Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Black civil rights icon and former Mayor of Atlanta Andrew Young says that debate over the Confederate flag is a non-issue which completely distracts from the real problem – “the fact that 93% of blacks are killed by other blacks.”
K.Mooneyham wrote:Call me paranoid but here is my take on why this Confederate flag thing blew up like this. After the terrible and tragic shooting, there was a certain group of folks who hoped a riot would ensue like in other areas, mostly for political purposes. However, this shooting happened at a Christian church and a lot of the folks there obviously take their devotion and religion seriously. So, they didn't riot. The political agitators got kind of mad about that and quickly looked for something political they could use to get a "victory". They saw the racist nutjob with the Confederate flag and BAM! They had their angle. Since a certain political affiliation has huge sway on the internet, and especially on social media, companies couldn't dare not comply with demands that anyone and everyone immediately disassociate themselves the the Confederate flag, or risk being labeled as "racist".
I'm a Texan, and I care way more about the Lone Star flag than any other except the American flag. However, I really, really despise political correctness and the rewriting of history for political purposes. So, Amazon, Walmart, and others refusing to sell the Confederate flag irritates me to no end. But what irritates me more is all the people who jumped on the "ban it" bandwagon just to seem like they were doing the right (trendy) thing.
You obviously didn't read my post. I stated why the North went to war with the South, not why the South left the Union. Had the South not been a cash cow the North would have said good riddance.baldeagle wrote:OK, help me understand your position. Every one of the seceding states claimed that they left over slavery. http://www.civilwar.org/education/histo ... auses.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;jmra wrote:Slavery was a flashpoint used by the Northern states to rally support for the war with the South. Ending slavery was without a doubt war worthy, but it was not the driving motive behind the governments desire to keep the union together. The North went to war with the South in order to preserve the Union for the simple fact that the North needed the South much more than the South needed the North. The South was a cash cow for the North, one that they were not willing to give up.
This is from Georgia's declaration:The Republicans were elected specifically to abolish slavery. They had a two-fold plan; starve slavery out by making all the surrounding states non-slave states, prohibit the import of slaves, make life difficult for the south economically, etc. If that didn't work, then they were prepared to abolish slavery by force, the Constitution notwithstanding.The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.
All these reasons I see being articulated are secondary to the primary cause of the whole problem. So how do you explain this? Why did all the seceding states claim they left because of the North's attempts to abolish slavery? Was it all just rhetoric?
Amazon MerchandiseK.Mooneyham wrote:SNIP for brevity
I despise communists with a passion and I don't want the hammer-and-sickle banner ever flying over any government building. But, on the other hand, is Amazon going to stop selling it? After all, communism has resulted in more modern deaths than any other single reason, the figures are in the multi-MILLIONS. Think about it.
yep!jmra wrote:You obviously didn't read my post. I stated why the North went to war with the South, not why the South left the Union. Had the South not been a cash cow the North would have said good riddance.baldeagle wrote:OK, help me understand your position. Every one of the seceding states claimed that they left over slavery. http://www.civilwar.org/education/histo ... auses.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;jmra wrote:Slavery was a flashpoint used by the Northern states to rally support for the war with the South. Ending slavery was without a doubt war worthy, but it was not the driving motive behind the governments desire to keep the union together. The North went to war with the South in order to preserve the Union for the simple fact that the North needed the South much more than the South needed the North. The South was a cash cow for the North, one that they were not willing to give up.
This is from Georgia's declaration:The Republicans were elected specifically to abolish slavery. They had a two-fold plan; starve slavery out by making all the surrounding states non-slave states, prohibit the import of slaves, make life difficult for the south economically, etc. If that didn't work, then they were prepared to abolish slavery by force, the Constitution notwithstanding.The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.
All these reasons I see being articulated are secondary to the primary cause of the whole problem. So how do you explain this? Why did all the seceding states claim they left because of the North's attempts to abolish slavery? Was it all just rhetoric?
Correct, it was not on the capital building (as so many will vehemently tell you), rather it was at a Confederate Monument on the North Side of the State House.george wrote:The flag was removed from the capital here several years ago, in a "compromise", to an area outside the capital which is a confederate memorial. Now, they want to renege and have it removed from everywhere. Gave them an inch, and now they want more.
