Confederate flag flies again..

[Armistead]

Becoming quite an issue here bouts..:D

A southern heritage group rents private land right off I-95 near Richmond to fly a large CSA battle flag. Mainly this is in protest of the CSA flag no longer allowed in any manner being flown over any CSA historical public funded forum, museums, landmarks, even Confederate graves. Flag not even allowed during CW celebrations funded by public. Lil strange seeing all the CSA reenactors marching in parade with no flag.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/city-of-richmond/confederate-flag-will-fly-along-i/article_14dcfb38-3535-5016-a110-7e786b8817e2.html

Thoughts.....

Really going to become an issue of private rights.

[AVGWarhawk]

To me the flag is a not a symbol of heritage. It is a symbol of a very dark spot in US history. The flag is not raised in any historical context that I can see. It will only incite problems. Maybe this is a stretch but flying the flag with swastika over Berlin is on the same level. :hmmm:

[Ducimus]

Becoming quite an issue here bouts..:D

A southern heritage group rents private land right off I-95 near Richmond to fly a large CSA battle flag. Mainly this is in protest of the CSA flag no longer allowed in any manner being flown over any CSA historical public funded forum, museums, landmarks, even Confederate graves. Flag not even allowed during CW celebrations funded by public. Lil strange seeing all the CSA reenactors marching in parade with no flag.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/city-of-richmond/confederate-flag-will-fly-along-i/article_14dcfb38-3535-5016-a110-7e786b8817e2.html

Thoughts.....

Really going to become an issue of private rights.

To me the flag is a not a symbol of heritage. It is a symbol of a very dark spot in US history. The flag is not raised in any historical context that I can see. It will only incite problems. Maybe this is a stretch but flying the flag with swastika over Berlin is on the same level. :hmmm:


Having been stationed in Mississippi for a bit in my younger years, I can honestly understand both sides of the issue.

On one side, you have "Heritage not hate!"
On the other side, it's viewed as a white supremacist flag.


Which view you take, i think depends a lot on where you were you were raised or live, and the context in which the flag is seen while being used. Unfortunately the flag is used in a very negative context much of the time and because of that it's going to remain as seen as a negative thing by the majority of people.

Edit:
To be honest, I am a bit put off when I see it, because I don't normally see it at all. A year or so ago, my wife and I saw the "stars and bars" on the tail gate of a pickup we happened to get behind while going down a mountain. Dudes riding in the truck bed were wearing overalls and chewing tobacco (as an ex user i know it when i see it). They look like some deep south transplants. Both my wife and I were looking at each other going "Seriously?!". It bothered her seeing that in Utah.

On the other hand it doesn't bother me in the least if i saw the flag over relevant historical sites from the Civil war time period.

Context is key.

[CaptainHaplo]

While the flag is part of a very dark time in our history - its people like the NAACP guy quoted that demonstrates both a lack of knowledge in history and a bit of racism against whites as well...

He should get to know H. K. Edgerton - a former NAACP city president who supports flying the confederate flag. Of course, H.K. also understands the true reasons behind the civil war - which had little to do with slavery - which doesn't fit the needs of the agenda of the esteemed "executive director" of the Virginia NAACP.

For those interested in H.K. and his work - along with significant, documented information on the subject - see:
http://southernheritage411.com/

So - no one noted the racism in the piece? No one noted the comment that anyone supporting the Stars and Bars must be from a "backwater, trailer park, hick town.".... Of course, since that statement came from a black man, it can't be racist, right?

[Tchocky]

Of course, H.K. also understands the true reasons behind the civil war - which had little to do with slavery - which doesn't fit the needs of the agenda of the esteemed "executive director" of the Virginia NAACP.

Oh cool, so we're doing this again.

[Tribesman]

Oh cool, so we're doing this again.
Who is going to link to the historical documents yet again to prove that the line you quoted is rubbish....again:03:

[Sailor Steve]

Thoughts.....
I agree with the banning of the CSA flag being flown from government buildings, but that's old news. If a private citizen can fly a flag of their choosing, then so should a private group.

[Sailor Steve]

While which had little to do with slavery
While that statement may seem innocent to you, to me it amounts to trolling. I know you didn't mean it that way, but every time somebody says that it immediately makes me want to respond, which I can't do without being accused of derailing the thread, and rightly so, but when it gets mentioned in a minor context and stated as a "fact" that is exactly what happens.

Therefore my only response can be to ask you to leave your personal agenda out of a thread in which it is not relevant.

