the Confederate flag?

Bren
05-06-2010, 08:38
I suspect because today people actively look for things that hurt them and if they don't find anything, they make **** up. People will ALWAYS find something to whine about and stick a racist label to it.

The country today isn't what it was 20 years ago either. Pretty f'n sad!

You said it.

pugman
05-06-2010, 08:40
Northern by birth and I have no problem with the Confederate Flag...and like most things its how its used and who its used by that portray it in a negative way

marklukich
05-06-2010, 08:40
Not sure when or what caused the change but I think that people that view it as only a symbol of racism are idiots... It's a flag, one that represented people that wanted their own freedom and were willing to fight for it... I'm originally from the North (WI) and now live in the South (GA) and could really care less if people want to fly the Confederate Flag or not... It's water under the bridge and doesn't mean squat to me...

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 08:46
Why is the flag "Bad"
Well it isnt, symbols are just that, symbols. They are only as good or as bad as we want them to be.

Bren
05-06-2010, 08:47
I believe most people who have issues against the Confederate flag just are ignorant of American history.

Speaking of confederate flag ignorance, I think the Georgia legislature drove that home better than I could. People complained about this:http://www.50states.com/flag/image/nunst014.gif

So they made it this:
http://www.flagemporium.com/images_products/Georgia1.jpg
Basically just saying, "we think you're too dumb to get this." They were right.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

For you yankees, the new Georgia flag is the entire 1861-1863 national flag of of the CSA, with a state seal added in the middle of the stars.

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 08:56
Apples and oranges.
Is it, how?

Andy123
05-06-2010, 08:57
Could it have something to do with the fact that the last time people marched under that battle flag, they did so with the belief and intent that they had a right own human beings, the right to rape their property, the right to take their properties' offspring and sell it?

I'm not against people flying the flag, freedom of expression and all, but I have to doubt the sencerity of any protestations that the above rights and beliefs are supossed to represent good southern hospitality. :)

Natty
05-06-2010, 09:01
Speaking of confederate flag ignorance, I think the Georgia legislature drove that home better than I could. People complained about this:http://www.50states.com/flag/image/nunst014.gif

So they made it this:
http://www.flagemporium.com/images_products/Georgia1.jpg
Basically just saying, "we think you're too dumb to get this." They were right.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

For you yankees, the new Georgia flag is the entire 1861-1863 national flag of of the CSA, with a state seal added in the middle of the stars.

Agreed. If anyone flies this flag, and some do, the clowns with issues about the South dont even know what it is.

http://www.confederatemercantile.com/1stNatlCSA.jpg

Travclem
05-06-2010, 09:02
I remember a Military man, who loved his country and fought for it. Afterward his country was poor and broke and being blamed for the War.
But he rebuilt his country, made it an Industrial power, gave the people jobs and their pride back. Helped them put food on the table. He also got their land that was stolen from them.
but that was Hitler.
Should Germans put Swastikas on their Volkswagens in honor of "German Pride"?
Hitler had nothing to do with the CSA, and last time I checked the CSA had nothing to do with genocide. the last thing we need is for gun owners to start getting bleeding hearts and crying about this nonsense, Some of us are the only sane people left. If anything the people who are *****ing should thank the CSA for bringing their ancestors to America, So they can sit at home today, smoke crack, and live off the gov't.

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 09:03
Page 59 sums it up
http://books.google.com/books?id=l101RH9npW4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=creation+of+Confederate+nationalism+:+ideology+and+identity+in+the+Civil+War+Sout&source=bl&ots=1lmQfMElj_&sig=pvaGIeJUzVXy21cs6xZOaBN0QWA&hl=en&ei=5dniS53dMZT-9ATwucmKAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=l101RH9npW4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=he+creation+of+Confederate+nationalism+:+ideology+and+identity+in+the+Civil+War+Sout&source=bl&ots=1lmQfMDplT&sig=pAS7PN1ldxmHR9e3opYhrFn3E3s&hl=en&ei=mtfiS_n0OpDY8QTHs92HAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%20compelling&f=false)

Trigun
05-06-2010, 09:07
Now I sense that the flag is more a symbol of racism and ignorance for most people and that is why it has been met with more and more distaste.

Symbols can be changed, twisted, and perverted. The winning side gets to write the history and these days it seems the war is between the states is presented as some kind of race war.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." -Lincoln


I remember a Military man, who loved his country and fought for it. Afterward his country was poor and broke and being blamed for the War.
But he rebuilt his country, made it an Industrial power, gave the people jobs and their pride back. Helped them put food on the table. He also got their land that was stolen from them.
but that was Hitler.
Should Germans put Swastikas on their Volkswagens in honor of "German Pride"?

Actually, believe it or not, Hitler is highly regarded in Pakistan and parts of India. They love meeting Germans who, once they find out the reason, are usually very annoyed to say the least. Although comparing Hitler to the confederate flag seems deliberately inflammatory. After all, it was the North that won in large part due to a strategy of raping, murdering, and burning the homes of women and children in the south as their husbands and fathers were fighting union soldiers.

glock509
05-06-2010, 09:09
Could it have something to do with the fact that the last time people marched under that battle flag, they did so with the belief and intent that they had a right own human beings, the right to rape their property, the right to take their properties' offspring and sell it?

I'm not against people flying the flag, freedom of expression and all, but I have to doubt the sencerity of any protestations that the above rights and beliefs are supossed to represent good southern hospitality. :)

that happened under the american flag also.and after the war durring reconstruction in the south. look at how not only blacks were trated in the north but also the irish,chinese,and others.

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 09:17
Its like black people using the N word.
If they use it, its not bad anymore.
Southerns were trying to "Own" the Symbol, so that it wasnt bad anymore.
Its a form of guilt, really.
Deny the slavery thing, or tone it down, throw out some stuff about State Rights and "Second America Revolution" and Lincoln being the devil, and be REALLY Hostile about it.
Nevermind that the leaders of the CSA and pro-secessionists talked about preserving slavery, nevermind that it was written in their constitution multiple times

Guh, I dont even want to talk about the Civil War anymore.

The problem with the symbol isnt that normal healthy minded people use it, the problem is that its used for all the wrong things

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/images/2005/08/110296.jpg

http://www.georgetown.u47.k12.me.us/grade6.01/kv/T790871A.JPG

Whats funny is the Klan didnt really use this flag untill the 1950s, before that they used Uncle Sam, and the American flag among other American symbols.

GroovyChristian
05-06-2010, 09:19
After all, it was the North that won in large part due to a strategy of raping, murdering, and burning the homes of women and children in the south as their husbands and fathers were fighting union soldiers.

If you're going to make gross overstatements, at least put a <hyperbole> tag around it.

Natty
05-06-2010, 09:27
Under which flag was there slavery for 90 years?

Under which flag was there slavery for 4 years?

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 09:27
*Snip* Although comparing Hitler to the confederate flag seems deliberately inflammatory. After all, it was the North that won in large part due to a strategy of raping, murdering, and burning the homes of women and children in the south as their husbands and fathers were fighting union soldiers.
War is Hell -William Tecumseh Sherman

I would say the North won because of a Larger Army, Better Industrial Resources, More money, and with the ability to raise and outfit an Army faster than the CSA, Not to mention the US Navy was far superior to the CSA Navy which was almost a non entity.

Shermans march was just a faster way to end the war.

It could have gone on 3 more years, but more people would have died than the number of People Killed and Raped by Shermans men.

As for the raping, we dont know that the CSA soldiers didnt rape
Rape has been very under reported through the years
http://cwmemory.com/2009/08/22/rape-in-the-civil-war-memory-and-the-problem-of-gender-bias/

I mean US WW2 Soldiers raped burned down Germans, Italian , and Japaneses Civilians, but we still honor them

Andy123
05-06-2010, 09:36
that happened under the american flag also.and after the war durring reconstruction in the south. look at how not only blacks were trated in the north but also the irish,chinese,and others.

True, you cannot find any nation's flag that hasn't had some horrible attorcieties committed under it.

But the CSA battle flag is different, in that it's purpose was to preserve the legal right to do those things.

Natty
05-06-2010, 09:42
True, you cannot find any nation's flag that hasn't had some horrible attorcieties committed under it.

But the CSA battle flag is different, in that it's purpose was to preserve the legal right to do those things.

Andy, in 1857 just before the war, Under which flag and which Supreme Court did the Dred Scott v. Sandford, decision come?

What did that decision say?

JASV.17
05-06-2010, 09:46
I think marksiwel was closest to the answer with this...

"The problem with the symbol isnt that normal healthy minded people use it, the problem is that its used for all the wrong things"

Bad people have given the flag a bad name, and has tarnished it for use by those who would use it in display of their Southern pride/heritage.

Andy123
05-06-2010, 09:47
Andy, in 1857 just before the war, Under which flag and which Supreme Court did the Dred Scott v. Sandford, decision come?

What did that decision say?

Natty, honestly, are you goign to try to say with a straight face that the issue that drove the states apart, the issue that pushed the south to believe that their economic survivial depended upon seccession, was anything other than slavery?

Sorry, it just don't wash. And yes, I do realize that at times, slavery was legal under many flags, but by 1860 change was in the air. THe south didn't want to change, so the made a new flag, and fought to preserve the status quo. They lost and the laws changed. Yes the war was brutal, with great brutality, but in the end the laws changed. Without a doubt these changes led to many legal, unintended consequeses that we still live with today. Some good, some bad. Such is almost always the nature of exercising government power.

PillBox
05-06-2010, 09:52
Hitler had nothing to do with the CSA, and last time I checked the CSA had nothing to do with genocide. the last thing we need is for gun owners to start getting bleeding hearts and crying about this nonsense, Some of us are the only sane people left. If anything the people who are *****ing should thank the CSA for bringing their ancestors to America, So they can sit at home today, smoke crack, and live off the gov't.

This is probably the most ignorant post I have ever seen on GlockTalk. You should be ashamed of yourself.

PB

tsmo1066
05-06-2010, 09:57
Whats funny is the Klan didnt really use this flag untill the 1950s, before that they used Uncle Sam, and the American flag among other American symbols.

I think that's the main problem. The classic "Rebel" flag was the battle flag of the Confederate Army and as such it used to be a largely non-political symbol denoting a rebellious fighting spirit and general disdain for authority.

It wasn't really a symbol of racism until the KKK started usurping it in the mid-late 1950s and the Neo-Nazis started waving it around in the 1970s and 80s.

If we Southerners want someone to blame for the Rebel Flag becoming associated with modern-day racism, we should be blaming the Klan and Neo Nazis.

Natty
05-06-2010, 09:57
Natty, honestly, are you goign to try to say with a straight face that the issue that drove the states apart, the issue that pushed the south to believe that their economic survivial depended upon seccession, was anything other than slavery?

Sorry, it just don't wash. And yes, I do realize that at times, slavery was legal under many flags, but by 1860 change was in the air. THe south didn't want to change, so the made a new flag, and fought to preserve the status quo. They lost and the laws changed. Yes the war was brutal, with great brutality, but in the end the laws changed. Without a doubt these changes led to many legal, unintended consequeses that we still live with today. Some good, some bad. Such is almost always the nature of exercising government power.

Andy, some states still slavery after the war was over, were they Confederate or Union.

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 09:58
Hitler had nothing to do with the CSA, and last time I checked the CSA had nothing to do with genocide. the last thing we need is for gun owners to start getting bleeding hearts and crying about this nonsense, Some of us are the only sane people left. If anything the people who are *****ing should thank the CSA for bringing their ancestors to America, So they can sit at home today, smoke crack, and live off the gov't.
You sir, make me ashamed that you are also a Fellow Texan

Reignman
05-06-2010, 09:59
Last time I checked, no one called Germany "the land of the free".

I love ya bro, but thats not what he's saying... He's saying that Hitler took a country that was crushed and made it great again.. People in Germany had high regard for their leader, the Fuhrer. Sure, it wasn't a democracy or a republic, it was facism however, argue it or not, many people didn't mind... majority anyway. How many don't agree with half of what the Federal Government does but stay here anyway? Much akin to Nazi Germany..


I remember when Soldiers, US Soldiers were being spit on, **** on and pissed on by their countrymen... They'd go to war, paying debts they felt they had, kicking ass, taking names, burying friends, trying to put friends back together in a place called Vietnam.. Only to come home to another war. They were seen as outcasts, scumbags, derilicts, baby killers, much like the Nazi's in Germany..

Now, every soldier here gets a military discount, they're regarded highly no matter what branch, what service, what discipline.... What happened there?...


I think the change in the flag is typical revolution of beliefs. Any country, any movement, any beliefs can be changed radically overtime...

In 1987 if you didn't spend 2 cans of hairspray on your hair, dress up like a chick and play a fluorescent colored guitar, you couldn't play out in bars.
Now, if you do, you're a ******. Go figure right?

Time changes all things. ALL things. The sooner you realize that, the better your life will be.

Trigun
05-06-2010, 10:01
If you're going to make gross overstatements, at least put a <hyperbole> tag around it.

If I make a gross overstatement I would to that. Have you never heard of the March to the Sea? Do you not know who William Tecumseh Sherman was? If the North was all noble and altruistic and the war was all about freeing the slaves then why did he burn slaves to death? The north was not doing so well against the south and needed a different strategy. So they chose what we would call today "terrorism". Remember this wasn't a civil war. The south was not fighting for control of the nation. They were fighting to leave the nation. It was a War of Northern Aggression. And don't think I am some southerner and this is about southern pride. I am not. I just read history at a little greater depth than what was handed out in the public school system.

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 10:02
I think that's the main problem. The classic "Rebel" flag was the battle flag of the Confederate Army and as such it used to be a largely non-political symbol denoting a rebellious fighting spirit and general disdain for authority.

It wasn't really a symbol of racism until the KKK started usurping it in the mid-late 1950s and the Neo-Nazis started waving it around in the 1970s and 80s.

If we Southerners want someone to blame for the Rebel Flag becoming associated with modern-day racism, we should be blaming the Klan and Neo Nazis.
Yep. I have no problem with the Flag as it was, but basically its been warped in such a way that its no longer viable for me to use/wear it to express the point I was hoping for.

I just use the Texas Flag, or the American flag, or the Dont Tread on Me, or Come and Take it.
Sadly the CSA Flag is retired as a symbol for me.

There are better movements for "States Rights" then the CSA Battle-flag that dredge up America's darkest period and its most evil institution.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2010, 10:02
I remember a Military man, who loved his country and fought for it. Afterward his country was poor and broke and being blamed for the War.
But he rebuilt his country, made it an Industrial power, gave the people jobs and their pride back. Helped them put food on the table. He also got their land that was stolen from them.
but that was Hitler.
Should Germans put Swastikas on their Volkswagens in honor of "German Pride"?


WTF?

:faint:

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 10:06
If I make a gross overstatement I would to that. Have you never heard of the March to the Sea? Do you not know who William Tecumseh Sherman was? If the North was all noble and altruistic and the war was all about freeing the slaves then why did he burn slaves to death? The north was not doing so well against the south and needed a different strategy. So they chose what we would call today "terrorism". Remember this wasn't a civil war. The south was not fighting for control of the nation. They were fighting to leave the nation. It was a War of Northern Aggression. And don't think I am some southerner and this is about southern pride. I am not. I just read history at a little greater depth than what was handed out in the public school system.
Who said the NORTH was about Freeing Slaves, so far the points have been about the SOUTH Fighting to KEEP Slaves.

Mushinto
05-06-2010, 10:06
I don't know which came first, the left hating that flag or the ****** bag racist morons using that flag as a symbol.

Either way, the symbol is pretty much ruined which is a shame.

The swastika was originally (among other things) a Japanese religious symbol. After the Nazis hijacked it, even the Japs stopped displaying it in the West (after losing the war).

Like it or not, no matter which side is to blame, that flag currently symbolizes hate and slavery to most people.

ML

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 10:08
WTF?

:faint:
Shouldnt the Germans be proud that someone stood up for them and cast aside the unfair shackles of the Treaty of Versailles, helping make Germany Great again?
I mean if we can ignore Slavery in the CSA, then we can ignore the Holocaust right?

Seawolf
05-06-2010, 10:08
Does anyone else find it odd that none of these guys making the slavery argument has said anything about the North owning slaves as well?
Slavery was not just something that occurred in the south.

Natty
05-06-2010, 10:08
War is Hell -William Tecumseh Sherman

"There is a class of people men, women and children, [of the South] who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order."

...William T Sherman in a June 21, 1864, letter to Lincoln's Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton.

If anyone wants to idolize cold blooded murderers and Terrorists so be it.

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 10:09
I don't know which came first, the left hating that flag or the ****** bag racist morons using that flag as a symbol. I think this one was first

Either way, the symbol is pretty much ruined which is a shame.

The swastika was originally (among other things) a Japanese religious symbol. After the Nazis hijacked it, even the Japs stopped displaying it in the West (after losing the war).

Like it or not, no matter which side is to blame, that flag currently symbolizes hate and slavery to most people.

ML

Basically yeah. There are better symbols that are less controversial

tsmo1066
05-06-2010, 10:10
Yep. I have no problem with the Flag as it was, but basically its been warped in such a way that its no longer viable for me to use/wear it to express the point I was hoping for.

I just use the Texas Flag, or the American flag, or the Dont Tread on Me, or Come and Take it.
Sadly the CSA Flag is retired as a symbol for me.

There are better movements for "States Rights" then the CSA Battle-flag that dredge up America's darkest period and its most evil institution.

I'll agree with the "darkest period" part, but as ugly as slavery was, I'd still have to rank the legitimized genocide of most of America's native population to support a land-grab as our most 'evil institution'.

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 10:10
"There is a class of people men, women and children, [of the South] who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order."

...William T Sherman in a June 21, 1864, letter to Lincoln's Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton.

If anyone wants to idolize cold blooded murderers and Terrorists so be it.
oh he was a jackass alright, no doubt about it.
But hey, he got the job done right?

CLena88
05-06-2010, 10:10
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/


The Emancipation Proclamation
President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the nation, it captured the hearts and imagination of millions of Americans and fundamentally transformed the character of the war. After January 1, 1863, every advance of federal troops expanded the domain of freedom. Moreover, the Proclamation announced the acceptance of black men into the Union Army and Navy, enabling the liberated to become liberators. By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom.

From the first days of the Civil War, slaves had acted to secure their own liberty. The Emancipation Proclamation confirmed their insistence that the war for the Union must become a war for freedom. It added moral force to the Union cause and strengthened the Union both militarily and politically. As a milestone along the road to slavery's final destruction, the Emancipation Proclamation has assumed a place among the great documents of human freedom.

The original of the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, is in the National Archives in Washington, DC. With the text covering five pages the document was originally tied with narrow red and blue ribbons, which were attached to the signature page by a wafered impression of the seal of the United States. Most of the ribbon remains; parts of the seal are still decipherable, but other parts have worn off.

The document was bound with other proclamations in a large volume preserved for many years by the Department of State. When it was prepared for binding, it was reinforced with strips along the center folds and then mounted on a still larger sheet of heavy paper. Written in red ink on the upper right-hand corner of this large sheet is the number of the Proclamation, 95, given to it by the Department of State long after it was signed. With other records, the volume containing the Emancipation Proclamation was transferred in 1936 from the Department of State to the National Archives of the United States.

For all those who think slavery ended when the war did.

Slavery was not outlawed till December 6, 1865, with the adoption of the 13th amendment. The Emancipation Proclamation was signed Jan 1, 1863.

Bren
05-06-2010, 10:13
Under which flag was there slavery for 90 years?

Under which flag was there slavery for 4 years?

Not to mention, under which flag was slavery made illegal last? Hint: it wasn't the CSA.

Berto
05-06-2010, 10:13
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/images/2005/08/110296.jpg

So Marksiwel, do you hate the American flag too?

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2010, 10:13
Shouldnt the Germans be proud that someone stood up for them and cast aside the unfair shackles of the Treaty of Versailles, helping make Germany Great again?
I mean if we can ignore Slavery in the CSA, then we can ignore the Holocaust right?

Slavery was not what the war was fought over or about.

There is absolutely no way I can un-teach what years of public education has drilled into you. I won't even try.

Natty
05-06-2010, 10:13
Does anyone else find it odd that none of these guys making the slavery argument has said anything about the North owning slaves as well?
Slavery was not just something that occurred in the south.

They cant face the truth about slavery in the North for 200 years going back to the Colonial days and still having slavery in the Union States after all the Confederate slaves were free.

They cant even answer simple questions I posted in post #23 and #31.

barbedwiresmile
05-06-2010, 10:14
"There is a class of people men, women and children, [of the South] who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order."

...William T Sherman in a June 21, 1864, letter to Lincoln's Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton.

If anyone wants to idolize cold blooded murderers and Terrorists so be it.

What he meant was that there was a class of free people in the South who must be killed or banished before you can hope to institutionalize the primacy of the federal government and it's thirst for taxes over the liberty of the individual.

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 10:15
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/images/2005/08/110296.jpg

So Marksiwel, do you hate the American flag too?
No more than I hate the CSA Flag.
I dont hate it, its just doesnt mean what I used to mean. SO I dont use it.
I used to have a shirt with the CSA flag on it. Stopped wearing it.

Natty
05-06-2010, 10:16
Surprise...

Famous Union Generals Grant and Sherman were slave owners.

:cool:

Berto
05-06-2010, 10:19
No more than I hate the CSA Flag.
I dont hate it, its just doesnt mean what I used to mean. SO I dont use it.
I used to have a shirt with the CSA flag on it. Stopped wearing it.

That's an interesting answer.
I don't tend to let others determine what a flag's meaning should be. I think for myself.
I have no problem with the Confederate Flag, and I'm from the PNW.

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 10:20
Slavery was not what the war was fought over or about.