I am proud of my southern heritage, and proud of that flag.
That being said, the only time I see that flag being flown now is by racist red-necks. It has morphed into a symbol of bigotry. That is, when I see the flag on a truck or house, I do not think they are flying it in reverence to their heritage, but rather proclaiming their racism.
I admitted nothing, I flat out stated it, and you did statebaldeagle wrote: . . . But as jimlongley admitted slavery was "among the root causes of the rebellion". So saying it wasn't about slavery is just as disingenuous as saying it was only about slavery (which, of course, I did not say.)
or do you just mean that it wasn't "only" about slavery?baldeagle wrote:but the war was over slavery
And the slave population was not self-sustaining which, combined with "reforms" being enacted and just flat unpopularity, meant it was going to go away pretty soon anyway. There did not have to be a war about it, but people such as my great grandfather, who never owned a slave, felt as strongly about standing up to the bullying of the north, and "Marse Lincum" that he enlisted from Tennessee and rode with Forrest (and possibly with Quantril), and then had to flee to Texas and Indian Territory in order to escape reprisals.baldeagle wrote:Article 1 Section 9 forbade the banning of the importation of slaves until 1808. Congress passed a law forbidding any further importation of slaves that became effective on January 1, 1808.
Where is the evidence that that is true? Can you adduce evidence that the leaders of the nation stated that they couldn't let the South secede because they couldn't afford it?jmra wrote:You obviously didn't read my post. I stated why the North went to war with the South, not why the South left the Union. Had the South not been a cash cow the North would have said good riddance.baldeagle wrote:OK, help me understand your position. Every one of the seceding states claimed that they left over slavery. http://www.civilwar.org/education/histo ... auses.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;jmra wrote:Slavery was a flashpoint used by the Northern states to rally support for the war with the South. Ending slavery was without a doubt war worthy, but it was not the driving motive behind the governments desire to keep the union together. The North went to war with the South in order to preserve the Union for the simple fact that the North needed the South much more than the South needed the North. The South was a cash cow for the North, one that they were not willing to give up.
This is from Georgia's declaration:The Republicans were elected specifically to abolish slavery. They had a two-fold plan; starve slavery out by making all the surrounding states non-slave states, prohibit the import of slaves, make life difficult for the south economically, etc. If that didn't work, then they were prepared to abolish slavery by force, the Constitution notwithstanding.The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.
All these reasons I see being articulated are secondary to the primary cause of the whole problem. So how do you explain this? Why did all the seceding states claim they left because of the North's attempts to abolish slavery? Was it all just rhetoric?
You are supporting my point even though you completely missed it. No one is suggesting the civil war be forgotten but touting the Confederate Battle Flag and remembering the civil war with pride makes no sense. The civil war is a blot on the history of our great country that we should not forget but should recognize as a major disaster.ShootDontTalk wrote:Well let's see why we should remember. 620,000 dead Americans. Close to 900,000 missing and wounded. 4% of the total population of the entire nation was killed. More soldiers died in prisoner of war camps (both North and South) than died in Vietnam (58,209). Largest number of American battle casualties in a single day, 22,000+. Some died under one flag, some under the other. All were Americans.dale blanker wrote:I'm totally baffled as to why anyone would want to tout the Confederate Battle Flag anyway. The Civil War is over at extremely high cost to both North and South. It seems to me that that Southern States should have been allowed to quit the Union but my guess is that they are much better off in it now. We should not forget history but how can there be pride or any satisfaction in remembering our Civil War???
Satisfaction? No. Pride? Absolutely. I'm proud of every single American who ever served and gave the last full measure, regardless of flag. They didn't fight for politics or even country. They fought and died for each other. In the end we learned a tough lesson about brotherhood. If you want to ban "battle flags", ban both.
BTW....the phrase "Confederate Battle Flag" tells us quite a bit about who you are.
You do realize that two nations fought the Civil War? That there were two "battle flags"? Want to ban one? Ban both. Why fly one and not the other? Why not fly a U.S. "battle flag" over Wounded Knee?dale blanker wrote: You are supporting my point even though you completely missed it. No one is suggesting the civil war be forgotten but touting the Confederate Battle Flag and remembering the civil war with pride makes no sense. The civil war is a blot on the history of our great country that we should not forget but should recognize as a major disaster.
