The Confederate flag - STFU

Mardy Bum

Ed_Stephens wrote: »

If you mean that it was never used as the flag of the CSA then I agree and pointed that out in a previous post. Your obtuse and ignorent comment is totally out of line. A student of history must learn to examine all points of view and not just the ones you agree with and especially read the points of view that challange your opinion.


If you are of the opinion that only racist rednecks support the display of the flag and all the people against it are nice smiley liberals then you need to do some more research. You could start with the museum of the Confederacy which has Confederate battle flags predating the civil rights movement by about a 100 years which rebukes your comment that the flag was never used during the war.

The flag was popularised DURING the Civil Rights Movement by those opposed to it and the various states began using it THEN. It's like saying the swastika is an acceptable symbol for Germany to use because it wasn't always used by Nazis. The flag is racist and demeaning regardless of what it meant 200 years ago.

Critical thinking is key here.

Ed_Stephens

Mardy Bum wrote: »

It was never used to represent the Confederacy offically. So anybody justifying the Civil War on "State's rights" (which is equally ludicrious) and thereby justifying the flag are wrong. The flag as we know it today was popularised during the Civil Rights Movement and prior to that it was not considered relevant to the Confederacy as a whole. That is what people actually associate it with even if they have walled that fact off from themselves.

It is a very underhanded way of pretending the flag is not a symbol of discrimination and hate and needs to be called out.

I didn't justify the civil war on the basis of states right I said it was one of many reasons for it starting which is 100% true. Southern states started voting to secede from the Union although the US constitution had no provision for doing so. All of this led up to the firing on Fort Sumter as it was seen as sn occupying army. States rights are still a huge part of US politics.

Although slavery was a macro cause many of those who fought for the south would have been too poor to own slaves and there were many in the north who profited from the slaves work in the cotton farms.

To pretend that everyone south of the Mason-Dixon line were redneck racists and everyone north of it were progressive free thinking liberals is folly there were several shades of grey.

Ed_Stephens

Mardy Bum wrote: »

It was never used to represent the Confederacy offically. So anybody justifying the Civil War on "State's rights" (which is equally ludicrious) and thereby justifying the flag are wrong. The flag as we know it today was popularised during the Civil Rights Movement and prior to that it was not considered relevant to the Confederacy as a whole. That is what people actually associate it with even if they have walled that fact off from themselves.

It is a very underhanded way of pretending the flag is not a symbol of discrimination and hate and needs to be called out.

I didn't justify the civil war on the basis of states right I said it was one of many reasons for it starting which is 100% true. Southern states started voting to secede from the Union although the US constitution had no provision for doing so. All of this led up to the firing on Fort Sumter as it was seen as sn occupying army. States rights are still a huge part of US politics.

Although slavery was a macro cause many of those who fought for the south would have been too poor to own slaves and there were many in the north who profited from the slaves work in the cotton farms.

To pretend that everyone south of the Mason-Dixon line were redneck racists and everyone north of it were progressive free thinking liberals is folly there were several shades of grey.

Ed_Stephens

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The flag itself was never actually used during the war. It became popularised during the Civil Rights Movement when different states adopted it. Funnily enough it was those states which fiercely rejected the Civil Rights Movements. You are either being purposefully obtuse or are ignorant of history.

If you mean that it was never used as the flag of the CSA then I agree and pointed that out in a previous post. Your obtuse and ignorent comment is totally out of line. A student of history must learn to examine all points of view and not just the ones you agree with and especially read the points of view that challange your opinion.


If you are of the opinion that only racist rednecks support the display of the flag and all the people against it are nice smiley liberals then you need to do some more research. You could start with the museum of the Confederacy which has Confederate battle flags predating the civil rights movement by about a 100 years which rebukes your comment that the flag was never used during the war.

InTheTrees

Ed_Stephens wrote: »

If you are of the opinion that only racist rednecks support the display of the flag and all the people against it are nice smiley liberals then you need to do some more research. You could start with the museum of the Confederacy which has Confederate battle flags predating the civil rights movement by about a 100 years which rebukes your comment that the flag was never used during the war.