There is absolutely no way I can un-teach what years of public education has drilled into you. I won't even try.
CSA Constitution

4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

and
3. The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
Oh look they wanted to expand slavery into new "States"

Sorry but there is no way I can deprogram you from all the Nonsense you have learned.
States Rights as in, Slavery. You can dress it up anyway you want but its slavery

What other STATEs Rights were the CSA fighting for? How were they being repressed by the rest of the USA? ANYONE?

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2010, 10:22
CSA Constitution

4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

and
3. The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
Oh look they wanted to expand slavery into new "States"

Sorry but there is no way I can deprogram you from all the Nonsense you have learned.
States Rights as in, Slavery. You can dress it up anyway you want but its slavery

What other STATEs Rights were the CSA fighting for? How were they being repressed by the rest of the USA? ANYONE?

We'll let that be your little secret.

Mushinto
05-06-2010, 10:22
When I first moved to Florida, I put a confederate flag license plate on the front of my car because I'd seen other people do it, it looked cool and I'd always seen myself as somewhat of a rebel.

A few months later, I was riding with a black officer and stopped by my house for something. He saw the car and went batsht. I never realized that the flag provoked such a reaction from some people.

I took it off. I didn't need anyone making assumptions about me based on a symbol that had no real meaning for me.

ML

CLena88
05-06-2010, 10:22
Mark, I'm not saying that the CSA didn't want to keep slavery, I'm just saying the North didn't really want to stop it either, at least, their intent going in wasn't to stop it.

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 10:23
That's an interesting answer.
I don't tend to let others determine what a flag's meaning should be. I think for myself.
I have no problem with the Confederate Flag, and I'm from the PNW.
Thats it, I must be a mindless sheeple who cant think for himself.
So when you see the Swastika you dont think Nazi you think Eastern Symbol right ?:upeyes:

Why do you display symbols? To express an idea to others
The CSA flag as the public sees it now no longer represents the idea I wish to display.

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 10:23
Mark, I'm not saying that the CSA didn't want to keep slavery, I'm just saying the North didn't really want to stop it either, at least, their intent going in wasn't to stop it.
and we are in agreement.

Now why did the South leave? Other than slavery. In real terms not "The man was messing with them" why did they leave?

glock_19guy1983
05-06-2010, 10:26
This is probably the most ignorant post I have ever seen on GlockTalk. You should be ashamed of yourself.

PB

well he is somewhat right although it wasnt the csa bringing them over it was white and black people in general for 200 years prior to the war of northern aggression. If their ancestors hadnt been brought here they would be in africa starving and dying of aids right now. My ancestors came over here not as slaves but as subjects to a tyrant. Had they not come over i would probably be in Ulster Ireland. I would rather be here so i am thankfull. My 4xgreat grandfather was a captain in 3rd MS Cavalry 3rd regiment and was a slave owner. Was slavery right? No. Was it nessessary to the south's economy? Yes. It happened learn from it but leave it in the past where it belongs. My ancestor served under that flag and lost a son to yankees at Vicksburg. I fly and honor the Confederate flag its my way of honoring my family, my ancestors and my herritige

ocjackel
05-06-2010, 10:26
Slavery was not what the war was fought over or about.

There is absolutely no way I can un-teach what years of public education has drilled into you. I won't even try.

Clearly the South was worried about losing slavery. As others have posted 3 of the first 5 amendments in CSA constitution deal with protecting the institution of slavery.

Heck, you could argue that they cared more about protecting slavery than protecting freedom of religion, press, due process, the right to bear arms, etc. All of these rights were enumerated in their constitution well after slavery was.

Natty
05-06-2010, 10:26
CSA Constitution
Oh look they wanted to expand slavery into new "States"

Lincoln made West Virginia a new Union state during the war. And they were allowed to have slavery.

1811guy
05-06-2010, 10:28
Speaking of confederate flag ignorance, I think the Georgia legislature drove that home better than I could. People complained about this:http://www.50states.com/flag/image/nunst014.gif

So they made it this:
http://www.flagemporium.com/images_products/Georgia1.jpg
Basically just saying, "we think you're too dumb to get this." They were right.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

For you yankees, the new Georgia flag is the entire 1861-1863 national flag of of the CSA, with a state seal added in the middle of the stars.

I love the fact that they added "In God We Trust" to it - getting two birds with one stone.

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 10:29
well he is somewhat right although it wasnt the csa bringing them over it was white people in general for 200 years prior to the war of northern aggression. If their ancestors hadnt been brought here they would be in africa starving and dying of aids right now. My ancestors came over here not as slaves but as subjects to a tyrant. Had they not come over i would probably be in Ulster Ireland. I would rather be here so i am thankfull. My 4xgreat grandfather was a captain in 3rd MS Cavalry 3rd regiment and was a slave owner. Was slavery right? No. Was it nessessary to the south's economy? Yes. It happened learn from it but leave it in the past where it belongs.
Would Africa be such a mess if we hadnt had the slave trade and the Europeans had colonized it?

Berto
05-06-2010, 10:29
Thats it, I must be a mindless sheeple who cant think for himself.
So when you see the Swastika you dont think Nazi you think Eastern Symbol right ?:upeyes:

Why do you display symbols? To express an idea to others
The CSA flag as the public sees it now no longer represents the idea I wish to display.


Wrong. The CSA Flag as YOU see it no longer represents the idea YOU wish to display.
Welcome to the Pussification of Amercia.
Learn to respect other viewpoints, instead of wetting your bed over them.
At least you don't own a pit bull.

CLena88
05-06-2010, 10:31
and we are in agreement.

Now why did the South leave? Other than slavery. In real terms not "The man was messing with them" why did they leave?

Multiple court decisions that were starting to limit slave trade and tightening the reigns on control of slave use and trade. Combined with the fact that many thought of Lincoln as an abolitionist during his election. The abolition of slavery would have devastated the economy of the south, whose agricultural base relied on slave labor.

Natty
05-06-2010, 10:31
Why didn't the Union states free their slaves before they invaded the South?

JuneyBooney
05-06-2010, 10:32
The Confederate flag is one of those symbols that has recently taken a more negative meaning. Not sure when it happened or why. I remember in the 1980s watching the Dukes of Hazard and nobody thought anything of the "General Lee" and how the roof was painted. There is no way a network show would glorify the Confederate symbol like that today.

In the 1980s, the Dukes of Hazard were seen as lovable rebels. They were the heros of the show. Something happened since then to change the idea of what the flag stands for.

I used to think the flag was kind of cool because I liked the rebel connotations. Now I sense that the flag is more a symbol of racism and ignorance for most people and that is why it has been met with more and more distaste.

I am from the northern Midwest so I don't have an inside view on the south like some of you guys. Not trying to start a flame war but why is the CSA flag seen in such a bad light by most people today? What changed in the past 20 years? I am curious because I can remember a time when it was not only seen as a symbol of hate.

It is not the Confederate Flag causinf the problems...it is the liberal wing and some loudmouth minorities trying to exert their dominance on society. When the race wars come it will be settled. :tongueout:

CLena88
05-06-2010, 10:33
Why didn't the Union states free their slaves before they invaded the South?

Because they wanted slaves too, the union didn't fight to free slaves, they fought because they were too proud to let the CSA secede.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2010, 10:33
Clearly the South was worried about losing slavery. As others have posted 3 of the first 5 amendments in CSA constitution deal with protecting the institution of slavery.

Heck, you could argue that they cared more about protecting slavery than protecting freedom of religion, press, due process, the right to bear arms, etc. All of these rights were enumerated in their constitution well after slavery was.

I never said it wasn't an issue I said it wasn't the de facto reason for the war. I really shouldn't have posted in the first place. I know how these threads end up. No persons opinion is going to change as most are to emotionally charged. I'll step back and let you folks have any opinion you care to have.

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 10:34
Lincoln made West Virginia a new Union state during the war. And they were allowed to have slavery.
Well that had slaverly before when they were part of the Union, I believe that was part of their deal to become part of the Union. Also Lincoln needed all the Border states he could get during that time, look at what he did in Maryland to keep them in the Union and to protect the Capital.

Also the South wanted to expand further South into South America/central america

Berto
05-06-2010, 10:34
It is not the Confederate Flag causinf the problems...it is the liberal wing and some loudmouth minorities trying to exert their dominance on society. When the race wars come it will be settled. :tongueout:


Yep. Helter Skelter.

edrobert
05-06-2010, 10:34
I find it amazing that so many can stand up and say that are proud patriots of the United States of America while at the same time flying the Confederate Flag which represents a time when the Southern States did not want to be part of the USA. I've always felt it was unpatriotic.

The problem with the Confederate Flag is the type of people who have historically used it to symbolize their movement/feelings towards people of color, jews, etc. While many of you may want to try holding on to all of the "Southern Pride" that goes with the flag, it's image has been ruined. Growing up Black in the South I distinctly remember that flag being flown by the more outwardly racist folks in the community. It's kinda hard to shake that image and many people of color have had the same experience.

Valdrin
05-06-2010, 10:34
Yep. I have no problem with the Flag as it was, but basically its been warped in such a way that its no longer viable for me to use/wear it to express the point I was hoping for.

I just use the Texas Flag, or the American flag, or the Dont Tread on Me, or Come and Take it.
Sadly the CSA Flag is retired as a symbol for me.

There are better movements for "States Rights" then the CSA Battle-flag that dredge up America's darkest period and its most evil institution.

Similar situation for me. I have always thought that CSA Battle Flag was one of the best looking flags out of american history, and the only flag I liked better was "Don't Tread On Me." Then the damn skin heads, neo-nazis, and other race hate groups started using it as their flag, and turned it into a symbol of intolerance, hatred and white power. Very sad, but there is not much that can be done about it now.

Natty
05-06-2010, 10:37
Because they wanted slaves too, the union didn't fight to free slaves, they fought because they were too proud to let the CSA secede.

There was nothing in the US Constitution that prohibited states from seceding.

Was the Yankee invasion Unconstitutional?

glock_19guy1983
05-06-2010, 10:39
Would Africa be such a mess if we hadnt had the slave trade and the Europeans had colonized it?


Most likely so White people didnt introduce aids to africa and we didnt introduce war and famine to them they had plenty of practice at that before we ever got there. Did you ever think that its just natural selection? The clorinating of the gene pool you might say.

Berto
05-06-2010, 10:39
I find it amazing that so many can stand up and say that are proud patriots of the United States of America while at the same time flying the Confederate Flag which represents a time when the Southern States did not want to be part of the USA. I've always felt it was unpatriotic.

The problem with the Confederate Flag is the type of people who have historically used it to symbolize their movement/feelings towards people of color, jews, etc. While many of you may want to try holding on to all of the "Southern Pride" that goes with the flag, it's image has been ruined. Growing up Black in the South I distinctly remember that flag being flown by the more outwardly racist folks in the community. It's kinda hard to shake that image and many people of color have had the same experience.

I find that ridiculous. The same logic could be (and is) applied to the American Flag.


http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1217514

Glock-it-to-me
05-06-2010, 10:39
The CSA flag and the Confederate Battle Flag are not the same.

cowboy1964
05-06-2010, 10:39
Where do you people come up with some of this crap?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_state_(United_States)

RedTop
05-06-2010, 10:45
Wrong. The CSA Flag as YOU see it no longer represents the idea YOU wish to display.
Welcome to the Pussification of Amercia.
Learn to respect other viewpoints, instead of wetting your bed over them.
At least you don't own a pit bull.


:rofl:

I think you just summed up all 530+ of marksiwel's rambling posts.

Natty
05-06-2010, 10:47
Also Lincoln needed all the Border states he could get during that time, look at what he did in Maryland to keep them in the Union and to protect the Capital.

Yes indeed look at what Lincoln did in Maryland...

Thousands of Maryland citizens were arrested and held without trial.

Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus in Maryland.

The Chief Justice of the US, Roger B Taney ruled that Lincoln had violated the Constitution when he did this.

Many of The Maryland State legislature were arrested.

Many of the Baltimore city council were arrested.

The Police Chief of Baltimore and the Mayor of Baltimore were arrested.

A US Congressman representing Maryland, Henry May, was arrested.

These political arrests of prominent Marylanders for nothing other than suspected Southern sympathies upset many Marylanders.

One of them was named Booth.

"SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS"

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 10:48
Wrong. The CSA Flag as YOU see it no longer represents the idea YOU wish to display.
Welcome to the Pussification of Amercia.
Learn to respect other viewpoints, instead of wetting your bed over them.
At least you don't own a pit bull.
The last line= wtf

I respect your viewpoint, I just think its wrong.
I will do nothing to STOP you from displaying the flag.
I just choose not to display it because its basically no morons have ruined it for the rest of us.

glock_19guy1983
05-06-2010, 10:49
I find it amazing that so many can stand up and say that are proud patriots of the United States of America while at the same time flying the Confederate Flag which represents a time when the Southern States did not want to be part of the USA. I've always felt it was unpatriotic.


No quite the opposite. I am a proud patriot of the United States of America but I am loyal to Mississippi first and formost. Were Mississippi to try to seccede agian i would be one of the first ones on the front line to defend her. That is the same way the confederates felt. State first and formost country second.

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 10:50
:rofl:

I think you just summed up all 530+ of marksiwel's rambling posts.
oh goody personal attacks

Berto
05-06-2010, 10:51
The last line= wtf

I respect your viewpoint, I just think its wrong.
I will do nothing to STOP you from displaying the flag.
I just choose not to display it because its basically no morons have ruined it for the rest of us.


Re: pit bull.

You'd really hate life if you owned a pit bull. You think flying a CSA flag is bad?:supergrin:

CLena88
05-06-2010, 10:53
There was nothing in the US Constitution that prohibited states from seceding.

Was the Yankee invasion Unconstitutional?

Hence why I said proud, not "legally compelled or obligated". I don't know if I would say unconstitutional, as the first shot was from the Merrimac, a Confederate ship, but the fallacy that the north went to war to free slaves is simply that, fallacy.

Hucklebarry
05-06-2010, 11:06
Hence why I said proud, not "legally compelled or obligated". I don't know if I would say unconstitutional, as the first shot was from the Merrimac, a Confederate ship, but the fallacy that the north went to war to free slaves is simply that, fallacy.



The first shot is widely believed to have been fired from Morris Island.

CLena88
05-06-2010, 11:12
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/sumter.htm


First shot came from the Confederate ship.

barbedwiresmile
05-06-2010, 11:22
I find it amazing that so many can stand up and say that are proud patriots of the United States of America while at the same time flying the Confederate Flag which represents a time when the Southern States did not want to be part of the USA. I've always felt it was unpatriotic.

That's because you don't understand it, and the history you were taught is the federal government's history.

A proud patriot of These United States and the Constitution would understand enough history to know that the takeover of These United States by the federal government over Lincoln simply created the federal state known as The United States, and subjected all Americans to it's rapacious, predatory ways of confiscatory taxation and subversion of the Constitution.

The "American flag" is the flag of the federal state. If anything, the Confederate flag(s) represent a far more patriotic and Constitution-centered view than the stars and bars of the federal government.

Chad Landry
05-06-2010, 11:23
I love ya bro, but thats not what he's saying... He's saying that Hitler took a country that was crushed and made it great again.. People in Germany had high regard for their leader, the Fuhrer. Sure, it wasn't a democracy or a republic, it was facism however, argue it or not, many people didn't mind... majority anyway. How many don't agree with half of what the Federal Government does but stay here anyway? Much akin to Nazi Germany..


I remember when Soldiers, US Soldiers were being spit on, **** on and pissed on by their countrymen... They'd go to war, paying debts they felt they had, kicking ass, taking names, burying friends, trying to put friends back together in a place called Vietnam.. Only to come home to another war. They were seen as outcasts, scumbags, derilicts, baby killers, much like the Nazi's in Germany..

Now, every soldier here gets a military discount, they're regarded highly no matter what branch, what service, what discipline.... What happened there?...


I think the change in the flag is typical revolution of beliefs. Any country, any movement, any beliefs can be changed radically overtime...

In 1987 if you didn't spend 2 cans of hairspray on your hair, dress up like a chick and play a fluorescent colored guitar, you couldn't play out in bars.
Now, if you do, you're a ******. Go figure right?

Time changes all things. ALL things. The sooner you realize that, the better your life will be.

Thanks, man. I'm intentionally being more of a simpleton than usual today.:wavey:

edrobert
05-06-2010, 11:25
No quite the opposite. I am a proud patriot of the United States of America but I am loyal to Mississippi first and formost. Were Mississippi to try to seccede agian i would be one of the first ones on the front line to defend her. That is the same way the confederates felt. State first and formost country second.

I follow your logic, however supporting your state and flying its flag is not the same as flying any of the CSA flags.

Hucklebarry
05-06-2010, 11:25
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/sumter.htm


First shot came from the Confederate ship.



Captain George S. James was commander of Fort Johnson, on Morris Island. There is no mention of a confederate ship on that site.

Check here:
http://americancivilwar.com/statepic/sc/sc001.html

CLena88
05-06-2010, 11:30
Eh, either way, confederate forces fired first, my point still stands.

Hucklebarry
05-06-2010, 11:41
Eh, either way, confederate forces fired first, my point still stands.


And in that, sir, you are correct.

Natty
05-06-2010, 12:06
South Carolina seceded legally and peacefully. Fort Sumter was their property. The Govt of SC sent repeated messages to the US to evacuate the fort. Confederate General Beauregard also sent this message, they were ignored.

Lincoln committed treachery by sending US ships to re supply and support the fort.

This was the first act of war.

Bren
05-06-2010, 12:11
The CSA flag and the Confederate Battle Flag are not the same.

And neither of those is the one commonly argued about, which is the confederate navy jack (often in the colors, but not the shape, of the battleflag). The battle flag is square with navy blue bars, while the rectangular one with lighter blue bars is the naval flag and the rectangular one with navy blue bars is, I believe, not even a real confederate flag.

lanternlad
05-06-2010, 12:21
Slavery was not outlawed till December 6, 1865, with the adoption of the 13th amendment. The Emancipation Proclamation was signed Jan 1, 1863.

Exactly right. Lincoln didn't have the power to free slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation is tantamount to an Executive Order banning cars. It is beyond the scope of power of the Executive Branch. Lincoln issued the Proclamation to throw a wrench into the South's economy, which was powered by free labor. It basically told slaves to abandon their posts and run, leaving their master's fields untended and would subsequently throw the economy into chaos.

As for the slaves themselves, Lincoln wanted to kick them out of the country.

"My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,—to their own native land. But a moment’s reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible." October 16, 1854

The Civil War had to do with much more than slavery. There were issues of economy, of State's rights, of Federal use of power. The MAIN reason Lincoln wanted to stop the secession is that it would have put a foreign country right smack dab in the middle of America. To get from Maine to California, you'd have to cross the CSA. That is why the War was fought. If the South had seceded, the division of the country would have led to it's collapse.

Valdrin
05-06-2010, 12:22
Speaking of confederate flag ignorance, I think the Georgia legislature drove that home better than I could. People complained about this:http://www.50states.com/flag/image/nunst014.gif

So they made it this:
http://www.flagemporium.com/images_products/Georgia1.jpg
Basically just saying, "we think you're too dumb to get this." They were right.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

For you yankees, the new Georgia flag is the entire 1861-1863 national flag of of the CSA, with a state seal added in the middle of the stars.

It makes sense. The national flag of of the CSA, has not been tarnished by white supremest hate groups, so it will not bother people. It was not the original use of the battle flag that is getting it banned, it is the fact that it has been used as the rallying flag for neo-natzis, skinheads and the KKK for the last few decades.

The AmBASSaDEER
05-06-2010, 12:27
Speaking of confederate flag ignorance, I think the Georgia legislature drove that home better than I could. People complained about this:http://www.50states.com/flag/image/nunst014.gif

So they made it this:
http://www.flagemporium.com/images_products/Georgia1.jpg
Basically just saying, "we think you're too dumb to get this." They were right.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

For you yankees, the new Georgia flag is the entire 1861-1863 national flag of of the CSA, with a state seal added in the middle of the stars.Yes!!! Thank you, but shhhh

cadillacguns
05-06-2010, 12:30
Oh boy, let me throw in my 2 cents, as a decendant of a Union Soldier who fought at Shiloh and decendant of another one who marched with Sherman through Georgia and made the Howl, I welcome the stars and bars as a symbol of "We aint going to take any more of your Bull****, and will defend what we believe in no matter what it takes". Northern born,bred, and raised (Michigan) I had grandpappy's in the 11th Michigan cavalry (Co F), 100th Indiana (Co B), and namesake (68th Ohio Co G), and I would bet all three seeing where their beloved country was headed, would wave their hats at those flying the "War of the Rebellion" as they called it, flag not just for southern rights anymore but like the Texan flag or Revolutionary flag "Don't tred on me" ...........one that stands for solidarity in action and I would fly and follow a flag like that right next to the National stars and stripes today. and I am as northern a "yankee" as it gets.

lilop
05-06-2010, 12:34
Could it have something to do with the fact that the last time people marched under that battle flag, they did so with the belief and intent that they had a right own human beings, the right to rape their property, the right to take their properties' offspring and sell it?

I'm not against people flying the flag, freedom of expression and all, but I have to doubt the sencerity of any protestations that the above rights and beliefs are supossed to represent good southern hospitality. :)

+ 1 to this.

Reignman
05-06-2010, 12:36
Thanks, man. I'm intentionally being more of a simpleton than usual today.:wavey:

What do you think you're better than me HUH!!! 46,000 posts dwarfs me sure... :postingqueen:


but, I have a Flag!!!!!

:patriot:

Natty
05-06-2010, 14:22
Could it have something to do with the fact that the last time people marched under that battle flag, they did so with the belief and intent that they had a right own human beings, the right to rape their property, the right to take their properties' offspring and sell it?