[Jimbuna]

I sincerely hope everyone can stay on the original topic.

[Armistead]

Having been stationed in Mississippi for a bit in my younger years, I can honestly understand both sides of the issue.

On one side, you have "Heritage not hate!"
On the other side, it's viewed as a white supremacist flag.


Which view you take, i think depends a lot on where you were you were raised or live, and the context in which the flag is seen while being used. Unfortunately the flag is used in a very negative context much of the time and because of that it's going to remain as seen as a negative thing by the majority of people.

Edit:
To be honest, I am a bit put off when I see it, because I don't normally see it at all. A year or so ago, my wife and I saw the "stars and bars" on the tail gate of a pickup we happened to get behind while going down a mountain. Dudes riding in the truck bed were wearing overalls and chewing tobacco (as an ex user i know it when i see it). They look like some deep south transplants. Both my wife and I were looking at each other going "Seriously?!". It bothered her seeing that in Utah.

On the other hand it doesn't bother me in the least if i saw the flag over relevant historical sites from the Civil war time period.

Context is key.

I understand both sides as well. I certainly agree with the black man that spoke in the video in the link. Heritage or hate? In our town are numerous rednecks with the flag in their yard and bumper stickers 'the south will rise again"

However, I love history. I don't even get into the heritage and pride thing, what my ancestors did is simply history to me, something I want to know and understand. I love the flavor of history, it's symbols, customs, etc. I love studying black history as well. Obvious, the greater part of history is controlled and funded by the govt. When it comes to CSA historical sites, why hide the history because some of it offends.

What if groups of indians started mass complaining about the US flag, all the statues of presidents and generals that partook in the genocide of their tribes? The hypocrisy of freeing one people of color, only to commit genocide and enslave another. Would we remove all that history as well?

It is about context. To me, it's not about southern pride or heritage, it's history. It is strange to me to go to a big CSA historical event sponsored by the govt. or held on public land and not see this part of history. The last Stonewall celebration parade, no Confederate flags allowed. I honestly saw few blacks, but seemed they were more there to report any person that unravelled a CSA flag.

[CaptainHaplo]

Therefore my only response can be to ask you to leave your personal agenda out of a thread in which it is not relevant.

Its cool Steve - its not so much a personal agenda as something I think people need to take time to look at all the facts. But yes, a discussion on it could derail the thread.

What I note is that the objection to the flag by the NAACP director is that it raises a racist, "backward" viewpoint. Yet, no one seems to take that same person to task for racially insulting those having a different opinion on the flag and its meaning.

After all - I have never heard anyone but whites called "hicks" and what amounts to "Trailer Trash". Yet he gets a pass - because he is supposedly "anti-racist".

[Simmy]

That flag is a part of history, as almost all flags are.
In America you can fly a Nazi flag but not a Confederate flag?
Somehow that doesn't make much sense.

[Wolferz]

The Stars and Bars are hanging right behind my chair. In the center of this flag a serpent is pictured and the words Don't Tread on Me are printed across the bottom. Not because I'm racist but because it's part of my heritage.

There are those who say we in America are not living under a dictatorship. I beg to differ when someone can dictate whether I can fly that flag or not.
If some see it as a symbol of slavery, then they are symbol minded and of no concern to me. If it insults them well, insult can't be given unless taken.

I will fly any flag I please as long as I observe proper etiquette and fly the Stars and Stripes above it. That should leave no room for pissing and moaning about it by anyone.
There are many immigrants living in my area who proudly display the flag of their country of origin. Both on their homes and businesses. Most of them fail to display the Stars and Stripes like they're ashamed of it or something.:-? Or they don't know or care about proper flag etiquette. :down:

[mookiemookie]

That flag is a part of history, as almost all flags are.
In America you can fly a Nazi flag but not a Confederate flag?
Somehow that doesn't make much sense.

Well I guess you could fly a Nazi flag, but you'd probably regret the decision.

And the "heritage not hate" argument is tired. If your heritage involves going to war to retain the right to own slaves, then that part of your heritage sucks and shouldn't be celebrated.

[Sailor Steve]

However, I love history. I don't even get into the heritage and pride thing, what my ancestors did is simply history to me, something I want to know and understand.
My sentiments exactly. July 24 is the anniversary of the day the Mormon pioneers entered the Salt Lake valley. I make a point of asking people "The Pioneers came here to escape from the United States. That's fine, but why are you flying the American flag and not the Utah State flag?" :O:

[Ducimus]

If your heritage involves going to war to retain the right to own slaves, then that part of your heritage sucks and shouldn't be celebrated.