I still don't understand why a civil war fan is so adamantly against the fact that people are deeply offended by this flag. You're trying to argue that people shouldn't be offended? Why? Shouldn't you be convincing the racists to use something else?

Okay it was used as a battle flag or a pennant or something during the civil war but why does that mean it has to fly along with the state flag at the state capitol? You really haven't explained that.

I get that your hobby is the civil war, but the fact is that the flag has been used as a racist symbol for almost half a century but for some reason you give the racists a free pass to keep using it and yet you say the offended minorities just have to educate themselves on its historical significance? What does that do to stop it being used as a racist symbol?

Ed_Stephens

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The flag was popularised DURING the Civil Rights Movement by those opposed to it and the various states began using it THEN. It's like saying the swastika is an acceptable symbol for Germany to use because it wasn't always used by Nazis. The flag is racist and demeaning regardless of what it meant 200 years ago.

Critical thinking is key here.

To take your example of Germany which had banned the use of the swastika it hasn't stoppef racial tensions or far right neo nazi groups. So if we apply the lets remove the symbol and everything will be fine approach this solves nothing as I have already stated. Not one family taken out of poverty, not one extra child will be educated, not one extremist converted to common sense.

I would have no problem with the likes of the kkk being banned from using it. What is your opinion on re-enacters who educate people and keep history alive using the very same symblology you are against? I ask again, if the shamrock was used by some hate group should Irish people remove it from as one of our national symbols?

If you think that the complete history of the flag is irrelevant then you are as guilty if ignorance as those who mis-use it.

Ed_Stephens

eire4 wrote: »

The bigoted symbol that is the confederate flag only first appeared over the state capital in South Carolina in the early 1960's when the civil rights movement was emerging. Not a coincidence in my opinion.
The claims that it represents "heritage" remind me very much of the kind of claims you hear from the Orange Order wanting to force July 12th marches through Nationalist areas. The flag has nothing to do with southern heritage well at least not in any positive way. It is a symbol of bigotry and should be nowhere near any state capital building or any other public building.
The confederate flag is also part of the official state flag of Mississippi. In 2001 a referendum to redesign the state flag without the confederate portion was convincingly defeated 64-36%.That needs to change. That a US state gives in a way official sanction to a bigoted symbol on its state flag is wrong to put it mildly and that needs to change.

So a free democratic decision by the people who live there was wrong and they should have righteousness forced upon them. The mind boggles.

Ed_Stephens

InTheTrees wrote: »

I still don't understand why a civil war fan is so adamantly against the fact that people are deeply offended by this flag. You're trying to argue that people shouldn't be offended? Why? Shouldn't you be convincing the racists to use something else?

Okay it was used as a battle flag or a pennant or something during the civil war but why does that mean it has to fly along with the state flag at the state capitol? You really haven't explained that.

I get that your hobby is the civil war, but the fact is that the flag has been used as a racist symbol for almost half a century but for some reason you give the racists a free pass to keep using it and yet you say the offended minorities just have to educate themselves on its historical significance? What does that do to stop it being used as a racist symbol?

Yes I agree the racist groups should be stopped from using it but if the democratically elected government want to fly it and I can't say that their reasons would be the same as mine but as another poster stated there was a referendum on its use on another states flag and it was soundly passed to keep it as is.

You might not like or agree with that but that is their democratic right. In many of the battlefield national parks there are statues and various memorials to Confederate regiments and generals and every year re-enacters dress up in full confederate garb to keep the history alive. I do wonder if the liberal offended brigade have their eye on that next.

Ed_Stephens

eire4 wrote: »

The bigoted symbol that is the confederate flag only first appeared over the state capital in South Carolina in the early 1960's when the civil rights movement was emerging. Not a coincidence in my opinion.
The claims that it represents "heritage" remind me very much of the kind of claims you hear from the Orange Order wanting to force July 12th marches through Nationalist areas. The flag has nothing to do with southern heritage well at least not in any positive way. It is a symbol of bigotry and should be nowhere near any state capital building or any other public building.
The confederate flag is also part of the official state flag of Mississippi. In 2001 a referendum to redesign the state flag without the confederate portion was convincingly defeated 64-36%.That needs to change. That a US state gives in a way official sanction to a bigoted symbol on its state flag is wrong to put it mildly and that needs to change.