And at that time, the same exact thing was true of the American flag.

:upeyes:

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 14:24
And at that time, the same exact thing was true of the American flag.

:upeyes:
God bless America
:patriot:

Critias
05-06-2010, 14:32
Two Civil War threads going at once? Terrific. It's like having the same argument in each ear, stereo-speaker style!

Hucklebarry
05-06-2010, 14:36
Oh boy, let me throw in my 2 cents, as a decendant of a Union Soldier who fought at Shiloh and decendant of another one who marched with Sherman through Georgia and made the Howl, I welcome the stars and bars as a symbol of "We aint going to take any more of your Bull****, and will defend what we believe in no matter what it takes". Northern born,bred, and raised (Michigan) I had grandpappy's in the 11th Michigan cavalry (Co F), 100th Indiana (Co B), and namesake (68th Ohio Co G), and I would bet all three seeing where their beloved country was headed, would wave their hats at those flying the "War of the Rebellion" as they called it, flag not just for southern rights anymore but like the Texan flag or Revolutionary flag "Don't tred on me" ...........one that stands for solidarity in action and I would fly and follow a flag like that right next to the National stars and stripes today. and I am as northern a "yankee" as it gets.



Thank you. I was talking with some friends just the other day, and I told them that there had to be at least ONE yankee up there that had a brain. At least ONE. I'm going to print this post and prove to them that I was right.

Thanks, again. :supergrin:

Carolina Drifter
05-06-2010, 14:46
The one thing I don't understand is people making such a big thing out of the CSA flag. Guessa what I'm southern and never owned a slave and neither did my ancestors. It's like southern whites should have no ancestry. It looks like to me that African-Americans would hate Africa more than they hate the CSA because their own people sold them into slavery but you never hear anybody mention that. The best thing for race relations is a good battle cause when the bullets are flying you depend on each other.

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 17:17
The one thing I don't understand is people making such a big thing out of the CSA flag. Guessa what I'm southern and never owned a slave and neither did my ancestors. It's like southern whites should have no ancestry. It looks like to me that African-Americans would hate Africa more than they hate the CSA because their own people sold them into slavery but you never hear anybody mention that. The best thing for race relations is a good battle cause when the bullets are flying you depend on each other.
the last person to tell me that was a Black Women 2 weeks ago.

holyjohnson
05-06-2010, 20:15
I suspect because today people actively look for things that hurt them and if they don't find anything, they make **** up. People will ALWAYS find something to whine about and stick a racist label to it.

The country today isn't what it was 20 years ago either. Pretty f'n sad!

what he said.

brave Americans fought and died by it,makes it honorable to me.but i`m still a Damn Yankee!

GWSHARK
05-06-2010, 20:19
Because some people really really hate white people.

confederate flag means white people?

:wavey:

SailingBull
05-06-2010, 20:29
We live in a media dominated society. Unfortunately the kkk decided to use that as a symbol and we've been bombarded with that image ever since. Since that's all the context we ever see that flag in anymore, it's become the general perception by the population that: confederate flag = lunatic supremecist.

Not a platform many would want to defend lest they be labeled a racist.

Swiper
05-06-2010, 20:40
I remember a Military man, who loved his country and fought for it. Afterward his country was poor and broke and being blamed for the War.
But he rebuilt his country, made it an Industrial power, gave the people jobs and their pride back. Helped them put food on the table. He also got their land that was stolen from them.
but that was Hitler.
Should Germans put Swastikas on their Volkswagens in honor of "German Pride"?

'Postwar Austria, as the old joke has it, managed to make most of the world believe that Ludwig van Beethoven was an Austrian and Adolf Hitler a German.'

Swiper
05-06-2010, 20:44
The swastika was originally (among other things) a Japanese religious symbol. After the Nazis hijacked it, even the Japs stopped displaying it in the West (after losing the war).

Indian symbol not Japanese.

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 20:46
'Postwar Austria, as the old joke has it, managed to make most of the world believe that Ludwig van Beethoven was an Austrian and Adolf Hitler a German.'
I'm sorry all I cant his of is this looking at your avatar is this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WicOCdOUWQo

Swiper no Swiping!

Swiper
05-06-2010, 20:50
I'm sorry all I cant his of is this looking at your avatar is this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WicOCdOUWQo

Swiper no Swiping!

Oh man!

Ray26
05-06-2010, 20:52
I suspect because today people actively look for things that hurt them and if they don't find anything, they make **** up. People will ALWAYS find something to whine about and stick a racist label to it.

The country today isn't what it was 20 years ago either. Pretty f'n sad!

Very true...

BamaTrooper
05-06-2010, 20:56
...Not trying to start a flame war but why is the CSA flag seen in such a bad light by most people today? ...

I assume by CSA flag you are speaking of the Confederate Naval Jack and note one of the other 12 or so Confederate flags that don't bear such a negative reputation?

Hell, a few months ago, I had someone mistake the ALABAMA flag for the "Rebel flag" and he was adamant about it. I brought him to my office and we looked up all the flags and we made sure he didn't run off half cocked spewing his misguided umbrage onto other people.

Cambo
05-06-2010, 20:56
I am much more offended when I see the Mexican flag. We can get rid the Confederate flag when everyone waving the Mexican flag is thrown out of country. I won't hold my breath.:steamed:

Swiper
05-06-2010, 21:04
I assume by CSA flag you are speaking of the Confederate Naval Jack and note one of the other 12 or so Confederate flags that don't bear such a negative reputation?

I found the end result of the big controversy regarding the Georgia State flag rather amusing. They removed the old Georgia flag with the 'naval jack' because it was considered to be 'racist', but they ended up with a replacement flag that has the striking resemblance to the original CSA National Flag (Stars and Bars).

marksiwel
05-06-2010, 21:06
I found the end result of the big controversy regarding the Georgia State flag rather amusing. They removed the old Georgia flag with the 'naval jack' because it was considered to be 'racist', but they ended up with a replacement flag that has the striking resemblance to the original CSA National Flag (Stars and Bars).
so what was the flag before the Civil War?

Blast
05-06-2010, 22:27
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/keithbeth/aCo_TheseDontRun.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/keithbeth/aCo_USflagEagle.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/keithbeth/aCo_USflag3.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/keithbeth/Poster.jpg

http://www.wku.edu/Library/dlps/gdoc_pix/We_The_People.jpe


The only flag for the USA.
I will defend it from any and all enemies... foreign and domestic. On that you can bet your ass.

Bill Powell
05-07-2010, 06:27
If the CSA flag is a slave issue I don't know why the blacks are so against it. In New Orleans in 1860 28 per cent of the free blacks owned slaves. Less than two per cent of the whites owned slaves.

Brucev
05-07-2010, 06:58
"Because of the continued, creeping monopolization...

You are wasting you time. The north won the war. The north wrote the history books. The truth is irrelevant.

Brucev
05-07-2010, 07:00
As far as the Confederate flag is concerned, those who have decided that it is a symbol of hate are the same folks who have decided that the mexican flag is a symbol of heritage.

Swiper
05-07-2010, 07:15
If the CSA flag is a slave issue I don't know why the blacks are so against it. In New Orleans in 1860 28 per cent of the free blacks owned slaves. Less than two per cent of the whites owned slaves.

You can not compare the total national (north and south) percentage of white slave owners with the percentage of black slave owners in New Orleans. It would be statistically dishonest to do so.

DriBak
05-07-2010, 07:28
:popcorn:
Damn I'm gonna be late to work again b/c of GT :)

Marine8541
05-07-2010, 07:50
I'm not a big believer in the sanctity of flags but if I have an issue with any of the CSA flags it is this. When I was first stationed in the South in the early '80s people tended to fly their different CSA flags and standards in remembrance of their heritage and what they saw as a simpler time. It wasn't a political statement and it wasn't an anger statement.

Fast forward 20 years and all that had changed. Because of feelings of impotency over legislators changing the various State standards and flags, public perception of the CSA flags, the changing power dynamics in the cities, and what many felt was a degrading of the importance of their culture it has become a symbol of protest.

Mind you this is what I perceived and you may disagree. Also there became this stupid justification of the CSA flags being OK because slavery didn't really play a part in the war...

Spiffums
05-07-2010, 08:10
The American Civil War was fought over taxes and representation in Congress. It wasn't R vs D it was Slave States vs Non Slave States ...... like the Masonic Party and the Anti-Masonic party ( talk about opening a can of worms if you really looked at that one). It was about change but as we have learned in lately Not all change is good.


And down through out history there have been slaves. Read the bible 99% of the time the Jews were someone's slave. You don't see them *****ing about Rome and Egypt for enslaving their people.

Glenn129
05-07-2010, 08:22
Speaking of confederate flag ignorance, I think the Georgia legislature drove that home better than I could. People complained about this:http://www.50states.com/flag/image/nunst014.gif

So they made it this:
http://www.flagemporium.com/images_products/Georgia1.jpg
Basically just saying, "we think you're too dumb to get this." They were right.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

For you yankees, the new Georgia flag is the entire 1861-1863 national flag of of the CSA, with a state seal added in the middle of the stars.

A guy was attacking me and my state as being racist for liking the Georgia State Flag with the Confederate Battle Flag on it. He was glad it was changed to the present flag. I informed him the new flag he liked was the the real Confederate Flag known as the First National, and the Confederate Battle Flag he hated was never a flag adopted by the Confederacy. I also informed him of his lack of historic info., and suggested he should go back to school before he attacks or praises something of which he knew nothing about. I believe historical ignorance perpetuated by racial groups is the problem with most of the people attacking the Battle Flag.

Hipneckonwheels
05-07-2010, 08:26
I think marksiwel was closest to the answer with this...

"The problem with the symbol isnt that normal healthy minded people use it, the problem is that its used for all the wrong things"

Bad people have given the flag a bad name, and has tarnished it for use by those who would use it in display of their Southern pride/heritage.

Same thing has happened to the Gadsden Flag ("Don't Tread On Me").
It's now just another teabagger prop that has the same current meaning as the Confederate Flag. Angry, mostly old, white people wishing things were "like they used to be". Sorry if you don't believe that, but it's the real answer to the OP's question.

There may be genuine southern pride by those who fly it in southern states, but in Northern California it almost always means "I'm a stupid redneck who hates N---ers and Sp--cs". You wouldn't want to just walk up and knock on the door of the homes who fly that flag. It's generally seen as a 'Keep Out' sign. Fine by me--thanks for the warning.

As pointed out in this thread, the Stars & Stripes has also been used at times as a symbol of oppression and tyranny since the beginning. Don't get hung up on flags, gods, or political parties. They never stay the same.
Change is the only constant. And a good Glock.

Bill Powell
05-07-2010, 08:27
Swiper, I was not trying to use New Orleans as a reason for loving that flag. New Orleans just popped to mind. The percentile proportion was maintained all over the south. The CSA flag haters just conveniently forget that bit of information. I know a lot of smart asses and white supremacy advocates use it and the blacks hate it and don't even know why. If people would just check their history a little closer, and not get all their information from someone with an axe to grind, they would find that nothing is as bad, or as good, as it seems.


Years ago Sky Harbor airport, in Phoenix, spent brazillions of dollars re-decorating the airport in a southwest and indian motif. They used a bunch of ancient Navajo religious symbols around the buildings.

One of the black extremists told them that if you backed off a quarter mile, stood on your head, and closed one eye, those could almost be construed as swastikas.

Bottom line was Sky harbor, instead of telling the guy to jump real high and kick his own ass, mutilated the symbols to the point that no one has anything.

Glenn129
05-07-2010, 08:34
Indian symbol not Japanese.

Yep Indian, my uncle was in the 45th Division in WWII and their original arm patch was a swastika and it was changed to the Thunderbird.

Blast
05-07-2010, 08:59
"Because of the continued, creeping monopolization...

You are wasting you time. The north won the war. The north wrote the history books. The truth is irrelevant.
Same old BS line... "The winners write the history so it is never true".:upeyes:
The allies won WW2, I suppose that history is a lie too. Hitler was really a great guy who wanted to save the world. The Japanese were merely trying to defend themselves from the colonial powers, etc.
Okay professor, enlighten us on the "truth".

There are no lies and coverups and Northern conspiracies. The real truth has been availible for years. Deal with it.

The truth is the Confederate states turned their back on the Constitution.
The Confederate battle flag was flown against only one flag in battle. The Stars and Stripes, that is my main issue with the CSA.
Southern folk are good folk, good culture... but to turn on the unity that defines this country, I have contempt.
If there was a permanant split in the nation, we would be 2 second rate nations and probably squabbling like the Koreas. And very possibly the world would be a different place, either nazi paradise or communist heaven. Because the power of the USA was a decisive factor in WW2 and the following years.
What needs to happen is this petty BS be trashed and deal with the socialist libs that have hijacked this nation. November is coming. and so is 2012.

Swiper
05-07-2010, 09:43
Same old BS line... "The winners write the history so it is never true".

... and the 'winners write the history' claim isn't true unless the losers were completely annihilated and wiped out of memory. Take a look at the history anout WW2 taught in Japanese schools. It's has a somewhat different angle on historical events of that time period.

:cool:

barbedwiresmile
05-07-2010, 09:46
Same thing has happened to the Gadsden Flag ("Don't Tread On Me").
It's now just another teabagger prop that has the same current meaning as the Confederate Flag. Angry, mostly old, white people wishing things were "like they used to be". Sorry if you don't believe that, but it's the real answer to the OP's question.


Read democrat talking points much?

Swiper
05-07-2010, 09:48
Yep Indian, my uncle was in the 45th Division in WWII and their original arm patch was a swastika and it was changed to the Thunderbird.

The Finnish Air Force used to have a swastika (rotating opposite direction of the German swastika) on the roundel of their air planes (predating the raise of Nazisms in Germany) but it was changed after 1945. However a swastika can still be seen on the Finnish presidential flag


http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/f/fi-pres.gif

Critias
05-07-2010, 09:49
Same old BS line... "The winners write the history so it is never true".:upeyes:
The allies won WW2, I suppose that history is a lie too.
Lie? Maybe not, but it is biased. Things sometimes get left out, things sometimes get exaggerated, details get "classified," stories get simplified, and things get told from a certain perspective.

It's not that the history books written by winners are never true, it's that they're never the whole story.
... and the 'winners write the history' claim isn't true unless the losers were completely annihilated and wiped out of memory. Take a look at the history anout WW2 taught in Japanese schools. It's has a somewhat different angle on historical events of that time period.

Which just goes to show what we're saying. The Japanese tell a different story about WWII, as you've said, so naturally any of us reading a Japanese history book dealing with the 1920's, 1930's, and 1940's, would probably read it with a grain of salt, right? Same as with German history covering that period, because it just makes sense to do. We'd probably try to fact-check what we found, we'd read history books written by Americans, the English, the French, maybe even the Russians...we'd compare what we found in the Japanese books with what we found elsewhere.

If you were to read about the causes of World War II, you'd get different reasons for all that bloodshed, depending on if you were reading something by a Japanese, Chinese, English, American, French, German, etc, etc, historian.

So why is it when Americans read about the Civil War, they only want to listen to what the winners -- the Federal government -- tells us is what happened, and why it happened at all?

glock_19guy1983
05-08-2010, 10:04
Murderers, Rapists, thieves, and arsonists. I hope every man that fought in Lincoln's army is roasting in Hell tonight.

mesteve2
05-08-2010, 11:13
Because some people really really hate white people.



People hate the white people. And are RACEST!

That works for them so I shall use it now!

Mushinto
05-08-2010, 12:35
... It's now just another teabagger prop ... Don't get hung up on flags, gods, or political parties. They never stay the same.
Change is the only constant. And a good Glock.

Now that we've heard from the pagan left, I guess this thread is complete.

ML

Gray_Rider
05-29-2010, 17:41
Swiper, et al,

The Northern slave owners sold their slaves to the South in most cases. Slaves were extremely valuable and cost about the price of a new car or a good used car today. Another thing thats left out of the mix is that slaves and slavery existed for survival. They, and the so called "evil" of slavery kept the country and the world fed and clothed for many decades. The slaves themselves were generally well treated regardless of over 150 years of lies to the contrary. The question was about how slavery was to end, not about the issue itself. The radicals wanted slaves to be dumped on the world with no education and no preperation for living on their own. All this with no remuneration to the owners who had to take it on the chin. Forget how their famlies were to be fed, clothed, housed, slave-freedmen-white. Sorry Charley. Slavery has to end regardless of the ramifacations! (Worked out real good didn't it ?) Over 700,000 dead in the war alone, well over 50,000 civilian Southern civilians murdered, starved, or dead by pestilience. Countless thousands more maimed for life. Black/White relations poisoned for nearly two centuries. Countless war crimes committed against the Southern populace by the so called "liberators" many of these fresh off the boat from Europe. These were the cream of the Northern juggernaught that raped and pilliaged like Huns across the defenseless South. The black women were ravaged, raped, and beaten first. Then came the white women, girls, and defenseless old. Funny how the "down trodden darkies" not only didn't flock to the Northern armies, but defended (sometimes to the death) their "white folks". Who do you think was home tending the fires, getting in the crops, and caring for the homefront? It wasn't Santa Claus! (Or kindly "Honest Abe")

Yes folks. Let's think about that one point above for a moment. Thousands of foregin born troops marshaled against the populace of the South. We make a God out of the man who has the blood of countless tens of thousands on his hands and the man who clapped his hands and laughed when he heard the news of Sherman's war crimes.

In the words of an old poem, found in a old Confederate's Bible...
"The Unreconstructed Rebel", it reads in part.

"I hates the striped banner, tis dripping with our blood!
I hates the "Glorious Union" I fought it all I could!

Three hundred thousand Yankees is stiff in Southern dust;
We got three hundred thousand before they conquered us!

They died of Southern fever and Southern steel and shot-
I wish it was three million instead of what we got!

And I don't want no pardon, for Reb I was and am!
I won't be reconstructed, and I don't care a damn!"

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Gray_Rider
05-29-2010, 20:04
Blast,

The CSA did nothing of the sort. (Concerning turning their backs on the Constitution) Read the the CSA's constitution some time if you doubt me. It copies the US Constution and even improves upon it! Dear old "Honest Abe" trashed the Consitution and denied Constitutional rights to his own people and all of the sceeding southern states. Thousands were imprisoned without trial. Dozens of newspapers were run out of business or destroyed by Union troops. Thousands of citizens' homes north and south were comandeered by the "Glorious Union" against the clear constitutional law against it! The Maryland state government was imprisoned and threatened with execution by Union forces that forced southern anti Lincoln voters away from the ballot boxes at bayonet point. And I have seen the Confederacy compared to the Nazis?? Thousands of innocents were murdered in cold blood by the Union army and WE turned our backs on the Constitution?
The state of West Virginia was allowed against constutional law to form their own state out of sceeding north western counties that had their ballot boxes tampered with and often destroyed by "loyal" Virginians. War crimes that rival the Nazis and Communists were committed against an innocent and defenseless Southern public, and went not only unpunished (at least on this side of the infernal regons) but are lauded and appaulded to this day. Foreign born troops in Union Blue raped and pilliaged the south like the Huns of old! And WE "turned our backs on the Constitution"???!!!!

I could go on and on but who would listen? The South fought and died for the Constutional republic that was founded and handed down to us by our forefathers. The government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" DID perish from the earth. The Southern Confederacy left the "Glorious Union" because it had a right to! The Constitution was then and is now a worthless piece of paper. The South was the one that wanted a Constutional republic with limited government, and low taxes. It wasn't us who created the income tax and a host of other government intrusions that multiplied tens thousands fold since the destruction of the Confederacy. The founding fathers would turn over in their graves if they could see what the Yankee boot-heel did to the rights they bestowed on this nation. The Southern Confederacy wanted no part of it and was cruelly and unconstitutionally invaded and destroyed for their temerity when they peacefully scceeded from the Northern states. All we asked for was to be left to go in peace! We depended on slavery at that time for our very lives. It was the only thing that worked and it worked for centuries. Millions were fed, housed, clothed, and cared for (including the slaves themselves) by the "evil" instution of slavery. Consider where the slaves came from, who sold them, and the frightfull conditions the masses lived under and do so to this day in their native land! The instution was dying and could have been easily fazed out of existance as is was all over the world at that time. Only in the U.S. and in Hati was is "ended" by war. (Worked out pretty good for both countries and for blacks in general now didn't it? Blacks traded one set of chains for another!)

You are correct. The truth is there. Hell is being paid tonight for the crimes committed against this nation and against the Southern Confederacy. We can't go back. We can't do it over. But we can at least see that the record is set straight.
History is history is history. Forget it and you will re-live it! America as it was formed by the founders in 1776, died in 1865, and it had nothing to do with ending slavery.
Slavery was just the excuse to commit the crime.

When I see that blood soaked old Southern Cross (The Confederate Battle flag. Still the 2nd most popular and most purchased flag in this nation only slightly behind "Old Glory") I salute it. I nod to it. Or, if possible, I clasp it to my breast and kiss it in memory of those who died defending it and the blood that that has laved it for over one hundred and fifty years.

God bless the South!
Deo Vindice!
Gray_Rider

RichardB
05-30-2010, 08:00
"Slavery was just the excuse to commit the crime."

Results, not theory:

The cure resulting from the "crime" lead to the establishment of the greatest nation in the world. A nation which has evolved into one seeking even greater justice for its citizens.

There are folks on this board from the south who can still remember when the feds arranged for them to have electricity. It did not come from their own southern state government but from Roosevelt's DC centered programs. Another case of "Damned yankees interfering in the states right to keep rural folks in their place!"

In the long term it seems that the "crime" was a real benefit for the south for which we should be eternally thankful.