Funny thing about the Civil war, there's a couple different versions of it, and even what it's called depends on who you talk to. War between the states, Civil war, or War of northern aggression. In any event I don't think it was just about slavery. The slavery thing was stamped over other issues to claim the moral high ground, and has been regurgitated as such forever, but I don't think it was *just* about slavery. I think the more informed view is one that many social and economic reasons as well as slavery lead to the Civil war. Not just, "OMG they're keeping slaves, lets free them!" The emancipation proclamation could very well be the all time masterpiece of propaganda of any American president in this regard.

Now, I'm not defending the south, I'm just saying there's a bit more to it then a black and white statement of "going to war to retain slaves". Most southerners who served as soldiers didn't even own slaves.

[Armistead]

A big problem is cities and states want CSA reenactors to show up in mass for parades, dedications, holidays or events. Most our groups bring their regiment flag that displays regiment number and battle history. These are exact replicas of the originals, but most are backdropped the the battle flag. Most govt events that involve the public we can no longer fly them.

What really got this group going is when the Confederate flag was removed from the the Confederate Memorial Chapel in Richmond. Then the opening of the new Museum of the Confederacy at Appomattox, which won't have a Confederate flag in or out of the museum.

[Wolferz]

:agree::sign_yeah:

Edit: What Ducimus said, not what Armistead poked his nose in and said.:D

[Armistead]

Funny thing about the Civil war, there's a couple different versions of it, and even what it's called depends on who you talk to. War between the states, Civil war, or War of northern aggression. In any event I don't think it was just about slavery. The slavery thing was stamped over other issues to claim the moral high ground, and has been regurgitated as such forever, but I don't think it was *just* about slavery. I think the more informed view is one that many social and economic reasons as well as slavery lead to the Civil war. Not just, "OMG they're keeping slaves, lets free them!" The emancipation proclamation could very well be the all time masterpiece of propaganda of any American president in this regard.

Now, I'm not defending the south, I'm just saying there's a bit more to it then a black and white statement of "going to war to retain slaves". Most southerners who served as soldiers didn't even own slaves.

Yep, the US govt. had no problem enslaving and exterminating the indians. Free one people, enslave another. Just like the CW, it was about economics and politics.

[AVGWarhawk]

That flag is a part of history, as almost all flags are.
In America you can fly a Nazi flag but not a Confederate flag?
Somehow that doesn't make much sense.

You can fly any flag you like but be prepared to have someone make a statement about it.

[Aktungbby]

[QUOTE=Armistead;2097678]However, I love history. I don't even get into the heritage and pride thing, what my ancestors did is simply history to me, something I want to know and understand.QUOTE]
My sentiments exactly. July 24 is the anniversary of the day the Mormon pioneers entered the Salt Lake valley. I make a point of asking people "The Pioneers came here to escape from the United States. That's fine, but why are you flying the American flag and not the Utah State flag?" :O:
Interesting debate: and not far removed from our subsimming passion, as in Germany the game we play cannot have certain flags?? However as a Federal security officer often charged with daily flag duty and as a Civil War reenactor, I'm somewhere in-between on the issue. I've participated in formal Fourth of July parades and that military review stand salutes either the US flag ( Damnyankee) or the rebel battle flag with equal enthusiasm as they go by. What strikes me as peculiar is that parade permits are still issued to the KKK as a function of free speech yet flag issues of a considerably less offensive nature when conducted in a historical context are 'verboten'. We don't disallow the redcoats a British flag at Williamsburg or any of the revolutionary related events and they were slave owners too..

[Armistead]

:agree::sign_yeah:

Edit: What Ducimus said, not what Armistead poked his nose in and said.:D


Down here, we would refer to you as a "Bummer".

Interesting, the Danville Museum does fly the Va 3rd state flag which has a Confederate flag in it's corner. Even though it's overall state property, the house has 3 deeds, two are private. Where the Confederate flag is, about 10 sq feet of ground is privately owned within the property. Guess that's one way to solve the issue, however it was done.

[Simmy]

Well I guess you could fly a Nazi flag, but you'd probably regret the decision.

And the "heritage not hate" argument is tired. If your heritage involves going to war to retain the right to own slaves, then that part of your heritage sucks and shouldn't be celebrated.