So a free democratic decision by the people who live there was wrong and they should have righteousness forced upon them. The mind boggles.

Mardy Bum

Ed_Stephens wrote: »

To take your example of Germany which had banned the use of the swastika it hasn't stoppef racial tensions or far right neo nazi groups. So if we apply the lets remove the symbol and everything will be fine approach this solves nothing as I have already stated. Not one family taken out of poverty, not one extra child will be educated, not one extremist converted to common sense.

I would have no problem with the likes of the kkk being banned from using it. What is your opinion on re-enacters who educate people and keep history alive using the very same symblology you are against? I ask again, if the shamrock was used by some hate group should Irish people remove it from as one of our national symbols?

If you think that the complete history of the flag is irrelevant then you are as guilty if ignorance as those who mis-use it.

The flag was a battle flag in a war fought primarily over the right to keep slaves. It was then popularised in support of segregation. It has no place representing any state. If you want to keep it work away but it should not be representative of any state. The same way the swastika is not used by Germany.

Deluding yourself into believing that its primary function as a symbol over the last 160 years is not one of vitriolic racism is a whole other ball game.

If you fail to remove the explicit signs of racism you will never get rid of implicit racism. J Stewart did a great piece on that very point.

InTheTrees

Ed_Stephens wrote: »

So a free democratic decision by the people who live there was wrong and they should have righteousness forced upon them. The mind boggles.

Really?

And you were wondering why race relations in some parts of the Usa are so messed up?

Yet you're desperately trying to cling on to a racist emblem...

??

InTheTrees

Ed_Stephens wrote: »

I would have no problem with the likes of the kkk being banned from using it.

And how would you do that???

??

eire4

Ed_Stephens wrote: »

So a free democratic decision by the people who live there was wrong and they should have righteousness forced upon them. The mind boggles.

Try reading my post more carefully instead of having your mind boggle. Here's what I said.



"In 2001 a referendum to redesign the state flag without the confederate portion was convincingly defeated 64-36%.That needs to change."




Firstly yes a free democratic decision by the people of Mississippi to support a bigoted flag continuing to be part of their official state flag is wrong. Just because a majority of people vote for something does not make it right. Secondly I did not say anything should be forced upon them I simply said that the result of the 2001 referendum needs to change. Which it does. As things stand the official flag of Mississippi is shameful and an embarrassment.

Ed_Stephens

InTheTrees wrote: »

Really?

And you were wondering why race relations in some parts of the Usa are so messed up?

Yet you're desperately trying to cling on to a racist emblem...

??

I am not desperately clinging to anything. I merely accept the fact that I agree with the states democratic right to fly it if they see fit. Race relations in the US are much more complicated than this. Anyone thinking its removal solves anything with regards to improving race relations is deluding themselves.

The US flag carries a lot of racial bigotry from that era too with regards to the ethnic cleansing of native americans. Accept the history and move on, education is the key to getting out of poverty which is the first step to improving things for a lot of minorities in America.

Ed_Stephens

InTheTrees wrote: »

And how would you do that???

??

Pass a law and arrest those misusing it.

Ed_Stephens

eire4 wrote: »

Try reading my post more carefully instead of having your mind boggle. Here's what I said.



"In 2001 a referendum to redesign the state flag without the confederate portion was convincingly defeated 64-36%.That needs to change."




Firstly yes a free democratic decision by the people of Mississippi to support a bigoted flag continuing to be part of their official state flag is wrong. Just because a majority of people vote for something does not make it right. Secondly I did not say anything should be forced upon them I simply said that the result of the 2001 referendum needs to change. Which it does. As things stand the official flag of Mississippi is shameful and an embarrassment.

Thats just laughable but this is Ireland where referendums keep going till we get the'right' answer. You may not agree with it but you have to respect the democratic mandate.

Ed_Stephens

eire4 wrote: »

Try reading my post more carefully instead of having your mind boggle. Here's what I said.



"In 2001 a referendum to redesign the state flag without the confederate portion was convincingly defeated 64-36%.That needs to change."