Gray_Rider
05-30-2010, 16:32
Ever wonder why some states, Mississippi for instance, was the richest state in the Confederacy and the poorest state in the Union since the war?? The southern states were made to pay war reparations that robbed us of our much needed natural wealth. Some of the debt took over a century to repay. Our "friend" Uncle Sam forgave billions upon billions of tax funded war reparations of Germany and Spain and Japan and Russia whilst making the Confederacy repay to the last penny. The south took over a century to recover from both the war and "reconstruction" read that DE-construction. That sir isn't a "Theory". On the other hand what you propose and suggest is.

Many countries have been sceeded from. It didn't end the world or destroy the country. Both nations may have become one. There could have been two powerfull countries here now. We will never know. Just because a socialist president and would be dictator spent billions, prolonged the great depression for years, and improved Lincoln's government control over the US population beyond his wildest imagininings doesn't "feed the bulldog" or raise up the multiplied tens of thousands that were murdered, starved, or killed in battle. I say again. And the truth is undeniable. The Confederate States of America fought bled and died to preserve the Constitution and was the only country ever completely destroyed by the federal government. And it was destroyed precisely for that reason. (Why do you think not one southern leader was ever tried for treason, even though Jefferson Davis plead to be tried for it?) Not to end slavery. Lincoln's own words prove it. Had he lived and not been murdered by his own people, he would have shipped all blacks out of the country. Its not a "theory" and the results are undeniable and provable to anyone who wants to see them. If the endning of slavery was the war's only aim, why weren't General Grant's and other Northerners' slaves freed till 1865 and by an act of congress?? Lincoln wanted the slaves to revolt and murder those helpless ones on the Confederate homefront. Didn't happen. If it weren't for the blacks the Confederacy would have folded in the first month. Note this didn't happen in Hati or the Caribbean nations where REAL slavery existed. There, slaves were worked and beaten to death! There was always more sugar cane to make more rum to trade to the African kings for more slaves. But the pall of slavery always falls on the Confederacy. The South is the "evil" slave people. We lived to beat, rape, and bedevil our blacks. Funny how so many stayed with their families and defended the Southern nation. Enough so to keep the South in the war against the most powerfull and ruthless nation in the world at that time. And enough so that we nearly won that war, unaided and unprepared for that war as we were. That sir, is no "theory".

Deo Vindice!

Gray_Rider

Brucev
05-30-2010, 16:34
deleted.

Gray_Rider
05-30-2010, 17:16
Glen129,

God bless for showing the 1st National flag and the Bonnie Blue flag. The Georgia legislature did EXACTLY that! I was angry with their caving to the left about the Southern Cross being taken down but they kicked the ignorant (the former Georgia flag's enemies) straight in the teeth with the 1st national flag and its 13 stars.
I sport a 1st National and a Bonnie Blue on my car, as well as a bumper sticker that reads "Don't blame us! You had your chance in 1861!" with a 1st national flag on the sticker too. I have had people honk their horns and wave, and some have even walked over for a closer look as it says "First National flag of the Confederacy" in tiny lettering under the flag.
The Confederacy's armies may have been defeated but the spirit lives on. The ashes are still warm.

Deo Vindice!

Gray_Rider

Big Bird
06-10-2010, 12:56
Hey Gray Rider,

Bet you $100 you wouldn't go into a black church in Atlanta and talk your smack about what a humane institution slavery was and how well slaves were treated! Tell them how lucky they were!

If the slaves in the old south were so happy and content how could Nat Turner have ever started a revolt?

This is all a bunch of hogwash.... The instution of chattel slavery was brutal. Anyone who spouts high minded ideals of freedom and rights in one breath yet defends a government that ENSHRINED IN ITS CONSTITUTION the brutal oppression of another man PURELY for the economic gain of his master just kind of strike me as preposterous.

The Constitution of the Confederacy that supposedly was so concerned about states rights actually made it impossible for its own states to decide the issue of slavery for themselves! So Mississippi couldn't decide at some point in time in the future to outlaw slavery if it wanted to!?! So much for states rights...

How proud you must be of a culture that brutally enslaved 4 million human beings and fought to the bitter end to preserve it! How proud you must be of a government that made slavery the "Cornerstone" of its Constitution! Your argument that slavery was on its way out in the south is bogus. By 1861 Virginia's #1 export commodity was SLAVES! That is why it was so vitally important for the rich land/slave owners in the south to perpetuate the institution as the country grew westward! They needed a way to keep up the value of their "property"--indeed a strange word for another human being by someone who feigns disenchantment over how far the nation had strayed from the ideas of the Founding Fathers--yeah, such simple notions like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! I guess that only applied to "certain" kinds of people....

Again, bet you $100 you wouldn't go into a black church in Atlanta and spew this crap!

Bren
06-10-2010, 13:23
Same old BS line... "The winners write the history so it is never true".:upeyes:
The allies won WW2, I suppose that history is a lie too.

Yes, it is a lie. That doesn't make Hitler a good guy or us bad guys, but you'd have to be an idiot to think that the history of WW II or any other war hasn't been distorted to favor the winners, especially as taught in their own country.

Bren
06-10-2010, 13:27
You can not compare the total national (north and south) percentage of white slave owners with the percentage of black slave owners in New Orleans. It would be statistically dishonest to do so.

Actually, no - saying that one area far exceeded the national average (of anything) is a proper and common use of statistics. In fact, comparing a small area sample to a total population is exactly why it is fair to use a percentage and not raw numbers.

Conicidentally, Lincoln didn't free the slaves in New Orleans in the Emancipation Proclamation, either.

Gray_Rider
06-13-2010, 19:33
Nice to see you again Big Bird.

Seems Nat Turner's slave revolt that involved the murder of dozens of innocent whites kind of fizzled out for lack of a following amongst the slave populace. Same with your proable "hero" John Brown. Another cold blooded murderer of his own people. Same thing happened (yet again) with dear old "honest" Abe and the emancipation proclamation. It was penned to forment a slave revolt behind Confederate lines. Funny how each time the stakes were raised there was NO general uprising. Over 150 years of out and out lies and the sad mistake of blacks to believe the same lies over and over and over since the "40 acres and a mule" doozie doesn't change the facts. Black slaves (were on the whole) treated better here than at any time in history or on any other contenient on the face of the earth including their beloved Africa. Slavery exists there on a grand scale to this day and goes back into the sands of time for centuries. And our "friends" the Moors (whose religion blacks flock to due to a 'hatred' of the white man's religion") were the very people who were the go betweens between said African kings (who enslaved their own people more savagely than can commonly be imagined) and the "evil" white Yankee slavers who brought the poor wretches to the new world for rum and trinkets. Yes. If any black wants to go back to "Merry Old Africa" and live he is welcome to do so. Your big buddy "Honest Abe" had plans in the works to ship all blacks out of the country back to Africa or anywhere they chose to go. Hundreds were shipped back of their own free will and were starved and run off by their own people. Read something other than fiction once in a while.

The Indians took and kept slaves. White, black, "hispanic" and other Indians.

No reproach:

The Spanish enslaved and worked whole Indian cultures into the ground for centuries.

No reproach:

The English enslaved thousands of Irish and Scots and worked orphan children to death by the thousands in their work houses; "Oliver Twist" was based on real happenings remember, but the working class English were so broken hearted over a piece of fiction, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" that they kept the Crown from entering into the WSI.

Tens of thousands of Chinese were worked to death and tens of thousands more innocent women and girls were sold into sexual slavery by their own and our own people.

No reproach:

This country, after its independence, was a slave holding country for 98 years before the WSI.

No reproach:

Brazil kept slavery for twenty years after the WSI ended and then ended it peacefully with the above mentioned malmutation. (The rembursment of the cost of the slaves to the owners by public funds.

No reproach:

Federal soldiers raped the black women first and pilliaged the slave's hovel with the same lust and depravity they raped the white southern women and the manor born.

No reproach:

The US government treated blacks like 2nd class citizens for decades after the WSI, well past WWII and Korea, and poisioned race relations in the South that continues to this day. Their lackies in the media have the blood of tens of thousands black and white on their hands.

No reproach:

The Southern states were ending slavery through peacefull malmutation. The freeing of slaves after their owner's death and by other means that would not leave their owners destitute. Remember. This was at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Slave labor fed and clothed the WORLD for centuries. It was the only thing that worked here in the colonies. They weren't kept for raping and to have someone to whip on despite almost two centuries of Northern lies to the contary. Slaves cost the amount of a new car today, and were crucial to the survival of the nation. Rabid aboltionists wanted them all set free with no education or any preparedness whatsoever for the real world. They got their way. Worked out pretty good didn't it?

The war wasn't about the ending of slavery. That was happening peacefully for decades before WSI. Like it or not it was soon to become cost prohibitive. The war was brought on by the same measures that we fought our first war for independence for. Taxation without representiation.

Lincoln and the congress passed the Morrill Tariff, (the highest import tax in history) that raised the import tax rate from 20% to 40 %! The southern cotton industry was devastated. The South had only 30% of the population but paid 80% of the tariffs collected. The Southerers seceeded to escape this punitive tax and Lincoln invaded to re-secure said tax to slake the demands of his Northern industrailist supporters.
The only way to recoup this punishing tax was to invade the Southern Confederacy and drive it back into the Union at bayonet point. It cost the country over 700,000 dead and hundreds of millions of 1860's dollars. It involved massive unpunished (this side of the grave) war crimes and the wanton destruction of an area the size of a 180 mile swath of desolation from New York City to Chicago. Don't preach to me about the plight of the Southern slaves Big Bird. Don't forget the massive desertions in the Union Army when Lincoln "freed" all the Southern slaves while leaving all in Northern and overran Southern states still in their chains. Lincoln was no friend of the slaves. I have said before and I will say again. Slavery was the South's achellie's heel and is the probagation of one of the the biggest lies in the history of mankind. That being. "The "Civil War" was fought to free the slaves!" Funny how there were slave owners on each side and U.S.Grant kept his wife's slaves till December of 1865. Robert E. Lee freed all the slaves that were left to him in (if memory serves) his wife's father's will, well before the war.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

The slaves didn't revolt. Their sacrifices free and slave kept the Confederacy in the fight whether you wish to accept that fact or not. Look up John Jaspar sometime. Or Bill Yopp. "Ten cent Bill" as he was known. Yopp, a former slave and Confederate soldier, collected dimes from passerby (when dimes had the same buying power as dollars today) and bought gifts, cakes, food, and personal items to his former Confederate soldier (and former master) then pennyless and living in the Old Confederates' home in the late 1800s.

No one goes to the "Black churches in Atlanta" (or any other black church) and preaches anything concerning the war but sedition and hatred. Black men have become disposable in the modern urban community. Black women demand scarce more than fertilization from the average black male, which only serves to produce more black voters for white politicians that promise more and more of the 40 acres and a mule fiasco that has worked so well for so many decades.

And you think slavery was ended!!?? One set of chains was exchanged for another!!

Gray_Rider
06-13-2010, 21:20
Also. Read Jefferson Davis' farewell to congress. All knew the reasons the South was seceeding. All knew the legality of it and the reasons for it.

BTW Big Bird. Virginia was the first state to outlaw the importation of slaves.


Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Big Bird
06-13-2010, 21:32
Nice to see you again Big Bird.

Seems Nat Turner's slave revolt that involved the murder of dozens of innocent whites kind of fizzled out for lack of a following amongst the slave populace. Same with your proable "hero" John Brown. Another cold blooded murderer of his own people. Same thing happened (yet again) with dear old "honest" Abe and the emancipation proclamation. It was penned to forment a slave revolt behind Confederate lines. Funny how each time the stakes were raised there was NO general uprising. Over 150 years of out and out lies and the sad mistake of blacks to believe the same lies over and over and over since the "40 acres and a mule" doozie doesn't change the facts. Black slaves (were on the whole) treated better here than at any time in history or on any other contenient on the face of the earth including their beloved Africa. Slavery exists there on a grand scale to this day and goes back into the sands of time for centuries. And our "friends" the Moors (whose religion blacks flock to due to a 'hatred' of the white man's religion") were the very people who were the go betweens between said African kings (who enslaved their own people more savagely than can commonly be imagined) and the "evil" white Yankee slavers who brought the poor wretches to the new world for rum and trinkets. Yes. If any black wants to go back to "Merry Old Africa" and live he is welcome to do so. Your big buddy "Honest Abe" had plans in the works to ship all blacks out of the country back to Africa or anywhere they chose to go. Hundreds were shipped back of their own free will and were starved and run off by their own people. Read something other than fiction once in a while.

The Indians took and kept slaves. White, black, "hispanic" and other Indians.

No reproach:

The Spanish enslaved and worked whole Indian cultures into the ground for centuries.

No reproach:

The English enslaved thousands of Irish and Scots and worked orphan children to death by the thousands in their work houses; "Oliver Twist" was based on real happenings remember, but the working class English were so broken hearted over a piece of fiction, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" that they kept the Crown from entering into the WSI.

Tens of thousands of Chinese were worked to death and tens of thousands more innocent women and girls were sold into sexual slavery by their own and our own people.

No reproach:

This country, after its independence, was a slave holding country for 98 years before the WSI.

No reproach:

Brazil kept slavery for twenty years after the WSI ended and then ended it peacefully with the above mentioned malmutation. (The rembursment of the cost of the slaves to the owners by public funds.

No reproach:

Federal soldiers raped the black women first and pilliaged the slave's hovel with the same lust and depravity they raped the white southern women and the manor born.

No reproach:

The US government treated blacks like 2nd class citizens for decades after the WSI, well past WWII and Korea, and poisioned race relations in the South that continues to this day. Their lackies in the media have the blood of tens of thousands black and white on their hands.

No reproach:

The Southern states were ending slavery through peacefull malmutation. The freeing of slaves after their owner's death and by other means that would not leave their owners destitute. Remember. This was at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Slave labor fed and clothed the WORLD for centuries. It was the only thing that worked here in the colonies. They weren't kept for raping and to have someone to whip on despite almost two centuries of Northern lies to the contary. Slaves cost the amount of a new car today, and were crucial to the survival of the nation. Rabid aboltionists wanted them all set free with no education or any preparedness whatsoever for the real world. They got their way. Worked out pretty good didn't it?

The war wasn't about the ending of slavery. That was happening peacefully for decades before WSI. Like it or not it was soon to become cost prohibitive. The war was brought on by the same measures that we fought our first war for independence for. Taxation without representiation.

Lincoln and the congress passed the Morrill Tariff, (the highest import tax in history) that raised the import tax rate from 20% to 40 %! The southern cotton industry was devastated. The South had only 30% of the population but paid 80% of the tariffs collected. The Southerers seceeded to escape this punitive tax and Lincoln invaded to re-secure said tax to slake the demands of his Northern industrailist supporters.
The only way to recoup this punishing tax was to invade the Southern Confederacy and drive it back into the Union at bayonet point. It cost the country over 700,000 dead and hundreds of millions of 1860's dollars. It involved massive unpunished (this side of the grave) war crimes and the wanton destruction of an area the size of a 180 mile swath of desolation from New York City to Chicago. Don't preach to me about the plight of the Southern slaves Big Bird. Don't forget the massive desertions in the Union Army when Lincoln "freed" all the Southern slaves while leaving all in Northern and overran Southern states still in their chains. Lincoln was no friend of the slaves. I have said before and I will say again. Slavery was the South's achellie's heel and is the probagation of one of the the biggest lies in the history of mankind. That being. "The "Civil War" was fought to free the slaves!" Funny how there were slave owners on each side and U.S.Grant kept his wife's slaves till December of 1865. Robert E. Lee freed all the slaves that were left to him in (if memory serves) his wife's father's will, well before the war.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

The slaves didn't revolt. Their sacrifices free and slave kept the Confederacy in the fight whether you wish to accept that fact or not. Look up John Jaspar sometime. Or Bill Yopp. "Ten cent Bill" as he was known. Yopp, a former slave and Confederate soldier, collected dimes from passerby (when dimes had the same buying power as dollars today) and bought gifts, cakes, food, and personal items to his former Confederate soldier (and former master) then pennyless and living in the Old Confederates' home in the late 1800s.

No one goes to the "Black churches in Atlanta" (or any other black church) and preaches anything concerning the war but sedition and hatred. Black men have become disposable in the modern urban community. Black women demand scarce more than fertilization from the average black male, which only serves to produce more black voters for white politicians that promise more and more of the 40 acres and a mule fiasco that has worked so well for so many decades.

And you think slavery was ended!!?? One set of chains was exchanged for another!!

Wow! That's quite some vindication there. Still doesn't change the fact that the Confederacy enshrined in its constitution the EVIL, IMMORAL, CRUEL, and simply DISGRACEFUL institution of slavery. It had no intention of getting rid of it. If you read speeches by Southern Politicians agitating for war in the various state legislatures there are NUMEROUS references to slavery being the primary cause of the war... Do I need to post VP of the Confederacy Andrew Stephen's "Cornerstone Speech" AGAIN for you?

Again, how trite it must seem to you that another man be sold as nothing more than property and his value tied to nothing more than his ability to increase the purse of his master! It still astounds me that someone who professes a love for the Founding of this country and values like freedom, etc can also embrace a government that was so PROFOUNDLY flawed at the most fundamental level!

The current condition of blacks in this country, their previous treatment, how someone else practiced slavery is all irrelevant to the discussion. And its simply a childish attempt by you to evade the RAW TRUTH! It was WRONG! How simple...yet true WRONG!

Of course the Army of 4,000+ pro-slavery southerners that invaded Kansas in 1856 in order to make sure it became a slave state were simply defending their rights? (Bleeding Kansas) No Reproach?

Southern apologists like yourself LOVE to point out that the country allowed slavery for 96 years since its founding... The truth is within 12 years of adopting the Constitution most northern states effectively outlawed slavery. The ONLY reason it was never outlawed on a Federal level is the Southerners enjoyed a balance of power in their favor and it never was politically possible. That's the simple truth. Southerners wouldn't abolish slavery at the Federal level. If you think that's a simplification I submit that its not. Since the founding this country struggled with the issue. Read about the Missouri Compromise of 1820 or the Great Compromise of 1850 (Kansas and Nebraska Territories) All related to slavery and the balance of power in the Federal Government. Southerners wanted more slave states (and the seats in Congress and the Senate that came with new states) to keep the pro-abolitionist North from outnumbering them and outlawing slavery. Its really that simple. The Civil War started because the balance of power had finally swung against the South in the election of 1860 and they knew it was only a matter of time before slavery was gone...

So to recap. Slavery is/was wrong. The Confederacy wanted to preserve slavery and the Confederate Constitution made slavery a mandatory legal condition in every Southern State--thereby abrogating any states rights issue on this matter. Slavery was about greed and exploitation. Nobody buys the White Man's burden routine anymore.

How blacks have fared or how they have been treated since the Civil War does not make the original sin any less WRONG or EVIL or CRUEL or DISGRACEFUL.... You do know the difference between right and WRONG?

Gray_Rider
06-14-2010, 11:29
Yes "Jethro" I do know the difference between right and wrong and I know what built this country when nothing else would. Cotton and Tobacco and Slave labor. I know its hard for you to accept but that's what did it! I have held forth on this subject and the evenual use of slavery to establish the country when ALL ELSE FAILED! As I have stated before, NOTHING ELSE WORKED! Agreed, we should have let the Black African kings pilliage, rape and enslave their peoples to their heart's content and let this country sink into misery and failure till say the Spanish took over and used the exact same slavery system only to a far more horrific extent as they did in Central and South America. We would have had a Spanish speaking country like Brazil or Mexico is now. SOMEONE WOULD HAVE DONE IT! Would that have made you happy? It would tickled Hitler, Tojo, and Stalin in the '40s! You still wish to blame all the evils of slavery on a country that existed for four years. Of course the South favored holding on to its slaves. It still needed slave labor to produce its crops and feed its people including, JETHERO, its slaves. Yes, where would they have gone overnight? Canada? The South depended on COTTON and to a lesser extent TOBACCO. It took massive amounts of labor that COULD NOT be met by the existing white population or by industrial means which DID NOT EXIST IN THE SOUTH! There was no other way till the industrial revolution caught up with the farming south. This was why slavery was used as the scapegoat and why Lincoln tried to fester up a slave rebellion throughout the war. I say again. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN! Thousands of free blacks and slaves served the Confederacy. Had there been the hatred you abolitonists said there was, (and that the North stired up for decades after the war) the South wouldn't have lasted a week. The truth is overwhelming but it has been ignored and papered over. The North only had ONE excuse for the invasion, warcrimes and destruction of one half of the country. Slavery. AND that arguement wasn't brought forth till about 1862 and the South was at least holding its own and slaughtering Yankees like invaders should be slaughtered.

When you fuss and fluster about slavery in the Confederacy, don't talk with your mouth full. Slave labor provided what was needed when it was needed. NOTHING ELSE DID JETHRO! Cotton plantations cut the average family's cost of clothing themselves from 80% of their annual income down to 20%. That left mucho $$ for other products and the industrial revolution really took off to meet the need of all those new consumers and led this country to the top of the heap in far less than 200 years. (But America is evil I suppose and deserves to be taken over by the mud hut countries as it is now right?)

Where did all the slave grown cotton go to? Northern cotton mills that employed millions and that clothed not only the Union but a great portion of the world. But no, lets let the cotton fields go to the boil weevel, let the Southern economy crash leaving the South like Ireland after the potato famine, and thousands go unemployed across the world just so we can end slavery overnight! The damage people like you did to this country took well over 130 years to even start to heal. Just so you could force an end to slavery that was ended peacefully everywhere else except for Hati. And we all have seen how that little experiment worked out didn't we? Remember the late earthquake there and the massive aid it has taken just to keep that country in existance to start with?