Maybe the movies "Gone With The Wind" and "Dances With Wolves" had too big an effect on me(?).
Does the Democratic Party say they want to keep Black people impoverished and a financial slave to the state? No, but does that make it less true?baldeagle wrote:Where is the evidence that that is true? Can you adduce evidence that the leaders of the nation stated that they couldn't let the South secede because they couldn't afford it?jmra wrote:You obviously didn't read my post. I stated why the North went to war with the South, not why the South left the Union. Had the South not been a cash cow the North would have said good riddance.baldeagle wrote:OK, help me understand your position. Every one of the seceding states claimed that they left over slavery. http://www.civilwar.org/education/histo ... auses.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;jmra wrote:Slavery was a flashpoint used by the Northern states to rally support for the war with the South. Ending slavery was without a doubt war worthy, but it was not the driving motive behind the governments desire to keep the union together. The North went to war with the South in order to preserve the Union for the simple fact that the North needed the South much more than the South needed the North. The South was a cash cow for the North, one that they were not willing to give up.
This is from Georgia's declaration:The Republicans were elected specifically to abolish slavery. They had a two-fold plan; starve slavery out by making all the surrounding states non-slave states, prohibit the import of slaves, make life difficult for the south economically, etc. If that didn't work, then they were prepared to abolish slavery by force, the Constitution notwithstanding.The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.
All these reasons I see being articulated are secondary to the primary cause of the whole problem. So how do you explain this? Why did all the seceding states claim they left because of the North's attempts to abolish slavery? Was it all just rhetoric?
They were doing that to force the South to end slavery. When the South skirted the restrictions, the North didn't react because they were losing money. They reacted because 1) the South attacked them (Fort Sumter) and because they were dead set on ending slavery. Is there ANY documentation that shows the leadership of the Union (Congressional or Executive) were upset about the loss of revenues from the South?jmra wrote:Does the Democratic Party say they want to keep Black people impoverished and a financial slave to the state? No, but does that make it less true?
The federal government was heavily taxing the South and through import taxes kept most of the imports coming to Nothern ports. This required the South to buy goods from the North and pay companies from the North to ship the goods. The North was sticking it to the South every which way but loose. When the South lowered or even waived import fees to bring trade to Southern ports is when things got real nasty. The South was a gravy train for the North pure and simple. Money was the one and only reason the North was not going to let the South go.
I think it's pretty clear that the Confederate states had four basic disagreements with the North; states' sovereignty, slavery, protective tariffs and the power of the Executive. Whether one or more of those was more important than the others is hard to say, but it cannot be said that slavery and its abolition was not an issue.Abraham Lincoln's presidential campaign victory lit the fuse that would explode into the Civil War. Between the time of his election in November and his inauguration in March of 1861, seven states from the lower South seceded from the Union. Delegates from these states met in Montgomery, Alabama, and formed the Confederate States of America. They drafted and passed a constitution that was similar to the U.S. Constitution, except in four areas. The Confederate constitution supported states' sovereignty, guaranteed the perpetual existence of slavery in the states and territories, prohibited Congress from enacting a protective tariff and giving government aid to internal improvements, and limited the presidential term to six-years.
So he was unwilling to allow slavery where it did not already exist, unwilling to cease interference with interstate slave trade and unwilling to stop the harboring of fugitive slaves.However, Lincoln drew the line at supporting a package of compromises sponsored by Senator John J. Crittenden of Kentucky, known as the Crittenden Compromise. This proposal included a series of constitutional amendments to guarantee slavery in the states. Furthermore, the compromise sought to prohibit Congress from abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia and deny Congress the power to interfere with the interstate slave trade. Crittenden's legislation also empowered Congress to compensate slaveholders who lost runaway slaves to the North and protected slavery south of latitude 36'30' in all territories "now held or hereafter acquired." Lincoln understood that to accept the amendments would be to overturn the Republican platform, and he instructed party leaders to make no concessions whatsoever on the slavery expansion issue.
.