Firstly yes a free democratic decision by the people of Mississippi to support a bigoted flag continuing to be part of their official state flag is wrong. Just because a majority of people vote for something does not make it right. Secondly I did not say anything should be forced upon them I simply said that the result of the 2001 referendum needs to change. Which it does. As things stand the official flag of Mississippi is shameful and an embarrassment.

Thats just laughable but this is Ireland where referendums keep going till we get the'right' answer. You may not agree with it but you have to respect the democratic mandate.

Ed_Stephens

InTheTrees wrote: »

And how would you do that???

??

Pass a law and arrest those misusing it.

Ed_Stephens

InTheTrees wrote: »

Really?

And you were wondering why race relations in some parts of the Usa are so messed up?

Yet you're desperately trying to cling on to a racist emblem...

??

I am not desperately clinging to anything. I merely accept the fact that I agree with the states democratic right to fly it if they see fit. Race relations in the US are much more complicated than this. Anyone thinking its removal solves anything with regards to improving race relations is deluding themselves.

The US flag carries a lot of racial bigotry from that era too with regards to the ethnic cleansing of native americans. Accept the history and move on, education is the key to getting out of poverty which is the first step to improving things for a lot of minorities in America.

eire4

Ed_Stephens wrote: »

Thats just laughable but this is Ireland where referendums keep going till we get the'right' answer. You may not agree with it but you have to respect the democratic mandate.

So now your mind has gone from boggling over something I never said to now your laughing because I am of the opinion that Mississippi's state flag which by having an openly bigoted flag as part of its makeup is shameful and embarrassing. Yes indeed in 2001 a majority of those who voted in Mississippi voted to maintain the bigotry contained within their official state flag. I think that is wrong and if you find that funny that is very unfortunate. Bigotry and rascism is wrong no matter how many people vote in support of it.

InTheTrees

Ed_Stephens wrote: »

Pass a law and arrest those misusing it.

Ummm.

Just pass a law huh?

Okay...

You understand the first amendment right? You cant just pass laws and ban peoples freedom of expression. Even if they're racist bigots. The KKK has every right to use that flag.

You must have read the constitution??

Manic Moran

For the record.

http://m.snopes.com/2015/06/28/confederate-flag-history/

The problem with the issue of "The people who fought for their state were also fighting to maintain slavery" is that it confuses the two issues.
It is not mutually exclusive to say that they were fighting for the rights of their individual States to conduct themselves however they wanted, and that at the time, one of those items of conduct happened to be slavery. Who knows, maybe twenty years down the line, the Confederate States might have decided to abolish slavery, but they were fighting for their right to do that too. But slavery was far from the beginning and end of the matter.

There are a large number of people in the US today who believe that slavery is wrong as an institution, but that the Confederate States were right as on principle, they support the display of the various confederate flags, without attempting to imply any racism behind it. It is interesting to note, for example, that once the Civil War started, the Oath of Commissioning for US Army officers changed so that the wording referred to allegiance one single political entity, as opposed to the individual States as a group as it had been up until then. The exact nature of confederation even today is still somewhat contested.

As an aside, the Pentagon is not particularly interested in changing the names of its bases just because those generals fought for the 'wrong' side.

Mardy Bum

Manic Moran wrote: »

For the record.

http://m.snopes.com/2015/06/28/confederate-flag-history/

The problem with the issue of "The people who fought for their state were also fighting to maintain slavery" is that it confuses the two issues.
It is not mutually exclusive to say that they were fighting for the rights of their individual States to conduct themselves however they wanted, and that at the time, one of those items of conduct happened to be slavery. Who knows, maybe twenty years down the line, the Confederate States might have decided to abolish slavery, but they were fighting for their right to do that too. But slavery was far from the beginning and end of the matter..

Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
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. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

The above rubbishes your claim regarding Mississippi as that is their official reason at the time.

Confederate States of America - Georgia Secession
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

The above is Georgia's official reason at the time.

I'm not bothered going through the other state's official decorations but they are exactly the same and slavery is the primary reason. Also there are plenty of quotes from Generals who also said it was the primary reason.

Manic Moran

You miss the point.