Warts 'n all Jethro, slavery WORKED! This country provides a haven for blacks that is a million times better than ANY black run country or to a lesser extent any other industrial country in the world. Black slavery was a "cornerstone" of that success. Deal with it!

I'll bet not one black in ten thousand would go back to "the promised land" of Africa, but they sure can cuss the white man who brought them here even if it was in chains. They were fed, housed, clothed, and given medical attention. They had none of that in Africa then or now, but according to you, in four years the South was responsible for all the "evils" of slavery the world has ever known.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Gray_Rider
06-14-2010, 13:17
As an aside to everyone here. I do not, (nor have I in the past) condone slavery in any form. All I'm saying is that it was a system that worked for centuries and was THE CORNERSTONE of the founding of this country. Warts and all, it was the only thing that worked under the circumstances that existed till the industrial revolution. Without slave grown cotton and tobacco the colonies would have floundered. They WERE floundering. There is no two ways around it. No one, and formostly the slaves involved, would have flourished here. The earliest attempts to colonize America were failing till tobacco was found to be THE cash crop that everyone wanted. Slave labor made it happen. It was sad nothing else worked but facts are facts and they are irrefutable in this arguement even if ignored or brushed aside. The founding fathers did not want slavery but there was no way to be rid of it either and still flourish as a nation.

The North invaded a peace loving non aggressive people and utterly destroyed it for the reasons I have repeatedly stated. Freeing the slaves was NEVER the "prime directive". The unconstutional forcing of the Southern states back into the Union for the collection of taxes and the use of Southern ports was. I WILL NOT however probagate the great lie that "Lincoln freed the slaves" nor that the war was fought to free them. The war did hinge on HOW slavery was to end. One by the peacefull use of malmutation that was in place and gradually phasing out the system. The other was the unconstutional and savage war that cost this country over 700,000 dead and tens of thousands more in wounded and maimed. I simply contend that the purchace was not worth the cost, and I believe the proof of that is also irrefutable. The "plight" of blacks in America can be traced directly back to the war and its aftermath. As Jefferson Davis predicted, the truth IS being heard.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!
The South was Right!

Pro-Gun Liberal
06-17-2010, 04:53
Also. Read Jefferson Davis' farewell to congress. All knew the reasons the South was seceeding. All knew the legality of it and the reasons for it.

BTW Big Bird. Virginia was the first state to outlaw the importation of slaves.

The US government to this day has not outlawed the importation of slaves.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!
The United States outlawed the importation of slaves in 1808:
An Act to Prohibit the Importation of Slaves into any Port or Place Within the Jurisdiction of the United States, From and After the First Day of January, in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/sl004.asp)

Gray_Rider
06-17-2010, 16:43
I stand corrected Pro Gun. I will re-check my facts and post further if the need arises!

However, thousands of slaves were brought into the country, well after this time by Yankee slavers and other countries mostly to the Spanish colonies to the south, and the flag that most ships flew was "Old Glory". No one would risk a "confrontation" with a ship flying the US flag. The South never had an offical slave ship line, nor did the Southern Cross (Confederate battle flag or Navy Jack) fly over the slave ships.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Natty
06-23-2010, 14:16
Simple fact...

After slavery was prohibited in the South and all the Confederate slaves were freed by Lincolns famous Emancipation Proclamation...

Some Union states still had slavery and it was still legal under the US FLAG.

Bren
06-23-2010, 15:35
Simple fact...

After slavery was prohibited in the South and all the Confederate slaves were freed by Lincolns famous Emancipation Proclamation...

Some Union states still had slavery and it was still legal under the US FLAG.

actually, even all of the southern slaves weren't freed, since Lincoln made an exception for the loyal southern and border areas. The EP allows them to carve out specific areas where slaves were to be freed and it ONLY included areas in rebellion, not loyal areas.

I think Big Bird also overlooked that the U.S. Constitution specifically allowed for slavery until the 14th amendment in 1868. So are far as "enshrining evil slavery" our constitution contains as much as the CSA's did.

Bren
06-23-2010, 15:38
Here's something interesting to me - I'm sure you are already aware that the CSA, eveil and racist as they were, had native american soldiers and even a native American general, Gen. Stand Watie, but there is even less info about the black confederates:



By Scott Williams


Black Confederates Why haven't we heard more about them? National Park Service historian, Ed Bearrs, stated, "I don't want to call it a conspiracy to ignore the role of Blacks both above and below the Mason-Dixon line, but it was definitely a tendency that began around 1910" Historian, Erwin L. Jordan, Jr., calls it a "cover-up" which started back in 1865. He writes, "During my research, I came across instances where Black men stated they were soldiers, but you can plainly see where 'soldier' is crossed out and 'body servant' inserted, or 'teamster' on pension applications." Another black historian, Roland Young, says he is not surprised that blacks fought. He explains that "some, if not most, Black southerners would support their country" and that by doing so they were "demonstrating it's possible to hate the system of slavery and love one's country." This is the very same reaction that most African Americans showed during the American Revolution, where they fought for the colonies, even though the British offered them freedom if they fought for them.

It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, "saw the elephant" also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, "Will you fight?" Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that "biracial units" were frequently organized "by local Confederate and State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form of Union raids". Dr. Leonard Haynes, an African-American professor at Southern University, stated, "When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you've eliminated the history of the South."

As the war came to an end, the Confederacy took progressive measures to build back up its army. The creation of the Confederate States Colored Troops, copied after the segregated northern colored troops, came too late to be successful. Had the Confederacy been successful, it would have created the world's largest armies (at the time) consisting of black soldiers,even larger than that of the North. This would have given the future of the Confederacy a vastly different appearance than what modern day racist or anti-Confederate liberals conjecture. Not only did Jefferson Davis envision black Confederate veterans receiving bounty lands for their service, there would have been no future for slavery after the goal of 300,000 armed black CSA veterans came home after the war.

1. The "Richmond Howitzers" were partially manned by black militiamen. They saw action at 1st Manassas (or 1st Battle of Bull Run) where they operated battery no. 2. In addition two black "regiments", one free and one slave, participated in the battle on behalf of the South. "Many colored people were killed in the action", recorded John Parker, a former slave.

2. At least one Black Confederate was a non-commissioned officer. James Washington, Co. D 35th Texas Cavalry, Confederate States Army, became it's 3rd Sergeant. Higher ranking black commissioned officers served in militia units, but this was on the State militia level (Louisiana)and not in the regular C.S. Army.

3. Free black musicians, cooks, soldiers and teamsters earned the same pay as white confederate privates. This was not the case in the Union army where blacks did not receive equal pay. At the Confederate Buffalo Forge in Rockbridge County, Virginia, skilled black workers "earned on average three times the wages of white Confederate soldiers and more than most Confederate army officers ($350- $600 a year).

4. Dr. Lewis Steiner, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission while observing Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson's occupation of Frederick, Maryland, in 1862: "Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number [Confederate troops]. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc.....and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army."

5. Frederick Douglas reported, "There are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the rebels."

6. Black and white militiamen returned heavy fire on Union troops at the Battle of Griswoldsville (near Macon, GA). Approximately 600 boys and elderly men were killed in this skirmish.

7. In 1864, President Jefferson Davis approved a plan that proposed the emancipation of slaves, in return for the official recognition of the Confederacy by Britain and France. France showed interest but Britain refused.

8. The Jackson Battalion included two companies of black soldiers. They saw combat at Petersburg under Col. Shipp. "My men acted with utmost promptness and goodwill...Allow me to state sir that they behaved in an extraordinary acceptable manner."

9. Recently the National Park Service, with a recent discovery, recognized that blacks were asked to help defend the city of Petersburg, Virginia and were offered their freedom if they did so. Regardless of their official classification, black Americans performed support functions that in today's army many would be classified as official military service. The successes of white Confederate troops in battle, could only have been achieved with the support these loyal black Southerners.

10. Confederate General John B. Gordon (Army of Northern Virginia) reported that all of his troops were in favor of Colored troops and that it's adoption would have "greatly encouraged the army". Gen. Lee was anxious to receive regiments of black soldiers. The Richmond Sentinel reported on 24 Mar 1864, "None will deny that our servants are more worthy of respect than the motley hordes which come against us." "Bad faith [to black Confederates] must be avoided as an indelible dishonor."

11. In March 1865, Judah P. Benjamin, Confederate Secretary Of State, promised freedom for blacks who served from the State of Virginia. Authority for this was finally received from the State of Virginia and on April 1st 1865, $100 bounties were offered to black soldiers. Benjamin exclaimed, "Let us say to every Negro who wants to go into the ranks, go and fight, and you are free Fight for your masters and you shall have your freedom." Confederate Officers were ordered to treat them humanely and protect them from "injustice and oppression".

12. A quota was set for 300,000 black soldiers for the Confederate States Colored Troops. 83% of Richmond's male slave population volunteered for duty. A special ball was held in Richmond to raise money for uniforms for these men. Before Richmond fell, black Confederates in gray uniforms drilled in the streets. Due to the war ending, it is believed only companies or squads of these troops ever saw any action. Many more black soldiers fought for the North, but that difference was simply a difference because the North instituted this progressive policy more sooner than the more conservative South. Black soldiers from both sides received discrimination from whites who opposed the concept .

13. Union General U.S. Grant in Feb 1865, ordered the capture of "all the Negro men before the enemy can put them in their ranks." Frederick Douglass warned Lincoln that unless slaves were guaranteed freedom (those in Union controlled areas were still slaves) and land bounties, "they would take up arms for the rebels".

14. On April 4, 1865 (Amelia County, VA), a Confederate supply train was exclusively manned and guarded by black Infantry. When attacked by Federal Cavalry, they stood their ground and fought off the charge, but on the second charge they were overwhelmed. These soldiers are believed to be from "Major Turner's" Confederate command.

15. A Black Confederate, George _____, when captured by Federals was bribed to desert to the other side. He defiantly spoke, "Sir, you want me to desert, and I ain't no deserter. Down South, deserters disgrace their families and I am never going to do that."

16. Former slave, Horace King, accumulated great wealth as a contractor to the Confederate Navy. He was also an expert engineer and became known as the "Bridge builder of the Confederacy." One of his bridges was burned in a Yankee raid. His home was pillaged by Union troops, as his wife pleaded for mercy.

17. As of Feb. 1865 1,150 black seamen served in the Confederate Navy. One of these was among the last Confederates to surrender, aboard the CSS Shenandoah, six months after the war ended. This surrender took place in England.

18. Nearly 180,000 Black Southerners, from Virginia alone, provided logistical support for the Confederate military. Many were highly skilled workers. These included a wide range of jobs: nurses, military engineers, teamsters, ordnance department workers, brakemen, firemen, harness makers, blacksmiths, wagonmakers, boatmen, mechanics, wheelwrights, etc. In the 1920'S Confederate pensions were finally allowed to some of those workers that were still living. Many thousands more served in other Confederate States.

19. During the early 1900's, many members of the United Confederate Veterans (UCV) advocated awarding former slaves rural acreage and a home. There was hope that justice could be given those slaves that were once promised "forty acres and a mule" but never received any. In the 1913 Confederate Veteran magazine published by the UCV, it was printed that this plan "If not Democratic, it is [the] Confederate" thing to do. There was much gratitude toward former slaves, which "thousands were loyal, to the last degree", now living with total poverty of the big cities. Unfortunately, their proposal fell on deaf ears on Capitol Hill.

20. During the 50th Anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg in 1913, arrangements were made for a joint reunion of Union and Confederate veterans. The commission in charge of the event made sure they had enough accommodations for the black Union veterans, but were completely surprised when unexpected black Confederates arrived. The white Confederates immediately welcomed their old comrades, gave them one of their tents, and "saw to their every need". Nearly every Confederate reunion including those blacks that served with them, wearing the gray.

21. The first military monument in the US Capitol that honors an African-American soldier is the Confederate monument at Arlington National cemetery. The monument was designed 1914 by Moses Ezekiel, a Jewish Confederate. Who wanted to correctly portray the "racial makeup" in the Confederate Army. A black Confederate soldier is depicted marching in step with white Confederate soldiers. Also shown is one "white soldier giving his child to a black woman for protection".- source: Edward Smith, African American professor at the American University, Washington DC.

22. Black Confederate heritage is beginning to receive the attention it deserves. For instance, Terri Williams, a black journalist for the Suffolk "Virginia Pilot" newspaper, writes: "I've had to re-examine my feelings toward the [Confederate] flag started when I read a newspaper article about an elderly black man whose ancestor worked with the Confederate forces. The man spoke with pride about his family member's contribution to the cause, was photographed with the [Confederate] flag draped over his lap that's why I now have no definite stand on just what the flag symbolizes, because it no longer is their history, or my history, but our history."

Resources:

Charles Kelly Barrow, et.al. Forgotten Confederates: An Anthology About Black Southerners (1995). Currently the best book on the subject.

Ervin L. Jordan, Jr. Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia (1995). Well researched and very good source of information on Black Confederates, but has a strong Union bias.

Richard Rollins. Black Southerners in Gray (1994). Excellent source.

Dr. Edward Smith and Nelson Winbush, "Black Southern Heritage". An excellent educational video. Mr. Winbush is a descendent of a Black Confederate and a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV).

This fact page is not an all inclusive list of Black Confederates, only a small sampling of accounts. For general historical information on Black Confederates, contact Dr. Edward Smith, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20016; Dean of American Studies. Dr. Smith is a black professor dedicated to clarifying the historical role of African Americans.



http://www.37thtexas.org/html/BlkHist.html

Natty
06-24-2010, 11:31
actually, even all of the southern slaves weren't freed, since Lincoln made an exception for the loyal southern and border areas. The EP allows them to carve out specific areas where slaves were to be freed and it ONLY included areas in rebellion, not loyal areas.



This very true, Bren.

'Border states' Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri were allowed to keep slavery as long as they did not officially secede from the US and join the Confederacy.

Some occupied areas under Union control in Virginia could keep their slaves also.

And then you had New Jersey a state who had 88,000 soldiers fighting for the Union to invade the South while they still had slavery at home until after the war was over. NJ didn't give up their slaves until they were forced to by the 13th Amendment.

6.000 New Jersey soldiers were killed in the Civil War.

Were they fighting to free the slaves in the South?

Did they know that their own state still had slaves?

Bren
06-24-2010, 14:49
This very true, Bren.

'Border states' Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri were allowed to keep slavery as long as they did not officially secede from the US and join the Confederacy.

Some occupied areas under Union control in Virginia could keep their slaves also.

Also, parts of Louisiana, around NOLA.

Mushinto
06-24-2010, 15:07
Actually, who gives a ****?

I wish you dumbass yankees and dumbass hillbillies would forget about the past and look toward the future.

We are facing an enemy who does not care one bit on which side of the Mason-Dixon Line we live.

They just are counting on us not getting along.

Gray_Rider
06-24-2010, 22:49
Bren,

A thousand thanks for your post concerning the forgotten men in gray. You mentioned Nelson Winbush. I have had the very distinct pleasure of meeting him on several occasions. I have had the honor to have held to my breast and have kissed the Southern Cross that was draped over his grandfather's casket.* Once, as he was gathering up his display, a small fragment of thread fell from his grandfather's old gray kepi. (pronounced kay-pee) That tiny piece of thread is amongst my most prized possessions.
Mr. Winbush's grandfather you see was a slave and a black Confederate soldier. He attended 39 Confederate reunions and asked to be buried with his reunion medals. All but about four medals, which could not be found at the time of the funeral, were interred with him. I have held these encased medals in my hands.

* Each time I see the old "Southern Cross" (when it is properly and rightfully displayed) I salute it, nod to it, or when possible, I press it to my breast and kiss it in memory of those who fought for it and fell beside it. It is my flag.

Mushinto,

I "gives a =====! " The blood of my ancestors was poured out for that flag, and I will not forget them! They died that this nation. So concieved in liberty. Of, by, and for the people, that it would not perish from the earth. Sadly that dream was defeated. That nation did perish from the earth. But their flag. My flag. Still waves for the same reason and for the same freedoms. DEO VINDICE!!

GRAY_RIDER

"You are the gray rider. You would not make peace
with the bluecoats! You may go in peace!"

RichardB
06-25-2010, 07:37
My flag has 50 stars. :patriot:

Vic777
06-25-2010, 08:07
Something happened since then to change the idea of what the flag stands for. You pose an interesting question, maybe it is based upon the perceived views of those who fly the flag. Has the display of the Confederate Flag increased or decreased and what are the motivations of those who fly it? It has to be one of the most beautiful flags ever designed.

Natty
06-25-2010, 09:38
It has to be one of the most beautiful flags ever designed.

Agreed.

http://blog.news-record.com/staff/jrblog/rebel-flag.jpg

Natty
06-25-2010, 10:07
It is my guess that ignorance is the reason that many people do not like the Confederate flag. Most of the people who hate this flag don't even know that it is the Confederate Naval Jack flag. It was displayed by Confederate ships.

The Confederate battle flag carried by soldiers on land was square not rectangular.

As it has been said... not a single slave ever came to the US from Africa on a ship flying the Confederate flag. They came on US ships flying the US flag and also they came on European ships.

Also as already noted here...

The US had slavery for 90 years.

If you go back to when we were British colonies, we had slavery here for over 200 years.

The Confederacy only had slavery for 4 years.

Most of the people who have issues with the Confederate flag need a history lesson.

By the way here is the Confederate flag...No one seems offended by this flag.

http://www.confederatemercantile.com/1stNatlCSA.jpg

Bren
06-26-2010, 15:41
Actually, who gives a ****?

I wish you dumbass yankees and dumbass hillbillies would forget about the past and look toward the future.

We are facing an enemy who does not care one bit on which side of the Mason-Dixon Line we live.

They just are counting on us not getting along.

From a southern standpoint, it's hard to imagine an enemy more dangerous to us than the yankee in the white house, than and now.

Mushinto
06-26-2010, 16:09
From a southern standpoint, it's hard to imagine an enemy more dangerous to us than the yankee in the white house, than and now.
Yankee? Yankee?

What? Is he from NORTH KENYA or something?

Even if he had been born in, say Hawaii, He would not be a Yankee.

Bill Clinton lives in NYC, but he is NOT A YANKEE.

He's one of yourn.

:rofl:

ML

RichardB
06-26-2010, 16:29
Don't point your fingers at the north as the cause of America's problems. L. B Johnson was not a Yankee, nor is Jimmy Carter or Al Gore.:tongueout: But all three are vets does that mean you want to slam the American legion?:supergrin:.

Gray_Rider
07-08-2010, 15:21
As to the beauty of the "Southern Cross", -square or rectangular- as Jack Nicholson (as "The Joker") said in the original Tim Burton "Batman" movie... "I don't know if its art, but I like it!"

If you ever see rectangular Southern cross with no star in the center, it is either General Jackson's or General Forrest's flag. Both flags were produced before Kentucky was counted amongst the Southern Confederacy.

The flag's crossed bars is a St. Andrew's cross. St. Andrew, Christ's 1st disciple, considered himself unworthy to be crucified in the manner as his saviour and convinced his executioners to tie him to the X upside down though he was in his late 80's. He survived for three days witnessing to passerby in unimaginable agony. Finally, he was ordered cut down but he had died shortly before he was released. Funny how a symbol that honors a Christian and a Jew is supposedly a "racist" or anti Jewish image.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Gray_Rider
07-08-2010, 15:46
There is a word for "Southerners" like LBJ, Carter, Gore, Clinton, Andrew Johnson, Sam Houston, et al.

The term is "Scalawag" and scalawags are held in lower contempt by patriotic Southerners than Yankees.

If thats possible.

Its another word for traitor or turncoat.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Gray_Rider
07-10-2010, 15:16
"The South is scceeding from the North because the two are not homogeneous. They have different instincts, different appetites, different morals, and a different culture."

Anthony Trollope, a British citizen who traveled in the North and South during the early part of the war.

"Governor, if I had forseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Court house; no sir, not by me. Had I forseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand!"

General Robert E. Lee in a private conversation with Governor Stockdale of Texas.
August, 1870.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

"He may speak well and read the Bible, but hes still an Injun!
An' his rules is his rules!"

RichardB
07-11-2010, 16:51
As a former enlisted man, Lee's willingness to waste the lives of thousands more southern men in futile gestures makes me cringe. But I am not fit to judge a 19th Century aristocrat.

It is ironic that when Lee surrendered, the very strong President of the United States on March 4, 1865 had already announced his postwar policy:
“With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.“

Lincoln was murdered soon after the end of the war and weaker men were left to direct the reconstruction. I suspect the post war period would have been much better for the confederacy if Lincoln remained president.

Hipneckonwheels
07-12-2010, 08:09
Now that we've heard from the pagan left, I guess this thread is complete.

ML

Well, you got the pagan part right anyway...

Gray_Rider
07-16-2010, 18:21
Richard,

With only a nod, Lee could have continued the war for decades as a guerrilla action. Many of his officers and men pleaded with him for just his nod. Just a hint of his blessing.Thousands of trained troops could have melted into the mountains and harried the Union invader much as the Viet Cong would do 100 years later. The bloodletting could be going on till this day.

It was the worst fear the Northern generals imagined.

With only a nod... But he advised his men and the Southern Confederacy to be "good Americans", even to sign the hated pledge to never take up arms against the Federal monster again.

Still. He wished he had died leading his troops wrather than live under the despot's heel.

"Had I forseen the results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand!" "There would have been no surrender..." No braver man ever took the breath of life.

I too believe it may have gone better for the South had Lincoln lived. But Lincoln had a terrible habit of talking out of both sides of his mouth. And. I also believe Lincoln was murdered by a cabal of his own for his feared "soft treatment" of the South. But that is another story.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

"Hoist on high the Bonny Blue flag that bears a single star!"

"He may speak well and read the Bible, but hes' still an Injun! An' his rules is his rules!"