Slavery was the trigger point for the conflict. We are agreed upon this.

Where we disagree is whether or not the States were "fighting for slavery itself", or "for their right to have slavery (or any other subject they care to bring to mind which the North doesn't like)". I submit that it happened that slavery was the trigger point. It could just as easily have been some form of blockade on cotton sales, or drinking mintjulips in church or gay marriage or basing all military forces in the North and ignoring the Southern borders, or whatever the trigger cause could have been. Hell, seven years ago the Secretary of State for Montana all but threatened secession if the Federal Government rejected the contention that the 2nd Amendment gave private citizens the right to bear arms. https://sayanythingblog.com/entry/montana_threatens_to_secede_if_supreme_court_rules_against_individual_gun_r/


For example, if you go further down the Declaration of Cause for Georgia than you quoted, you see a simple paragraph: "With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."

South Carolina's Declaration of Cause contains

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

<snip>

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

Many of the States did not issue a reasoning in a Declaration of Cause. Florida's was never approved, some did make mention in their articles of secession, however.

Arkansas, for instance.

Whereas, in addition to the well-founded causes of complaint set forth by this convention, in resolutions adopted on the 11th of March, A.D. 1861, against the sectional party now in power in Washington City, headed by Abraham Lincoln, he has, in the face of resolutions passed by this convention pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such States until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshaled to carry out this inhuman design; and to longer submit to such rule, or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas

Kentucky

Whereas, the Federal Constitution, which created the Government of the United States, was declared by the framers thereof to be the supreme law of the land, and was intended to limit and did expressly limit the powers of said Government to certain general specified purposes, and did expressly reserve to the States and people all other powers whatever, and the President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society, and instead of giving protection with the Constitution to the people of fifteen States of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our property, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will; and

Whereas, our honor and our duty to posterity demand that we shall not relinquish our own liberty and shall not abandon the right of our descendants and the world to the inestimable blessings of constitutional government: Therefore,

Be it ordained, That we do hereby forever sever our connection with the Government of the United States, and in the name of the people we do hereby declare Kentucky to be a free and independent State, clothed with all power to fix her own destiny and to secure her own rights and liberties.

There are a number of other transgressions also listed, for example Texas put out a whole list of gripes varying from "The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas." to "They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved."

It is disingenuous to claim that slavery was not the trigger point for the Civil War, or deny that the Confederate States by and large wanted to keep it. It is, however, equally disingenuious to claim that the Confederate States didn't feel that they were being treated in a manner not commensurate with their agreement to enter the Union in the first place.

Mardy Bum

Manic Moran wrote: »

You miss the point.

Slavery was the trigger point for the conflict. We are agreed upon this.

Where we disagree is whether or not the States were "fighting for slavery itself", or "for their right to have slavery (or any other subject they care to bring to mind which the North doesn't like)". I submit that it happened that slavery was the trigger point. It could just as easily have been some form of blockade on cotton sales, or drinking mintjulips in church or gay marriage or basing all military forces in the North and ignoring the Southern borders, or whatever the trigger cause could have been. Hell, seven years ago the Secretary of State for Montana all but threatened secession if the Federal Government rejected the contention that the 2nd Amendment gave private citizens the right to bear arms. https://sayanythingblog.com/entry/montana_threatens_to_secede_if_supreme_court_rules_against_individual_gun_r/


For example, if you go further down the Declaration of Cause for Georgia than you quoted, you see a simple paragraph: "With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."

South Carolina's Declaration of Cause contains



Many of the States did not issue a reasoning in a Declaration of Cause. Florida's was never approved, some did make mention in their articles of secession, however.

Arkansas, for instance.


Kentucky


There are a number of other transgressions also listed, for example Texas put out a whole list of gripes varying from "The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas." to "They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved."

It is disingenuous to claim that slavery was not the trigger point for the Civil War, or deny that the Confederate States by and large wanted to keep it. It is, however, equally disingenuious to claim that the Confederate States didn't feel that they were being treated in a manner not commensurate with their agreement to enter the Union in the first place.

Yes they wanted slavery. They were told they couldn't have it and the war started. If slavery hadn't of been an issue there would have been no war. It was the trigger because it was the actual reason. The states involved had a misguided economic belief (isnt it funny how misguided beliefs is still a central tenant of those states) that slavery was vital.

What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction, sir, was the main cause. It is true, sir, that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil, and also the best, if not the only remedy, for the territorial evil. But, doubtless, if it had not been for the first conviction this step would never have been taken. It therefore becomes important to inquire whether this conviction was well founded.

That quote from Virginia secession conference from one of the main officers who fought also rubbishes your point.

People from the southern states try to hide the fact out of embarrassment when really it should be just accepted. The real issue is the lack of willingness to accept that they were inherently wrong in what they did.

Ed_Stephens

eire4 wrote: »

So now your mind has gone from boggling over something I never said to now your laughing because I am of the opinion that Mississippi's state flag which by having an openly bigoted flag as part of its makeup is shameful and embarrassing. Yes indeed in 2001 a majority of those who voted in Mississippi voted to maintain the bigotry contained within their official state flag. I think that is wrong and if you find that funny that is very unfortunate. Bigotry and rascism is wrong no matter how many people vote in support of it.

Like I said, you may not agree with the democratic decision but you have to respect their right to choose it. I've asked a question twice now that nobody has answered about if Isis or some other hate group used a shamrock as a symbol should Irish people remove it as a national emblem?

Many people would find the British flag offensive in terms of racism, imperialism and bigotry, also used by hate groups such as combat 18 and the EDL as well as football hooligans and loyalist paramilitaries, using your logic a new flag should be imposed on them without their consent by people that just know what's best for them.

Similarly the US flag has plenty of blood on its hands that pre and post date the civil war. The ethnic cleansing of native Americans is just one example, again nobody has answered this one.

Ed_Stephens

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Yes they wanted slavery. They were told they couldn't have it and the war started. If slavery hadn't of been an issue there would have been no war. It was the trigger because it was the actual reason. The states involved had a misguided economic belief (isnt it funny how misguided beliefs is still a central tenant of those states) that slavery was vital.



That quote from Virginia secession conference from one of the main officers who fought also rubbishes your point.

People from the southern states try to hide the fact out of embarrassment when really it should be just accepted. The real issue is the lack of willingness to accept that they were inherently wrong in what they did.

Absolute rubbish, like I already stated the emancipation proclamation wasn't announced until 1863 2 years after the war started. You negate to mention that the US was a young country that was still finding its feet as a nation - it wasn't even 100 years old when the war started. Some states and people believed that they would be better off going on their own as to be ruled from Washington would be the same as if being ruled by London. They wanted out and believed they had the right to do so. State legislatures voted to secede from the Union. Lincoln fought to maintain the Union above all else.

A LETTER FROM PRESIDENT LINCOLN.; Reply to Horace Greeley. Slavery and the Union The Restoration of the Union the Paramount Object.
Published: August 24, 1862

EXECUTIVE MANSTON,

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:

DEAR SIR: I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing," as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours,

A. LINCOLN.

Mardy Bum

Ed_Stephens wrote: »

Absolute rubbish, like I already stated the emancipation proclamation wasn't announced until 1863 2 years after the war started. You negate to mention that the US was a young country that was still finding its feet as a nation - it wasn't even 100 years old when the war started. Some states and people believed that they would be better off going on their own as to be ruled from Washington would be the same as if being ruled by London. They wanted out and believed they had the right to do so. State legislatures voted to secede from the Union. Lincoln fought to maintain the Union above all else.

A LETTER FROM PRESIDENT LINCOLN.; Reply to Horace Greeley. Slavery and the Union The Restoration of the Union the Paramount Object.
Published: August 24, 1862

EXECUTIVE MANSTON,

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:

DEAR SIR: I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing," as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours,

A. LINCOLN.

Did you read the declarations posted above from two different states and the main officer from Virginia as to why they seceded or will you cherry pick some more.

Ed_Stephens

Interesting and educational.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/141087/

Ed_Stephens

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Did you read the declarations posted above from two different states and the main officer from Virginia as to why they seceded or will you cherry pick some more.

Yes I read them and I repeat again I know slavery was a major cause of the civil war, you seem to think it was the only cause. This is incorrect.