RichardB
07-17-2010, 10:26
There are many others on this board who can discuss guerilla warfare based on current experience. But here is my take:

Lee recognized that these proposals were pipe dreams and did not OK them. National Redoubts are always part of a discussion but in recent history they have not played a big part in warfare. I'm not sure that the mountain people would welcome the confederate soldiers since they tended to have anti slavery feelings as a group. Whatever support that might be provided by the indigenous mountaineers would not last for long after the US government began sending troops in to find the holdouts. The mountaineers tend not to like outsiders messing around on their turf.

I welcome those who have more information on the subject to interject.

Natty
07-17-2010, 13:01
Lincoln was murdered soon after the end of the war and weaker men were left to direct the reconstruction. I suspect the post war period would have been much better for the confederacy if Lincoln remained president.

I would agree that the post war period would have been better for the South if Lincoln had not been killed.

However, the war was not over when Lincoln was killed. Lee had surrendered only his Army of Northern Virginia. Several other armies were still in the field.

About Lincolns death...The Dahlgren papers affair prove that the Union was trying to assassinate Confederate President Jefferson Davis and members of his cabinet.

And of course, the Commander-In-Chief is a perfectly legitimate target.

The US has tried to kill other country's Presidents several times.

Big Bird
07-17-2010, 13:12
If the Southern Army had "melted into the mountains" they would have starved to death in a season... Hell, they wouldn't have any slaves with them to grow their food!
And part of Gray Rider's rationalization for keeping slaves is people would starve if the slaves were freed. So by extension the southern "guerrilla" Army would logically die for lack of food... But the Southern Army was starving when it had open lines of communication and freedom of maneuver. They wouldn't make it a season holed up in the mountains. And they also would be ineffective in any military sense. Several Indian tribes tried the same strategy in the 19th century and ended up starving and dead too.

Lincoln was a Southerner by birth BTW... Born in Hodgenville KY....

You want to see what a southern "guerrila" fights like...look at John Hunt Morgan's murderous raids on civilian farms.... Seems like there were scalawags on both sides...
My wife's family was from Paintsville KY and Morgan's raiders "visited" that quiet mountain town during the war. Seems the Confederate soldier's had a similar notion of chivalry and valor to that of General Sherman during his march to the sea! There were plenty of demons on both sides of this thing. Blue and Gray...

Natty
07-18-2010, 01:11
If the Southern Army had "melted into the mountains" they would have starved to death in a season... Hell, they wouldn't have any slaves with them to grow their food!
And part of Gray Rider's rationalization for keeping slaves is people would starve if the slaves were freed.

Jethro, why did Union states keep their slaves after all the Confederate slaves were freed?

Natty
07-18-2010, 01:18
Lincoln was a Southerner by birth BTW... Born in Hodgenville KY....



Lincoln's family owned slaves In Pennsylvania during the Colonial period (Mordecai Lincoln)

Lincoln married into a prominent slave owning family (Todds).

Natty
07-18-2010, 01:32
You want to see what a southern "guerrila" [sic] fights like...look at John Hunt Morgan's murderous raids on civilian farms...

If it makes Yankees feel better to divert away from Sherman's massive war crimes by mentioning John Hunt Morgan, that is pitifully non perspective.

Big Bird
07-18-2010, 09:41
Jethro, why did Union states keep their slaves after all the Confederate slaves were freed?

1.Because the Confederacy was considered to be under rebellion and therefore subject to the war powers of the presidency. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and its scope only applied to the States in rebellion. A presidential decree freeing the slaves would have NO legal impact on the few pro-union slave states.

2. To free the slaves in the border states that did not join the Confederacy would legally require a Constitutional Amendment. For many political reasons it was impossible to pass a Constitutional Amendment to Outlaw slavery until the end of the War.

Nothing new or profound here. Its simply the truth.

Big Bird
07-18-2010, 09:41
Lincoln's family owned slaves In Pennsylvania during the Colonial period (Mordecai Lincoln)

Lincoln married into a prominent slave owning family (Todds).

I see...so that proves?

Big Bird
07-18-2010, 09:44
If it makes Yankees feel better to divert away from Sherman's massive war crimes by mentioning John Hunt Morgan, that is pitifully non perspective.

Not if your family was one of the farms whose Morgan's Bandits burned and had women who were raped by his men.

Even the Confederacy was appalled at what he did!

Of course if we are comparing atrocities need I mention the 4 million people held in bondage for the sole purpose of the economic greed of their masters? Nahhhh Sherman was certainly worse than that...He had to at least kill 6 or 7 million southerners right? wahhhhh nonsense. You want to keep bringing up moral issues I will continue to throw that back at you. And you will have to eat the truth of it forever!

Natty
07-18-2010, 10:10
Not if your family was one of the farms whose Morgan's Bandits burned and had women who were raped by his men.



I'm sure everyone knows about the fires Sherman was responsible for.

Sherman ordered the kidnapping of 400 or so women from Roswell Georgia. Most of whom were never heard from again.

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1086

Natty
07-18-2010, 10:14
Of course if we are comparing atrocities need I mention the 4 million people held in bondage for the sole purpose of the economic greed of their masters?

Holding these people in bondage was legal under United States law and supported by a recent US Supreme court ruling. And they were held in bondage under the US flag for 90 years.

Gray_Rider
07-18-2010, 11:03
As I have said here before, slavery was the South's achelles heel. A means to an end. It is used as the cover-all excuse for the war and all its unconstitutional, illegal, and moral wrongs. The South could have kept it's slaves at any time had they just laid down their arms and returned to the "Union". Its hard to erase 150 years of lies and deception. The South was a farming society that was dependent on slave labor, right or wrong. Thousands of those slaves came from northern states after the industrial revolution made their services obsolete. They were sold to the South, not given their freedom. Then the sainted northern abolitionists wanted the South to just give up millions of 1860's dollars and change everything overnight. Worked real good didn't it?

The Confederate army did pretty well on starvation rations, defeating the best equipped and serviced army in the world consistently for over three years. It took tens of thousands of imported foregin born troops to finally destroy the constutional republic set up by our founding fathers. Ending slavery is the excuse used for destroying that republic and all it's freedoms, and the American public bought it hook line and sinker.

General Cleborne was right.

If you want a good update on the North's war crimes and the reasons for the atrocity called "The Civil War" Bird, (and any other gentle readers of this old Secessh's "ramblings") read the following books...

"War for What?" "The Real Lincoln" "War Crimes Against Southern Civilians"
F.W. Springer Thomas J. De Lorenzo Walter Brian Cisco
Nippert Publishing Three Rivers Press Pelican Press

There are more books; but if these don't change anyone's minds, there's no hope.
If you can read "War for what?" or "War crimes against Southern civilians", dry eyed, your heart is colder than a Montana winter. Bird tends to forget these people were Americans. Americans who wanted nothing more than to be let go in peace, and have the government their founders laid down, not be murdered and raped in their own beds by other so called "Americans" to defeat and destroy that government once and for all. War criminals were kept in the Whitehouse. Their pictures grace our currency.

And the South is the "bad guy"?!

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Big Bird
07-18-2010, 15:58
Holding these people in bondage was legal under United States law and supported by a recent US Supreme court ruling. And they were held in bondage under the US flag for 90 years.

Just because it was legal doesn't mean it was moral. Hell, under the laws of the Reich Hitler legally killed 6 million Jews...

Mushinto
07-18-2010, 21:47
You guys do know that this thread was moved to the Furball Forum?

Grovenator
08-02-2010, 19:09
Just because it was legal doesn't mean it was moral. Hell, under the laws of the Reich Hitler legally killed 6 million Jews...

You really are full of it aren't you?

Gray_Rider
05-23-2011, 15:47
One thing I have noticed in any flame war about anything concerning the Confederacy is that one side quietly puts forth mountains of facts about the war and its consequences 150 years later. IE The Federal government's utter disregard of international law, the destruction of the Constitution, the loss of freedoms that were handed down by our forefathers. The ending of states rights. The end of the people's control of the federal monster. Rape. Murder. Grand scale starvation. On and on and on. The opposite side just screams YOU LOST!! GET OVER IT!! WE ENDED SLAVERY!!

Slavery existed in this country under the striped banner for over 89 years. The Confederacy existed for about five years. Slavery hands down built this country. It was ending peacefully. Warts and all. Like or not. It wasn't possible to do it without slavery. Get over THAT.

The Federal government wanted the South's vast wealth much like they coveted the lands of the Indians. They stopped at nothing and destroyed everything in their path to achieve it, and then hung ending slavery out as an excuse for the destruction and massive loss of life and treasure. States rights had to be destroyed first.

YOU. Get over THAT, and maybe I will furl my hated Southern Cross. Till then, she will fly everywhere I go. Funny how the South "lost" and Yankees mock the South's vow to rise again, but everyone seems to fear we will.....

Psssst! We already have!

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Gray_Rider
05-23-2011, 15:59
And I don't see any calls to 'enslave' anyone or any calls to round up all blacks and deport them back to wherever away from our shores. That was Saint, Honest Abe's idea. Just another fact that is ignored in the We won! YOU LOST! chants. You should be glad Abe's people had him murdered. Had he got his way it would have been a very different "Union", and blacks may have had real trouble these past 150 years AND at the Federal governments hands.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

clancy
05-30-2011, 07:28
And I don't see any calls to 'enslave' anyone or any calls to round up all blacks and deport them back to wherever away from our shores. That was Saint, Honest Abe's idea. Just another fact that is ignored in the We won! YOU LOST! chants. You should be glad Abe's people had him murdered. Had he got his way it would have been a very different "Union", and blacks may have had real trouble these past 150 years AND at the Federal governments hands.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

1. Lincoln was far from the first to advocate the colonization of free blacks back to Africa. The first group that I am aware of is the American Colonization Society, cofounded by Henry Clay around 1816. As someone who seems to think they know a lot about American history, why would you make such a statement?

2. Could you provide any documentation that Lincoln was murdered by his "people"?

3. Would you consider Jim Crow Laws, state sanctioned enforced segregation, lynchings, bombings, murders and the use of police dogs and firehoses against peacefully marching people benign acts of local and state governments? Would you consider Federally ordered desegragation of our Armed Forces and schools real trouble?

4. While you seem it appropriate to fly the flag of the Confederacy, a government that existed for only 4 years, why do you deem it so important to do so when the United States has been in existence for over 200 years?

5. Do you feel it appropriate to call The Civil War just that, or do you prefer to use something like Lincoln's War, The War of Northern Aggression, or some other name? As Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Nathan Bedford Forrest referred to The Late Unpleasantness as The Civil War would you have disagreed with any of them, especially Bedford Forrest?

6. You have referred to State's Rights. Could you give me an example of a right that the Northern States had that the South did not? As an advocate of State's Rights, would you say it wrong for the Southern States to push The Fugitive Slave Act into law? Other than the right to own another human being, is there any other "right" that is referred to in the phrase State's Rights?

I look forward to your answers. If they are as amusing as I think they shall more questions will follow.

clancy
06-01-2011, 06:11
Ok, Gray Rider, as you are no doubt pondering how to best answer my first battery of questions, here are some more for you to consider:

1. As the slave holding states were very concerned with losing the balance of power in the Senate and Congress, do you agree with the attempts at annexing Nicaragua and Cuba, and have them established as slave states?

2. If the protection of slavery was not the driving force behind secession, why is it protected in Articles 1, sections 2, 3, 4, and 9? Why is it guaranteed in perpetuity that the right to own negro slaves will not be impaired?

3. If slavery was such a benign institution, as some Southerrn apologists would have us believe, why were Federal armies overwhelmed with slaves who escaped plantations?

4. Depending on who you read, there were anywhere from 25,000 to 50,000 slaves who willingly took up arms to protect ther right to be owned. If that were truly the case, don't you think that Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee would have been aware of it? Why was General Patrick Cleburne's career ruined because he proposed arming slaves and putting them in the ranks. Why did the Native Guard, an all black Militia unit that was formed at the beginning of the war not fire a single shot in defense of New Orleans, but immediatly go over to the Federal side?

I have more questions for you, and look forward to your answering these.

HexHead
06-01-2011, 06:28
Not trying to start a flame war but why is the CSA flag seen in such a bad light by most people today? What changed in the past 20 years? I am curious because I can remember a time when it was not only seen as a symbol of hate.

Black man in the White House now.

Blast
06-05-2011, 21:31
It's over... get over it:upeyes:


http://images.cheezburger.com/imagestore/2011/2/25/e085d83e-d4c2-4c29-bc34-f4007240d1cc.jpeg

stevelyn
06-08-2011, 08:44
Originally Posted by marksiwel

Would Africa be such a mess if we hadnt had the slave trade and the Europeans had colonized it?

:upeyes:

Slavery wouldn't have been possible without the cooperation of rival tribal Africans that were engaged in the trade against their enemies.

No white folk from Europe or the US was going to land on the continent and start rounding up slaves and be successful. Their heads would have been on sticks outside the approaches to the villages.

African nations problems are of their own making.

Ever notice that things didn't start going to **** there until AFTER the European colonial powers left?

Gray_Rider
06-10-2011, 23:14
Clancy.

For starters, I would suggest you (And all the other Confederacy haters at this site)read the following book(s). Many of your questions are answered in EXTREME detail within their pages.

The South Was Right
Pelican Press

James Ronald Kennedy
Walter Donald Kennedy

Myths of American Slavery
Pelican Press
Walter D. Kennedy

Black History as written by White Liars
Dixie Depot Books
www.dixiedepot.com (http://www.dixiedepot.com)


War for What?

Francis W. Springer
Nippert Publishing
Springfield Tenn.

War Crimes against Southern Civilians
Walter Brian Cisco
Pelican Press


The Politically Incorrect Guide to The South
" " " Guide to the Civil War

Clint Johnson
H.W. CrockerIII (Respectfully)

The Real Lincoln
Lincoln Unmasked

Three Rivers Press N.Y
Thomas J DiLorenzo



Slavery existed in the world for thousands of years. It wasn't "evil" until the South purchased most of the slaves north of the Mason Dixon Line. People's lives depended upon slave labor for hundreds of years in this country. Slavery wasn't "cool", "hip", "chick", fair or wonderfull. It just worked to establish this country out of raw wilderness and naked savagery. Nothing else did. Period. End of arguement. "Get over" THAT. PUH-lease!

Black slaves were imported by Yankee slavers before, during, and after the war. The South didn't have slave ships, and the Star Spangled Banner flew over said ships for decades even if Americans weren't sailing them.

See above books or any one of the above books for detailed answers to most if not all of your questions.

Kindest regards.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

"Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have planted will never be uprooted!"

V.I. Lenin

The Yankees have had over 200 years.

Gray_Rider
06-10-2011, 23:23
Oh, and for a detailed study of the hated "Southern Cross" (The Confederate Battle Flag)


Embattled Banner
A reasonable Defense of the Confederate Battle Flag

Turner Publishing Co.
Paducah Ky.

Don Hinkle

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

"I have heard. You are the gray rider. You would not make peace with the Bluecoats. You may go in peace."

Chief Ten Bears to the "outlaw" Josey Wales

Gray_Rider
06-10-2011, 23:27
Blast.

When this nation openly presents the truth about Lincoln's War, we will consider "getting over" it.

Till then, don't hold your breath or stand on one leg.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Gray_Rider
06-11-2011, 12:46
[QUOTE=clancy;17422358]1. Lincoln was far from the first to advocate the colonization of free blacks back to Africa. The first group that I am aware of is the American Colonization Society, cofounded by Henry Clay around 1816. As someone who seems to think they know a lot about American history, why would you make such a statement?

I didn't say he owned the idea. I mentioned this fact because it is ignored by history and Lincoln who was clearly a bigot (as were most whites of the era by the standards of today) had no love for blacks. Free or slave.
He is fondly remembered for "freeing the slaves". His famous proclamation was meant to turn slaves against their masters in the South. Most slaves stayed with their families, their homes, their lives, and their supposedly cruel and hated masters. They were entrusted with the lives of thousands of helpless white women, children, the enfebled, and the old. Most were true to their families and homes. IE Their WHITE FOLKS. Even when they could have fled or destroyed all the above.

2. Could you provide any documentation that Lincoln was murdered by his "people"?

See books listed. War for What? in particular.

3. Would you consider Jim Crow Laws, state sanctioned enforced segregation, lynchings, bombings, murders and the use of police dogs and firehoses against peacefully marching people benign acts of local and state governments? Would you consider Federally ordered desegragation of our Armed Forces and schools real trouble?

Sadly most of these were brought on by federal intervention in Southern states' affairs begining with (De) Construction in 1865. It wasn't pretty or fair, but the North got EXACTLY what it bought and paid for.

4. While you seem it appropriate to fly the flag of the Confederacy, a government that existed for only 4 years, why do you deem it so important to do so when the United States has been in existence for over 200 years?

Our Confederate heritage is under assault. Our symbols used to be everywhere. Now Confederate Battle flags are being torn from Confederate soldiers' graves, and the Southern Cross is villified for a pack of lies. Over 50,000 Confederate civilians died defending that flag. Don't ask me to forget that or "get over" that. "Died" includes death by starvation, cold blooded murder, and denial of medicines.

5. Do you feel it appropriate to call The Civil War just that, or do you prefer to use something like Lincoln's War, The War of Northern Aggression, or some other name? As Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Nathan Bedford Forrest referred to The Late Unpleasantness as The Civil War would you have disagreed with any of them, especially Bedford Forrest?

I prefer to call it what it was. Lincoln's war. The War of Northern Aggression, America's Holocost. It was an unprovoked unconstutional war against a people that did the North no harm and in clear violation of the Constitution and international law at that time. We asked only to be left in peace and to be left alone. I disagree with NONE of the above mentioned Generals. Please study all of these people carefully before you make any assumptions. N.B. Forrest for instance had fifty black Confederates that acted as his personal bodyguard. He said better Confederates did not serve than his black bodyguards. He worked to heal relations with blacks after the war and encouraged blacks to become whatever they could atain in life.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

P.S. My son is named for Jackson Forrest and Lee.

clancy
06-11-2011, 20:03
1. In reply to your not saying it was Lincoln's idea to send the slaves back to Africa, please reference "that was Saint, Honest, Abe's idea". Such a statement does lead one to think you mean it was Lincoln's idea.

2. War for What does look interesting, and I shall indeed read it; But please understand I am not a "South hater". As a long time student of the Civil War I know that there is far more to the war then the pap being taught in schools. But let's face it, with the average school year being 180 days, and all the history that needs be taught, not much of anything is taught in depth, sadly.

3. I have to disagree with your statement regarding this point. It wasn't unitl 1877, when Democrats took over the House, that Jim Crow laws came into being. In the Civil Rights Act of 1875, Republicans tried to outlaw discrimination, but Southern democrats immediatly took steps to see that it was not enforced. The Slaughterhosue Acts and the Presidential Election of 1876 and The Compromise of 1877 cemented the control of the Democrats in the South, and effectively put the blacks in the South in a worse position than before 1865.

4. I still do not understand the loyalty to a government of loosely confederated states that more often than not worked against each other instead of together. I believe the only Confederate state that did not have troops that fought for the Union was South Carolina. There were whole areas of Confederate States that were loyal to the Union. Only a fool would argue the lack of bravery of the average Confederate soldier, and to desecrate their graves and memory should bean offense that should lead to, at the very least, an old fashioned ass kicking. The myth of a Southern Confederacy, working in unison to defeat the North is just that, a myth.

5. I have studied the lives of the aforementioned Confederate Generals. Even someone as awestruck as John Allen Wyeth has not mentioned Forrest's 50 black bodyguards. Having read everything I can find about Forrrest over the years, I have never heard of this, doubt it's veracity and further doubt Forrest's need for an official bodyguard at all. Every soldier he commanded would be considered such.

6. So far you have deigned not to answer my question concerning Southern Filibuster's attempts to annex Cuba and Nicaruaga, the question about the South seceding to preserve the instituiton of slavery, andf my question about Stte's Rights. To this I add another. If the South was so unified in it's attempt to begin a new country, could you explain why desertion was so rampant? Why was the South the first to institute the draft?

7. You seem to be very impressed with the battlefield success of the Southern soldier. I tend to think that is due to the incompetent leadership of the Army of the Potomac. My grandmother would have been successful against the likes of McClellan, Pope, Burnside and Hooker. I often wonder why it is, when discussing how great the Confederate Army was, only Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia is the topic, and not the Western armies under Bragg, Beauregard, Retreatin' Joe Johnston and John Hood.

As before, I look forward to your responce. I enjoy an informed, intelligent debate. I find I learn very little from people I agree with.

Gray_Rider
06-11-2011, 20:32
[QUOTE=clancy;17422358]

6. You have referred to State's Rights. Could you give me an example of a right that the Northern States had that the South did not? As an advocate of State's Rights, would you say it wrong for the Southern States to push The Fugitive Slave Act into law? Other than the right to own another human being, is there any other "right" that is referred to in the phrase State's Rights?

The Northern majority changed our Constitutional Republic into a centralized national government via illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional
means into the centralized national government that has existed since before the war's end. This corruption changed the the nature of the government handed down by our forefathers from a voluntary compact of sovereign states to an empire established and controled by the Northern majority. This is what the fight over states rights was about. This was "The Cause" the South fought for.

As to the Fugitive Slave Act; Almost all of the slaves in the South were purchased from the North. Warts and all, these people were by law, property. Bought and paid for. They weren't bought to have a "sporting evening" with or to have someone to misuse. Southern plantations and other slave owners (mostly one or two slaves made up an average family farm's slave labor) depended upon said slave labor for their very survival. The average slave cost the modern equal of a new car. Try losing the cost equal of two to three new vehicles out of YOUR pocket because someone in another state says you don't have the right to own them. And, add in the fact that your provide for your family with said cars. Of course slavery was protected. Who wants to starve or see their homes and lands taken away to pay their debts? The industrial revolution took a long time to reach the tobacco and cotton fields. It required massive amounts of labor and slavery was the only answer for hundreds of years, even in 1861. Cotton and tobacco was the lifeblood of the country and slaves provided the labor that made the engine run. Too bad. So sad. But don't complain about slavery with your belly full and afordable clothes on your back.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Gray_Rider
06-11-2011, 21:03
I will attempt to answer some of your questions here but most require essay answers I don't have the time to complete. Please see the above mentioned books. MUCH untaught Southern history abounds in them, including Forrest's black Confederates and the use of black soldiers in Southern armies. I will attempt to look up the references concerning Forrest's people.

Blacks, free and slave, were treated terribly before during and after the war. The South's loss of the war only served to exaserbate the situation for over 100 years. Ex slaves had no where to go as their masters and their "white folks" were left utterly destroyed financially. The Southern economy in ruins and the North constantly stiring racial trouble that lead to the formation of the KKK. The North's ill treatmant and the abandonment of them by the Republician party (the liberals of the day) worked mountains of evil on them too.

All of the above could have been avoided had the North allowed the South to peaceably seceede and at least offer to come to some sort of recompense for their slaves.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

clancy
06-11-2011, 22:19
[QUOTE=clancy;17422358]

6. You have referred to State's Rights. Could you give me an example of a right that the Northern States had that the South did not? As an advocate of State's Rights, would you say it wrong for the Southern States to push The Fugitive Slave Act into law? Other than the right to own another human being, is there any other "right" that is referred to in the phrase State's Rights?

The Northern majority changed our Constitutional Republic into a centralized national government via illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional
means into the centralized national government that has existed since before the war's end. This corruption changed the the nature of the government handed down by our forefathers from a voluntary compact of sovereign states to an empire established and controled by the Northern majority. This is what the fight over states rights was about. This was "The Cause" the South fought for.

As to the Fugitive Slave Act; Almost all of the slaves in the South were purchased from the North. Warts and all, these people were by law, property. Bought and paid for. They weren't bought to have a "sporting evening" with or to have someone to misuse. Southern plantations and other slave owners (mostly one or two slaves made up an average family farm's slave labor) depended upon said slave labor for their very survival. The average slave cost the modern equal of a new car. Try losing the cost equal of two to three new vehicles out of YOUR pocket because someone in another state says you don't have the right to own them. And, add in the fact that your provide for your family with said cars. Of course slavery was protected. Who wants to starve or see their homes and lands taken away to pay their debts? The industrial revolution took a long time to reach the tobacco and cotton fields. It required massive amounts of labor and slavery was the only answer for hundreds of years, even in 1861. Cotton and tobacco was the lifeblood of the country and slaves provided the labor that made the engine run. Too bad. So sad. But don't complain about slavery with your belly full and afordable clothes on your back.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Again I ask, what State right did, say, New York have that, say, South Carolina did not? What right did South Carolina have that New York did not? Talking about changing a contitutional republic into a centralized national government is not answering the question, but avoiding it by talking in circles.

As for the Fugitive Slave Act, you are again avoiding anwering my question, do you feel it right for a Southern state to demand that a Northern state enforce that law, even though slavery may be illegal in that Northern state?

No informed person can deny that the North played a major part in the importation of slaves, prior to 1807. However, after Congress outlawed that, the North's participation in the slave trade effectively was eliminated. As far as this country being solely built by the institution of slavery, I disagree. The Irish, to name but one group of immigrants, had a to do with it, too. I have accounts of Irish day laborers being hired to do jobs that were considered to dangerous for valuable slaves to do, such as draining swamps.

As far as the Industrial revolution taking a long time to come to the South, don't you think that the rich plantation owners had a lot to do with that?

Prior to the invention of Eli Whitney's Cotton Gin, slavery was dieing out in this country, so your argument that slavery was necessary for centuries is specious, at best. It wasn't until cotton could be processed quickly and cheaply that cotton became "King". And when that happened, slaves became even more vital to the southern economy.

"Too bad so sad"? Come on man, you can do better than that to defend your position, can't you? And belly full and clothed, or hungry and naked, I will never condone the owning of one human being by another.

rgregoryb
06-12-2011, 21:39
You sir, make me ashamed that you are also a Fellow Texan

you are in Austin...that is not Texas it's eastern San Francisco

Bren
06-13-2011, 09:31
Wow! That's quite some vindication there. Still doesn't change the fact that the Confederacy enshrined in its constitution the EVIL, IMMORAL, CRUEL, and simply DISGRACEFUL institution of slavery. It had no intention of getting rid of it.

I take it you've never bothered to read the U.S. Constitution?:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Hilarious.:rofl:

One of the interesting points is that, while the U.S. Constitution allowed Congress to ban the importation of slaves, if it chose to do so, the CSA constitution outright banned the importation of slaves from outside the CSA/USA, and gave the CSA congress the power to further ban imports from the USA. As for being pro-slavery, all it did was give each state the right to choose its own laws on the issue, which wasn't much different than the U.S. Constitution had originally intended. The south clarified the language and also required each state to respect the property rights of the citizens of the other states in their slaves - much as the Supreme Court once said was required by the U.S. Constitution.

Natty
06-13-2011, 13:02
Lincoln on sending them back to Africa...

"If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means, succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery; and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost father-land, with bright prospects for the future; and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation."

--Abraham Lincoln-- July 6, 1852.

Natty
06-13-2011, 13:06
FACTS:

There was slavery under the Confederate flag for 4 years.

There was slavery under the American flag for 90 years.

Any questions?

Natty
06-13-2011, 13:08
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

Before there ever was a Confederacy...

"Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that people of African descent brought into the United States and held as slaves (or their descendants,[2] whether or not they were slaves) were not protected by the Constitution and could never be U.S. citizens.[3] The court also held that the U.S. Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories and that, because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court. Furthermore, the Court ruled that slaves, as chattels or private property, could not be taken away from their owners without due process."

Dragoon44
06-13-2011, 16:09
the CSA constitution outright banned the importation of slaves from outside the CSA/USA, and gave the CSA congress the power to further ban imports from the USA.

And the slave owners of the confederate states supported that ban just like they supported the ban on the importation of slaves into the US. The reason was obvious with such a ban in place not only was their "property" more valuable, they also became the sole source of slaves.

As for being pro-slavery, all it did was give each state the right to choose its own laws on the issue, which wasn't much different than the U.S. Constitution had originally intended.

The confederate constitution gave no such rights to it's member states. Quite the opposite, member states were prohibited from interfering or choosing for themselves about slavery.

ARTICLE I, Section 9, (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed.
ARTICLE IV, Section 2, (1) The citizens of each state . . . shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any state of this Confederacy with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
ARTICLE IV, Section 2, (3) [A] slave or other person held to service or labor in any state or territory of the Confederate States under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall . . . be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs.
ARTICLE IV, Section 3, (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory. . . . In all such territory, the institution of Negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.


The south clarified the language and also required each state to respect the property rights of the citizens of the other states in their slaves - much as the Supreme Court once said was required by the U.S. Constitution.

Except for the fact there was no law that made slavery legal, not federal law nor state law. Southern leaders at the time acknowledged that were no federal or state law that legitimized slavery, and also acknowledged that under the US constitution no such law could be passed.

Dragoon44
06-13-2011, 16:10
FACTS:

There was slavery under the Confederate flag for 4 years.

There was slavery under the American flag for 90 years.

Any questions?

And under the confederate flag and it's constitution slavery would have existed in perpetuity.

Dragoon44
06-13-2011, 16:28
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

Before there ever was a Confederacy...

"Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that people of African descent brought into the United States and held as slaves (or their descendants,[2] whether or not they were slaves) were not protected by the Constitution and could never be U.S. citizens.[3] The court also held that the U.S. Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories and that, because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court. Furthermore, the Court ruled that slaves, as chattels or private property, could not be taken away from their owners without due process."

Dredd Scot decision is a fine example of an activist court overreaching itself. Not only was the decision contrary to many existing state supreme court decisions and existing case law, as one of the dissenting Judges pointed out, once the court declared Scott had no standing to bring the suit and therefore the court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit the Court was obliged to simply dismiss the case, NOT issue rulings on it's merits.

clancy
06-13-2011, 17:54
Damn, I love a good debate!

Gray_Rider
06-13-2011, 18:20
[QUOTE=Gray_Rider;17481908]

Again I ask, what State right did, say, New York have that, say, South Carolina did not? What right did South Carolina have that New York did not? Talking about changing a contitutional republic into a centralized national government is not answering the question, but avoiding it by talking in circles.

As for the Fugitive Slave Act, you are again avoiding anwering my question, do you feel it right for a Southern state to demand that a Northern state enforce that law, even though slavery may be illegal in that Northern state?

Property. Bought and paid for. Get over it. Return the property, or pay for the property stolen.
These people cost their owners thousands in present day monies. Yeah. Let's just let that investment turn to vapor, and then have to replace said property so the owners could pay their bills and keep a roof up. Oh yes with more money they didn't have.

Slaves were property. They were bought and paid for. People's lives depended on them. (Including the slaves' lives) Give the slave owners their money back and I would call it square. Why do you South haters always demand the South give up their livelyhood. Property they gave much gold for. It was how things got done till machines took over. They are expected to just wash all that money down a sewer pipe.?

No informed person can deny that the North played a major part in the importation of slaves, prior to 1807. However, after Congress outlawed that, the North's participation in the slave trade effectively was eliminated. As far as this country being solely built by the institution of slavery, I disagree. The Irish, to name but one group of immigrants, had a to do with it, too. I have accounts of Irish day laborers being hired to do jobs that were considered to dangerous for valuable slaves to do, such as draining swamps.

Major role? The South had no slave ships.

As far as the Industrial revolution taking a long time to come to the South, don't you think that the rich plantation owners had a lot to do with that?

The cotton gin meant that more cotton could be grown. So again you wanted more people to be out of work, clothed, and fed at lower prices?

Prior to the invention of Eli Whitney's Cotton Gin, slavery was dieing out in this country, so your argument that slavery was necessary for centuries is specious, at best. It wasn't until cotton could be processed quickly and cheaply that cotton became "King". And when that happened, slaves became even more vital to the southern economy.

So they should have just freed the slaves and went home to desitution??!!

"Too bad so sad"? Come on man, you can do better than that to defend your position, can't you? And belly full and clothed, or hungry and naked, I will never condone the owning of one human being by another.

I can't believe that last statement. You don't have the same care about the Chinese, the Irish, the Indians or thousand of others over the centuries.



Ok. One more time...these questions require essay answers that I do not have time to research and answer. But. I will try to hit the highlights.

I say AGAIN. Read the books I have put forth. They answer in GREAT detail almost all your questions.


All the states (From colonial times, as set down by the founding fathers)had rights to control and keep under control the federal government. With the end of the war and the South's loss, that state control over the the federal government was effectively destroyed. Over the years the federal government exercised greater and greater control over the states, expecially the Southern states. See above mentioned books for mountains of proof and chapters devoted to this question.

As I discussed before. AT THE TIME. Slaves were property. Period. They were bought and paid for for one purpose. To provide the work force for the massive work entailed in the growing of cotton and tobacco. I'm sorry you won't see the facts and let your "moral" indignancy get in the way. Slavery built this country. Nothing else worked clancy. NOTHING! They tried it all and tried to end it for decades but tobacco and cotton took billions of man hours and whites couldn't get it done with out them. Slavery wasn't EVIL till the North used it to excuse the attack on the Southern Confederacy. If I stole something from you that you needed to live and feed your family, YOU WOULD COME AFTER ME. If your life and the lives of your family depended upon the use of slavery, I don't doubt you would crawl into a corner and starve to death. :dunno:

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Gray_Rider
06-13-2011, 18:53
And under the confederate flag and it's constitution slavery would have existed in perpetuity.


On what do you base this assumption Dragoon 44? Slavery was ended peacefully everywhere else in the western hemisphere* with the exception of Hati and the United States. It was being ended gradually in the South, well before the war. (See the books I have recomended. (R.E. Lee freed all the slaves he inhereted) The first abolition groups were started in the South in the 1830's or before, and were thriving till the North got involved and demanded they be set free with NO recorse or repayment. Guess what two countries have a problem with the slavery issue and massive racial problems to this day? (Trick question)

*Brazil's slavery ended peacefully 20 years after Lincoln's War. No one says they would not have extend slavery after it was economically unfeasable.

BY LAW. Slaves had to be clothed, housed, fed, given medical attention. Sick, injured, or elderly slaves had to be cared for until their deaths. Slaves that died unexpectedly through illness or accident had to be replaced and the cost of said slave "wrote off". Just the matter of another $400. to 800. to replace. 25 to 30 k in today's money. Yeah, go out and take a sledge hammer to your semi or car or tractor. Or. Set it free in a field somewhere to rust while you sit home and wait for the bank to foreclose.

Sick or injured employees at the time were left to fend for themselves. Die on the job leaving your faimly without a breadwinner? Too bad. Sooo sad. Kids were worked 12 to 14 hrs a day in Northern sweatshops. Loose a finger? Sorry kid go home. Mother sick you have to care for her? Sorry kid go home. Factory catches fire and dozens of young girls burn to death or jump to the street hundreds of feet below? Too bad sooo sad, there are more where you came from.....

Yeah. Evil for evil. American slavery wins out over that system everytime.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Dragoon44
06-13-2011, 20:06
On what do you base this assumption Dragoon 44?

The confederate states declaration of intent. Does that mean slavery WOULD have continued indefinitely? I doubt it. But that is clearly what the confederate states INTENDED.

The first abolition groups were started in the South in the 1830's or before, and were thriving till the North got involved and demanded they be set free with NO recorse or repayment.

The first american abolitionist group was the "Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage" founded in Philadelphia April 14, 1775. After the war the group reformed in 1784 with Benjamin Franklin as it's first president.

It was in the 1830's that the more radical free the slaves NOW movement began. Led by William Lloyd Garrison, one of the founders of the "American Anti slavery society."

BY LAW. Slaves had to be clothed, housed, fed, given medical attention. Sick, injured, or elderly slaves had to be cared for until their deaths. Slaves that died unexpectedly through illness or accident had to be replaced and the cost of said slave "wrote off". Just the matter of another $400. to 800. to replace. 25 to 30 k in today's money. Yeah, go out and take a sledge hammer to your semi or car or tractor. Or. Set it free in a field somewhere to rust while you sit home and wait for the bank to foreclose.

Sick or injured employees at the time were left to fend for themselves. Die on the job leaving your faimly without a breadwinner? Too bad. Sooo sad. Kids were worked 12 to 14 hrs a day in Northern sweatshops. Loose a finger? Sorry kid go home. Mother sick you have to care for her? Sorry kid go home. Factory catches fire and dozens of young girls burn to death or jump to the street hundreds of feet below? Too bad sooo sad, there are more where you came from.....


is this part of your pitch for "benign" slavery? So why don't you head over to a muslim country that still practices slavery and join up? you and your whole family since they will be taken care of. Sure you won't have freedom or liberty to do as you please but according to you, that's a good thing.

So, do you like the confederates despise the declaration of independence? they did, they savaged the part that says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So tell me how do YOU fit slavery into, " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Bren
06-14-2011, 04:55
And the slave owners of the confederate states supported that ban just like they supported the ban on the importation of slaves into the US. The reason was obvious with such a ban in place not only was their "property" more valuable, they also became the sole source of slaves.

Point being that the U.S. Constitution is "enshrined" as much slavery as the CSA, if not a little more.

The confederate constitution gave no such rights to it's member states. Quite the opposite, member states were prohibited from interfering or choosing for themselves about slavery.

EDIT: Actually, Dragoon44 was correct there. I just looked at Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 4, which says "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
Except for the fact there was no law that made slavery legal, not federal law nor state law. Southern leaders at the time acknowledged that were no federal or state law that legitimized slavery, and also acknowledged that under the US constitution no such law could be passed.

Even today, we don't require a law to make things legal - we never have and law doesn't work that way. Anything that is not illegal is legal.

Bren
06-14-2011, 04:57
Dredd Scot decision is a fine example of an activist court overreaching itself. Not only was the decision contrary to many existing state supreme court decisions and existing case law, as one of the dissenting Judges pointed out, once the court declared Scott had no standing to bring the suit and therefore the court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit the Court was obliged to simply dismiss the case, NOT issue rulings on it's merits.

At the time, half or more of America would have said that slavery was up to the states and that the constitution required each state to recognize property rights established in another. In fact, nearly everyone would agree today, if the issue was not slavery. That's how your car is still your car if somebody steals it and takes it to New Jersey.

clancy
06-14-2011, 04:59
"Slavery wasn't evil until the north used it as an excuse to attack the south". If you think owning another human being is not evil, than I don't see how we can have an educated discussion on anything. The Civil war was not fought by the North over slavery, but to preserve the union. The south seceded solely to preserve the institution of slavery. they did not have to secede to preserve slavery, they seceded because they were unable to expand slavery to insure the poreservation of the rich plantation owner's lifestyle. John Breckinridge was in put in the presidential race solely to act as a spoiler to insure Lincoln's victory and to give the southern fireeaters the excuse to secede when Limcoln won.

As you seem to think slavery was ok, I will admit that you and I are unable to intelligently discuss any subject, and will end my debate with you now.

Bren
06-14-2011, 08:19
"Slavery wasn't evil until the north used it as an excuse to attack the south". If you think owning another human being is not evil, than I don't see how we can have an educated discussion on anything. The Civil war was not fought by the North over slavery, but to preserve the union. The south seceded solely to preserve the institution of slavery. they did not have to secede to preserve slavery, they seceded because they were unable to expand slavery to insure the poreservation of the rich plantation owner's lifestyle. John Breckinridge was in put in the presidential race solely to act as a spoiler to insure Lincoln's victory and to give the southern fireeaters the excuse to secede when Limcoln won.

As you seem to think slavery was ok, I will admit that you and I are unable to intelligently discuss any subject, and will end my debate with you now.

That's your "intelligent response?" "If you don't agreee with me, you are stupid and tyour opinion has no merit?" Obviously, there was a time when slavery was not considered evil, and any intelligent, educated person is aware of that. The fact that the opinion doesn't agree with fairly recent modern morality, even though it was fine for about 99.XXX% of human history, does not translate into, "you are too stupid to make an argument." If anything, I'd say one can't have an intelligent discussion with a person who has no more historical perspective, in a historical discussion, than you have demonstrated.

Dragoon44
06-14-2011, 11:40
Point being that the U.S. Constitution is "enshrined" as much slavery as the CSA, if not a little more.

Not true, at most the US constitution "ignored" slavery, the Founding Fathers knew that slavery was incompatibly with the constitution so they pretended it did not exist as far as the constitution goes. The rebel leaders were also aware of this fact that is why they wrote their own constitution "correcting" the problems with the U.S. Constitution.

The vice president of the Confederate states, Alexander Stephens made this perfectly clear in his "Cornerstone" speech. In it he enumerated the differences between the U.S. Constitution and the Confederate one.

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution"

Even today, we don't require a law to make things legal - we never have and law doesn't work that way. Anything that is not illegal is legal.

Is that so? so even though there were no laws legitimizing slavery it was ok because in YOUR opinion, someone can be deprived of their liberty WITHOUT due process under the US constitution.

I reject your position, and so did many of the confederate leaders .

Senator James M. Mason (D., Va.) had publicly admitted in 1850, that there were no states that had legally established slavery. All states had slavery bans written into their constitutions via Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights style clauses.


At the time, half or more of America would have said that slavery was up to the states and that the constitution required each state to recognize property rights established in another. In fact, nearly everyone would agree today, if the issue was not slavery. That's how your car is still your car if somebody steals it and takes it to New Jersey.

And here was the BIG problem for slave owners, Article 4, section2 clause three states,

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

lacking any laws legitimizing slavery they could not establish that the "fugitive slave" was "held to service" under the laws of their state. Northern states blocked them by requiring jury trials to establish the legitimacy of the southern slave owners claims to their "Property". They lost because the southern slave owners could not establish that the fugitive "slave" was held to service under the laws of their state.

Dragoon44
06-14-2011, 12:55
A lot of southern apologist promote the myth that the South wanted to secede peacefully. the Historical record shows otherwise.

Lincoln was not elected on a platform of abolishing slavery where it already existed. He made it clear he would not interfere with Slavery where it was already established. He vowed however that he would fight to prevent the expansion of slavery into new territories and new States.

This was what the South would not tolerate and why they seceded even before he took office. The Confederate states were not interested in the protection of slavery where it already existed they demanded that it be allowed to expand into new territories and new states.

"a congressional slave code [for territories, to] provide ironclad protection for our [slave] property in whatever new slave territory we annex—Cuba, Mexico, or Central America. If the North rejects our demand [to expand slavery], I would regard it as grounds for disunion."—Allan Nevins, Emergence of Lincoln, vol. 1, p 416.


When the rebel States began seceding the sitting president Buchanan. told them that Federal Forts would remain Federal forts. The rebel states seized them anyway. ( with the exception of a few like Fort Sumter.) Buchanan took no action, and neither did Lincoln once he was inaugurated. Lincoln sought to resupply Fort Sumter and even notified the Governor of the state that he was sending unarmed union supply ships to resupply the Fort. Confederate fired on the unarmed supply ships and drove them off.

The seizure of Union Forts and firing on Fort Sumter are nothing less than acts of war.

The Confederate states understood there was going to be no peaceful co existence with the US, they clearly stated their intent to take territories and establish new confederate states. War was inevitable.

Lincoln Proposed a constitutional amendment protecting slavery where it already existed, The south was not interested, they demanded they be allowed to expand slavery.