Mardy Bum

Ed_Stephens wrote: »

Yes I read them and I repeat again I know slavery was a major cause of the civil war, you seem to think it was the only cause. This is incorrect.

Yes I'm sure they disliked other things too it's only natural when you disagree with someone regarding the right to keep human chattel. Did you read the quote from Henry L Benning. If slavery wasn't an issue Virginia would not have seceded. Mississippi said the same thing. I'm actually at a loss here in understanding why some people are so tentative to admit that the southern states wanted to keep slaves and when this came under threat they seceded. This desire to run away from primary evidence is telling about the current state of the southern states.

This defence of "oh it wasn't just because of slaves we had "legitimate" reasons too" is very similar to the war reparatitions excuse.

Ed_Stephens

Henry Benning was a mid-ranking CSA officer and could hardly be considered a spokesman for the Confederacy. I have given a direct quote by the US President which you have "cherry picked", neither have you answered any of my questions about the US flag or British flag. At this stage I'm just repeating myself but here's a brief video of the flags history.

Interestingly the US have an army fort named after Benning, I'm guessing your totally opposed to this and demand its immediate renaming.

Manic Moran

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I'm actually at a loss here in understanding why some people are so tentative to admit that the southern states wanted to keep slaves and when this came under threat they seceded.

We're not. We're admitting up front and center that the slavery issue was the trigger point, the catalyst. And that if slavery was not perceived as to being at risk, or if the Confederate states didn't want to keep it so badly, 1861 likely would not have seen a civil war.

Why is it, however, difficult to also admit that the reason the Confederate States left the Union was because they felt that their ability to run their State as they saw fit (And they saw fit to have slavery) was being undermined by the federal government? Up until the mid 1800s, the US was not perceived as the single entity it is now, it was thirty something States which happened to have a central co-ordinating body responsible for foreign and inter-state relations. This was somewhat important to some people, and still is today to a lesser degree.

InTheTrees

The Ku Klux Klan are going to hold a rally outside the South Carolina state capitol next month to protest at the treatment of their flag.

Good times.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/30/kkk-south-carolina-confederate_n_7695738.html

Ed_Stephens

InTheTrees wrote: »

The Ku Klux Klan are going to hold a rally outside the South Carolina state capitol next month to protest at the treatment of their flag.

Good times.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/30/kkk-south-carolina-confederate_n_7695738.html

I think you're trolling a bit here, you know full well it's not their flag.

PopePalpatine

The North Virginia battle flag, if that's what you want to call the flag that's been removed from state buildings, was used by Strom Thrummond and the Dixiecrats in their efforts to maintain segregation, and it doesn't take someone with a PhD in US history to know the KKK supported the Dixiecrats' efforts.

DEFTLEFTHAND

InTheTrees wrote: »

The Ku Klux Klan are going to hold a rally outside the South Carolina state capitol next month to protest at the treatment of their flag.

Good times.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/30/kkk-south-carolina-confederate_n_7695738.html

Stars and Stripes is the KKK's flag.

Amerika

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Stars and Stripes is the KKK's flag.

No it's not.

If you look at the KKK flags utilized by various factions of the KKK you will see they are all aligned somewhat with the flag of Third Reich.

Grab All Association

Rednecks

Amerika

Chris___ wrote: »

Rednecks

What's wrong with being a Redneck?

redstaar

I think the flag is rebellish and cool its southern culture and they have a right to fly it. To ban it be wrong by a minority of people who use it as a racist tool.

Mardy Bum

redstaar wrote: »

I think the flag is rebellish and cool its southern culture and they have a right to fly it. To ban it be wrong by a minority of people who use it as a racist tool.

It's not banned.

Manic Moran

In the meantime, The Dukes of Hazzard has been pulled from its showing on TVLand (the retro station) because, well...

I think CMT is still keeping it.

Grab All Association

Manic Moran wrote: »

In the meantime, The Dukes of Hazzard has been pulled from its showing on TVLand (the retro station) because, well...

I think CMT is still keeping it.

I was 99.9% sure you were joking until I Googled it :O

Amerika

Now even NASCAR is jumping on the ridiculous bandwagon and is doing what they can to eliminate the flag from races. This weekend at Daytona they will offer a flag exchange for fans at the race.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2015/06/29/nascar-the-death-of-the-confederate-flag-and-the-first-amendment/

My question is, when will we all be demanding these symbols of slavery be dismantled?

Grab All Association

Amerika wrote: »

Now even NASCAR is jumping on the ridiculous bandwagon and is doing what they can to eliminate the flag from races. This weekend at Daytona they will offer a flag exchange for fans at the race.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2015/06/29/nascar-the-death-of-the-confederate-flag-and-the-first-amendment/

My question is, when will we all be demanding these symbols of slavery be dismantled?

Archaeological evidence found a number of years ago that proved that Egyptian labourers built the pyramids.

Graves of the pyramid builders were first discovered in the area in 1990 when a tourist on horseback stumbled over a wall that later proved to be a tomb. Egypt's archaeology chief Zahi Hawass said that discovery and the latest finds last week show that the workers were paid laborers, rather than the slaves of popular imagination.

http://news.discovery.com/history/ancient-egypt/pyramids-tombs-giza-egypt.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/11/new-discovery-shows-slave_n_419326.html

Amerika

Chris___ wrote: »

Archaeological evidence found a number of years ago that proved that Egyptian labourers built the pyramids.



http://news.discovery.com/history/ancient-egypt/pyramids-tombs-giza-egypt.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/11/new-discovery-shows-slave_n_419326.html

Inconclusive evidence as of now. I believe the accepted theory continues to be that the pyramids were built by corvees of native Egyptians and of slaves as well, conscripted into temporary service on the pyramids, probably during the flood season when their labor on the farm could be spared for other things.

Also, a recent CNN/ORC poll shows that 57% of Americans see the that confederate flag more as a symbol of Southern pride than as a symbol of racism.

Mardy Bum

Amerika wrote: »

Inconclusive evidence as of now. I believe the accepted theory continues to be that the pyramids were built by corvees of native Egyptians and of slaves as well, conscripted into temporary service on the pyramids, probably during the flood season when their labor on the farm could be spared for other things.

Also, a recent CNN/ORC poll shows that 57% of Americans see the that confederate flag more as a symbol of Southern pride than as a symbol of racism.

There is a good cartoon on the New Yorker at the minute depicting Southern Pride. How would you define SP? I would say that Southern Pride is so intertwined with racism and ignorance that it should be regarded as southern shame. (Discrimination due to colour and sexuality, penchant for evangelical rubbish, unaccepting of scientific evidence, widespread paranoia, NASCAR, staggering levels of illiteracy, despicable education services, bombington, Alabama, political incompetence (see current senators esp. Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz), highly unequal society and last but not least the KKK which still operates)

Labarbapostiza

Amerika wrote: »

No, we crave change. The country has been going in the wrong direction for the last 6 years now. The shift left hasn't helped the average citizen and a move to slightly right of center is needed.

There hasn't been shift "left" in America. The richest Americans have in fact DOUBLED their wealth in the last 6 years. Quantitative Easing of five TRILLION dollars, was the greatest ever gift from the poor to the rich in world history. How much further right to you think America has to go?

America didn't get the "left", they got gay marriage.

It's a relatively new tactic in politics. Back socially progressive issues, like gay marriage....and then dip your hand in their pockets with economic retrogression. it's actually a political position that has me wanting to slice fat throats open.

Amerika

Mardy Bum wrote: »

There is a good cartoon on the New Yorker at the minute depicting Southern Pride. How would you define SP? I would say that Southern Pride is so intertwined with racism and ignorance that it should be regarded as southern shame. (Discrimination due to colour and sexuality, penchant for evangelical rubbish, unaccepting of scientific evidence, widespread paranoia, NASCAR, staggering levels of illiteracy, despicable education services, bombington, Alabama, political incompetence (see current senators esp. Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz), highly unequal society and last but not least the KKK which still operates)

I would expect nothing less from the New Yorker. I believe the majority here would agree that Southern Pride of today could be represented by another flag the US once used in our early history... And today with nothing at all to do with slavery.