In 1862 Lincoln put forth 3 proposed constitutional amendments.


1. Federal compensation provided for states agreeing to abolish slavery by January 1, 1900.
2. Frees slaves who "enjoyed actual freedom by the chances of war" before "the end of the rebellion."
3. Congress authorized to provide for colonization outside of the United States of free blacks by their own consent.


Again the South was not interested.


The South was happy to be part of the Union as long as the 3/5ths compromise allowed them to dominate the Govt. When the South dominated they were the best friends of centralized Federal power, ramming legislation through infringing on the rights of other states. And blocking Northern legislation they did not like.

Once massive immigration into the North began and new states were formed and the south saw it's dominance slipping away they became dissatisfied and talk of secession began. And that is why they were not at all receptive to any of Lincolns overtures to peacefully rejoin the Union.

clancy
06-14-2011, 16:05
That's your "intelligent response?" "If you don't agreee with me, you are stupid and tyour opinion has no merit?" Obviously, there was a time when slavery was not considered evil, and any intelligent, educated person is aware of that. The fact that the opinion doesn't agree with fairly recent modern morality, even though it was fine for about 99.XXX% of human history, does not translate into, "you are too stupid to make an argument." If anything, I'd say one can't have an intelligent discussion with a person who has no more historical perspective, in a historical discussion, than you have demonstrated.

I never said his argument was stupid and had no merit, but if he, or anyone else, is so morally bankrupt that they believe slavery is not inherently evil than I don't see how I can intelligently idscuss the issue with him. As far as a time when slavery was not considered evil, I think you will find many our Founding Fathers uncomfortable, at best, and downright hostile, at worst, to the institution. Of course, I, as one who has no historical perspective, obviously cannot make that statement, despite having read extensively on the subject. If you, Gray Rider, or anyone else is so mired in the myth of the movie Gone With The Wind, revel in it. The events leading to the war were set in motion by a few rich Southern plantation owners, and the rest of the population was duped into going along with them. Had the South not seceded, the institution of slavery would have been untouched, but it would not have been allowed to expand. And there lay the problem. Without the expansion of the Slave States, and with it the guarantee of remaining in power of the planataion owners, their way of life was at risk, and they did not care what they did to tear apart this country, even if it meant the death of hundreds of thousands and the ruination of their way of life. But then again, as one with no historical perspective, I guess it is a foregone conclusion that I cannot make that statement, either.

Let me ask you this, as I have asked Gray Rider. As the mantra of Southern Revisionists is that the Civil War was fought over State's Rights, can you give me one example of a right that a resident of Mississippi had that a resident of Maine did not? Can you give me a right that a resident of Connecticut had that a resident of Alabama did not have? Gray Rider seems only able to skirt around the subject and give plattitudes to the Old South and condemn the evil Federal government.

chuck pullen
06-14-2011, 16:53
Having lived in Alabama all my life, I both understand and subscribe to my region's deep respect and pride in people like Lee, Cleburne, Longstreet, et al. It is not them, or their bravery in the Civil War, that reflects badly on the Confederate battle flag. They and the soldiers that served gallantly under them 150 years ago gave that banner all the glory it still has.

Instead, it is the dumba**, hate-spewing peckerwoods largely from areas outside the South, but also in it, who have stolen that banner to try to make it a symbol of hate. Unfortunately, in the eyes of the media and a large section of the public, they have succeeded in that. It is them I blame, not the symbol brave Southerners fought under or those brave men themselves.

chuck pullen
06-14-2011, 17:26
[QUOTE=glock_19guy1983;15261852]Murderers, Rapists, thieves, and arsonists. I hope every man that fought in Lincoln's army is roasting in Hell tonight.[/QUOTE

Really ? Think of Lawrence Chamberlain and John Gibbon for instance. Please tell me you aren't serious.

Dragoon44
06-14-2011, 18:47
Instead, it is the dumba**, hate-spewing peckerwoods largely from areas outside the South, but also in it, who have stolen that banner to try to make it a symbol of hate.

You mean peckerwoods that spew stuff like,



the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. Alexander Stephens, Vice president of the confederacy, "Cornerstone" speech 1861

the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color - a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.


Texas Articles of secession.

RichardB
06-15-2011, 09:05
"....Instead, it is the dumba**, hate-spewing peckerwoods largely from areas outside the South, but also in it,...."

Puller don't need to worry about the yankees and other outsiders you need to work to clean up the act a bit closer to home.

2007 Athens Alabama:

http://athens-al.purzuit.com/video/EfXD-a-QrX8.html

You will have a difficult time changing the photographed history of our south for the 1950's, 60's, and 70's and afterwards.

chuck pullen
06-15-2011, 13:41
I never said that racism isn't or wasn't a problem in the South. I acknowledged that it was. Instead, the point I was trying to make is that the reason the Confederate flag is NOW so controversial is that for the last 50 or more years it's been taken over by white supremacist groups like the klan and has become, in the public's mind, forever linked with those groups. Those are the peckerwoods I was talking about and they include any klan groups around here. Before those groups co-opted it, it was more of a historical symbol of the Confederacy.

redneck1861
06-15-2011, 20:46
I am not going to read the 10 pages of posts.

The Confederate Flag today has nothing to do with racism. Some people or groups that are racist may have adopted it, but it is just a flag. I am very proud of the Confederate flag, I actually have 3 Confederate Flag tattoo's, and 1 that is flying in my yard right now. I am very proud of my herritage, and my family that fought and died under that flag.

Natty
06-16-2011, 00:33
You mean peckerwoods that spew stuff like,


"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

.....Abraham Lincoln, September 18, 1858. Debate with Stephen A. Douglas, in the race for Illinois Senator.

clancy
06-16-2011, 05:04
I am not going to read the 10 pages of posts.

The Confederate Flag today has nothing to do with racism. Some people or groups that are racist may have adopted it, but it is just a flag. I am very proud of the Confederate flag, I actually have 3 Confederate Flag tattoo's, and 1 that is flying in my yard right now. I am very proud of my herritage, and my family that fought and died under that flag.

Do you have any family members who served in the Armed Forces of the United States of America? If so, do you feel the same pride for those that fought for the freedom of all Americans as you feel for those who fought for the right to deny the freedom of some people and to hold them as property?

Do you ever fly the flag of the Untied States of America, or have a tattoo of such?

Natty
06-16-2011, 08:25
Do you have any family members who served in the Armed Forces of the United States of America? If so, do you feel the same pride for those that fought for the freedom of all Americans as you feel for those who fought for the right to deny the freedom of some people and to hold them as property?

Do you ever fly the flag of the Untied States of America, or have a tattoo of such?

The Northern and Union states certainly had slavery. So they denied the freedom of some people and held them as property. Some Union states still had slavery after the Civil War was over. Funny how the Northern slanted view of history never seems to mention this.

The Northern/Union states also fought to deny the freedom and independence of the South.

Dragoon44
06-16-2011, 10:02
"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

.....Abraham Lincoln, September 18, 1858. Debate with Stephen A. Douglas, in the race for Illinois Senator.

Lincoln like the Founding Fathers certainly did not consider the black man the equal of the White man. Also like many of the Founding Fathers Lincoln considered slavery and evil.

Herein lies the fundamental differences between Lincoln and the "Peckerwoods" I quoted. Lincoln did not agree that the Black mans inequality with Whites made him subject to slavery, being owned and considered Chattel property.

Here are some more Lincoln quotes.

July 1, 1854:



If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B. -- why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?--

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly?--You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.




As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.

Dragoon44
06-16-2011, 10:12
I am not going to read the 10 pages of posts.

The Confederate Flag today has nothing to do with racism. Some people or groups that are racist may have adopted it, but it is just a flag. I am very proud of the Confederate flag, I actually have 3 Confederate Flag tattoo's, and 1 that is flying in my yard right now. I am very proud of my herritage, and my family that fought and died under that flag.

How could that be? is not the confederate flag the symbol of the Confederacy?

What did the Confederacy stand for? Despite the revisionist history put forth by the Neo Confederates today who have swallowed the myth of the "Lost cause" started by the losing confederates right after the war The evidence of what the Confederacy stood for is plainly stated in the confederates own words before and during the war.

On March 21, 1861 (less than two weeks after the Confederacy had formed its constitution), Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens delivered a policy speech setting forth the purpose of the new government. That speech was entitled “African Slavery: The Corner-Stone of the Southern Confederacy.”


How much more racist can you get than to believe that by virtue of your own race you have the right to enslave someone of another race?

Natty
06-16-2011, 10:41
How much more racist can you get than to believe that by virtue of your own race you have the right to enslave someone of another race?

Are you asking this same question about the United States, which had slavery for 90 years including after all the Confederate slaves were free?

Dragoon44
06-16-2011, 11:34
Are you asking this same question about the United States, which had slavery for 90 years including after all the Confederate slaves were free?

I am talking about how the US constitution did not promote or defend slavery, nor make it the cornerstone of the US Govt.

The Confederate Constitution did all of the above.

Keep ducking and dodging like the good little neo confederate you are.

Natty
06-16-2011, 11:42
I am talking about how the US constitution did not promote or defend slavery, nor make it the cornerstone of the US Govt.

The Confederate Constitution did all of the above.

Keep ducking and dodging like the good little neo confederate you are.

The US Supreme Court sure did defend the right to own slaves with the Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

And the US Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act that stated runaway slaves had to be returned to their masters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850.

Of course this was before there ever was a Confederacy.

Stating facts should not be confused with ducking and dodging.

Dragoon44
06-16-2011, 12:22
Dredd Scot still stands as one of the worst rulings ever made by the SCOTUS, And still today stands as a prime example of an activist court overreaching itself to further it's own agenda.

The Dissenting judges issued scathing and accurate dissent concerning the majority opinion. Detailing how the ruling flew in the face of established case law from state supreme courts and the Constitution itself. And last but not least how once the court declared Scott had not standing to bring the suit and it therefore had no jurisdiction, the court was obligated to simply dismiss the case and it was improper of the court to issue ANY rulings on the merits of the case after that.


The "fugitive slave act"

in which the word slave does not even appear. and whose wording was such that any state requiring the "slave" owner to prove that the "slave" was indeed his property "under the laws thereof" of their state prevented slave owners from taking escaped slaves back to their own states.

For the simple reason that no slave owner could establish that they owned the slave "Under the law thereof" of their states. since no state had legalized slavery and pro slavery leaders admitted public ally that not only did no slave holding states have laws legalizing slavery but such laws could not be passed under the US constitution or the constitutions of the states that all had Declaration of independence, and BOR style clauses written into their constitutions.

Senator James M. Mason (D., Va.) had publicly admitted in 1850, that there were no states that had legally established slavery. All states had slavery bans written into their constitutions via Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights style clauses.


Even the abolitionists pointed out the illegality of slavery.

A number of abolitionists said, "When we say that slavery is illegal, we mean not merely that it is morally wrong, wicked, or sinful, in the sight of God, but that it is likewise unlawful, by the established principles of human jurisprudence, just as murder, arson, robbery, theft, and assault and battery, are unlawful, and that there is no more valid law for [favoring] the one than there is for the other. We mean that slaveholding is illegal, as other criminal practices are illegal. We affirm that there is no legislation in any of the States that makes it legal. . . . Slavery can not possibly be legalized. In its very nature it is incapable of legalization. The standard writers on common law affirm the impossibility of legalizing slavery, even by positive municipal law. They declare the right to liberty to be inalienable, and that statutes against fundamental morality are void. . . . The nature of civil government and of civil law, as defined by all standard writers on those subjects, proves it impossible to legalize slavery. 'To secure' man’s inalienable rights, 'governments are instituted among men.' And consequently they can have no lawful authority to violate the rights which they exist only to protect."


That was the driving force behind secession, the south's realization that their "peculiar institution" had no legal standing, even within their own states. This was why they were determined to secede and create their own constitution that legalized and protected slavery at the national level and forbid any of their member states to do away with it even in their own state.

It is also why the Confederates detested the Declaration of Independence.

redneck1861
06-16-2011, 13:39
Do you have any family members who served in the Armed Forces of the United States of America? If so, do you feel the same pride for those that fought for the freedom of all Americans as you feel for those who fought for the right to deny the freedom of some people and to hold them as property?

Do you ever fly the flag of the Untied States of America, or have a tattoo of such?


I do have an American flag tattoo, I said that I fly a Confederate Flag in front of my house everyday, since this is a thread about the Confederate flag. But since you asked, I do fly an American Flag higher than my Confederate Flag everyday.

redneck1861
06-16-2011, 13:51
How could that be? is not the confederate flag the symbol of the Confederacy?

What did the Confederacy stand for? Despite the revisionist history put forth by the Neo Confederates today who have swallowed the myth of the "Lost cause" started by the losing confederates right after the war The evidence of what the Confederacy stood for is plainly stated in the confederates own words before and during the war.

How much more racist can you get than to believe that by virtue of your own race you have the right to enslave someone of another race?


I dont want to argue why the civil war took place, or why the South left the Union.

I am proud of my herritage, and my ancestors that fought and died under that flag. They fought and died for what the believed in, whether it was right or wrong, they had the courage to fight for what they wanted.

Times are different today than in the mid 1800's. I think most people will agree that slavery was wrong, and that all men are equal. But back then it was not the case.

I dont agree with reason the war was fought, but I am proud that the brave men fought for what they believed was right. Hell alot of the South didnt even have guns, farmers were out fighting with whatever they had.

Dragoon44
06-16-2011, 14:20
I dont want to argue why the civil war took place, or why the South left the Union.

I am proud of my herritage, and my ancestors that fought and died under that flag. They fought and died for what the believed in, whether it was right or wrong, they had the courage to fight for what they wanted.

Times are different today than in the mid 1800's. I think most people will agree that slavery was wrong, and that all men are equal. But back then it was not the case.

I dont agree with reason the war was fought, but I am proud that the brave men fought for what they believed was right. Hell alot of the South didnt even have guns, farmers were out fighting with whatever they had.

Your answer does not address the issue you raised and I replied to. Your claim was the Confederate flag did not stand for racism. I maintain that given the historical facts it indeed does stand for that.

I have ancestors on both sides of the conflict, though all southerners, my fathers side of the family fought for the Union while my mothers were confederates. Personally I do not feel the least bit of pride that some of my ancestors committed treason and took up arms against the US.

redneck1861
06-16-2011, 15:00
Your answer does not address the issue you raised and I replied to. Your claim was the Confederate flag did not stand for racism. I maintain that given the historical facts it indeed does stand for that.

I have ancestors on both sides of the conflict, though all southerners, my fathers side of the family fought for the Union while my mothers were confederates. Personally I do not feel the least bit of pride that some of my ancestors committed treason and took up arms against the US.


I said that the Confederate flag does not stand for racism in todays world. Sure some people use it like that, but it doesnt mean that everyone that has a Confederate flag is racist. It is still part of the Georgia State Flag. Ultimately it is just a flag/symbol it can mean any number of things to different people.

I agree that it has a bad rep due to the racist groups such as the KKK, but to me it is just a symbol. I am still proud that they fought for what they beleived in.

And not trying to argue with you, because I have respect for you. But the part about the South committed treason, that is very much correct. But America committed treason against Great Brittan by signing the declaration of independence, and the revolutionary war.

Gray_Rider
06-18-2011, 23:15
I never said his argument was stupid and had no merit, but if he, or anyone else, is so morally bankrupt that they believe slavery is not inherently evil than I don't see how I can intelligently idscuss the issue with him. As far as a time when slavery was not considered evil, I think you will find many our Founding Fathers uncomfortable, at best, and downright hostile, at worst, to the institution. Of course, I, as one who has no historical perspective, obviously cannot make that statement, despite having read extensively on the subject. If you, Gray Rider, or anyone else is so mired in the myth of the movie Gone With The Wind, revel in it.



Let me ask you this, as I have asked Gray Rider. As the mantra of Southern Revisionists is that the Civil War was fought over State's Rights, can you give me one example of a right that a resident of Mississippi had that a resident of Maine did not? Can you give me a right that a resident of Connecticut had that a resident of Alabama did not have? Gray Rider seems only able to skirt around the subject and give plattitudes to the Old South and condemn the evil Federal government.

Skirt around the issues? Read the books I have recommended. As I have stated repeatedly, your questions require essay answers I don't often have the time to reply to in the detail they require.

Just answer me one thing guys. How else would this nation accomplished what they did in under 100 years without the use of slavery. In the beginining, there was land and time. Work and tobacco. Blacks could work the land and didn't die like flies in the sun or suffer from disease as the hundreds of endentured servants did who as a rule didn't live past seven years in the early 16oo's. Slavery worked. It was the only thing that DID work to pull this country out of the jaws of naked savagery. All we had to keep people coming here and to keep the colonies going was tobacco and later cotton. Slave labor fed and clothed the nation for decades. And for the umteenth time, get over it. Nothing else worked. Slavery built every nation on earth and built the civilations before the great flood.

Slavery became extinct because of the industrial revolution and tens of thousands of immigrants and state born Americans willing to work for slave wages and work hours and under conditions that killed them like flies. As I said in another post. Slaves had to be fed, housed, given medical attention. If employees got injured or were killed there were ten waiting by the door to replace them. Slavery couldn't hold a candle to that kind of deal, and that is NOT defence of slavery. Just the facts.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Gray_Rider
06-18-2011, 23:28
In addition. My own grandfather was a slave. He was a slave in the 20's and 30's and 40's to the coal industry. He was cheated when they weighed the coal he loaded. He was paid in worthless "scrip" that could only be used in company stores that over charged him for the food and clothes needed for his family. He lived in shantys called company houses and charged ruinous rent for said housing. He worked when he had the flu. He often worked standing in icy water that was higher than his knee high work boots. He worked with sprains. He worked with cracked ribs. He worked when he had chicken pox, and he blacked his face with shoe polish to cover the red marks, BEFORE he reported for work. Had he not showed up for work he would have been fired and his family left destitute. Once my grandfather's helmet brushed an electric wire overhead. The jolt knocked him to his knees and he bit the stem of the pipe he was smoking in two! He went back to work. My father told of sitting down to flour and water gravy mixed with a little pork grease poured over bread for meals. One year my father got an orange for Christmas. ONE ORANGE! If this wasn't slavery I'd like your definition! Few slaves were treated like this in the Old South. Lives depended upon them. They cost a small fortune to replace. Yeah guys, cry me a river over the poor down trodden slaves in the old South, and how mean and terrible the plantation owners were. A slave owner would have been hung had he treated his slaves in any such manner.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Gray_Rider
06-18-2011, 23:47
And not trying to argue with you, because I have respect for you. But the part about the South committed treason, that is very much correct. But America committed treason against Great Brittan by signing the declaration of independence, and the revolutionary war.


The South did not commit treason in leaving the Union. In the beginining the states agreed to come together to form a Union. Thirteen individual sovern states that could leave the "Union" at any time. Read your history.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Gray_Rider
06-18-2011, 23:56
My Great great grandfather was a slave owner. Just before the war he sold his properties, freed his slaves, probably three or four at most, and moved into what is now West Virginia. (Occupied Virginia) He was such a cruel old codger, his slaves asked to stay with him and his family after they were freed. Seems they considered him and he them members of the family. This was more the norm in the old South. Plantation owners made up about 1% of the slave owners though they owned the most slaves. Less than 10% of all Southerners owned slaves to start with. What did the other 90% go to war over?

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Dragoon44
06-19-2011, 07:44
Blacks could work the land and didn't die like flies in the sun or suffer from disease as the hundreds of endentured servants did who as a rule didn't live past seven years in the early 16oo's. Slavery worked. It was the only thing that DID work to pull this country out of the jaws of naked savagery.

From the articles of secession Mississippi,

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.

What an eerie similarity in thought.

As I said in another post. Slaves had to be fed, housed, given medical attention. If employees got injured or were killed there were ten waiting by the door to replace them. Slavery couldn't hold a candle to that kind of deal, and that is NOT defence of slavery. Just the facts.

And yet the ungrateful wretches did their best to escape and make it to the "unenlightended" states that apparently were able to function without wholesale slavery to prop up their economy.

Dragoon44
06-19-2011, 07:51
In addition. My own grandfather was a slave. He was a slave in the 20's and 30's and 40's to the coal industry. He was cheated when they weighed the coal he loaded. He was paid in worthless "scrip" that could only be used in company stores that over charged him for the food and clothes needed for his family. He lived in shantys called company houses and charged ruinous rent for said housing. He worked when he had the flu. He often worked standing in icy water that was higher than his knee high work boots. He worked with sprains. He worked with cracked ribs. He worked when he had chicken pox, and he blacked his face with shoe polish to cover the red marks, BEFORE he reported for work. Had he not showed up for work he would have been fired and his family left destitute. Once my grandfather's helmet brushed an electric wire overhead. The jolt knocked him to his knees and he bit the stem of the pipe he was smoking in two! He went back to work. My father told of sitting down to flour and water gravy mixed with a little pork grease poured over bread for meals. One year my father got an orange for Christmas. ONE ORANGE! If this wasn't slavery I'd like your definition! Few slaves were treated like this in the Old South. Lives depended upon them. They cost a small fortune to replace. Yeah guys, cry me a river over the poor down trodden slaves in the old South, and how mean and terrible the plantation owners were. A slave owner would have been hung had he treated his slaves in any such manner.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

So you have departed trying to argue FACTS concerning what secession was about and instead are going to defend slavery as a legitimate institution.

In the story above your father is not quite a slave, he could have left traveled elsewhere and sought other work. a Slave did not have that right.

Now I said not quite a slave, because he had choices, but I would agree that the mine owners reflect the southern aristocracy (Slave owners) that ruled the South for many generations. IN the south poor whites were barely above enslaved blacks on the social scale.

Traditionally the South was one of the LEAST democratic areas of the Country.