Well I wouldn't fly it myself, but I have seen many marches where it was flown.
One thing many don't seem to understand is that 90/95% of the people who fought under that flag didn't own slaves and the right to keep slaves was not a major issue to them. They fought because they saw their country as under attack from a foreign power. And many blacks fought under the same flag once the South needed help and promised them freedom if they would fight. Many black leaders do not want that to be made public but it's a simple fact of history very easily proven.

"You can fly any flag you like but be prepared to have someone make a statement about it".

Very true. But you can't fly a CSA flag can you?

[Armistead]

Well I guess you could fly a Nazi flag, but you'd probably regret the decision.

And the "heritage not hate" argument is tired. If your heritage involves going to war to retain the right to own slaves, then that part of your heritage sucks and shouldn't be celebrated.

The South didn't go to war, we left the union and were invaded.

[CaptainMattJ.]

What Ducimus said. Historical sites should be able to fly both flags, stars and stripes on top and stars and bars on bottom.

Its much like the many mexican and other central/south american immigrants who fly their flag, but not the U.S. There have been cases of students here in california raising the mexican flag on a school's flagpole and then flipping the american flag upside down. Or when they are protesting they'll be waving primarily mexican flags, yet few if any American flags.

In a slightly similar manner some southerners will fly only the confederate flag. To me it seems disrespectful to the United States as a whole, inferring to me that you still harbor grudges about the unity of this nation.

All of this i find as a slight affront to the nation they live in. If i moved to France to live out the rest of my life and felt like honering my heritage as an American, i would fly the french flag above the american flag, to show that i respect and enjoy the nation i live in, while honoring the heritage of my birthplace and origin. My opinion is that this is how it SHOULD be done.

If you're gonna fly the flags of your ancestors, having been raised in this country all your life, then at least fly both flags when applicable. Its understandable in a setting like a reenactment that you only fly one as per historical context.

[Aktungbby]

What Ducimus said. Historical sites should be able to fly both flags, stars and stripes on top and stars and bars on bottom.

Its much like the many mexican and other central/south american immigrants who fly their flag, but not the U.S. There have been cases of students here in california raising the mexican flag on a school's flagpole and then flipping the american flag upside down. Or when they are protesting they'll be waving primarily mexican flags, yet few if any American flags.

In a slightly similar manner some southerners will fly only the confederate flag. To me it seems disrespectful to the United States as a whole, inferring to me that you still harbor grudges about the unity of this nation.

All of this i find as a slight affront to the nation they live in. If i moved to France to live out the rest of my life and felt like honering my heritage as an American, i would fly the french flag above the american flag, to show that i respect and enjoy the nation i live in, while honoring the heritage of my birthplace and origin. My opinion is that this is how it SHOULD be done.

If you're gonna fly the flags of your ancestors, having been raised in this country all your life, then at least fly both flags when applicable. Its understandable in a setting like a reenactment that you only fly one as per historical context.
See you at old Ft Point where my unit occasionally re-enacts for the U.S. parks department. With much red-tape paper work typical of a Ft. Sumpter style fort, we got the garrison size flagpole restored at the top parapet. Real re-enactors go both ways especially when used in film extra work as in Glory or North and South. Your opinion matches my own and is well considered and temperate. We are a multi-flag nation where free speech and latent political incorrectness are normal!:arrgh!:

[Platapus]

If the people in the south wish to fly the confederate national flag (stars and bars) I could understand and approve.

However, what the wish to do is fly a battle flag of an entity that was at war with our country. That is quite different. A battle flag is a symbol of hostility, a national flag could be considered a symbol of pride/heritage.

[Aktungbby]

Down here, we would refer to you as a "Bummer".

Interesting, the Danville Museum does fly the Va 3rd state flag which has a Confederate flag in it's corner. Even though it's overall state property, the house has 3 deeds, two are private. Where the Confederate flag is, about 10 sq feet of ground is privately owned within the property. Guess that's one way to solve the issue, however it was done.
As opposed to a scalawag or carpetbagger. Technically bummers marched with Sherman not the honorable if inept Army of the Potomac. HOT DAMN!:arrgh!:

[Takeda Shingen]

The South didn't go to war, we left the union and were invaded.

Untrue, regardless of how many times you repeat it.

[Sailor Steve]

does fly the Va 3rd state flag
All of the Southern state flags were adopted during the war. This doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is that I don't know what they replaced. Even looking online I can't find what the flag of, say, Alabama was prior to 1861.

Do you know what the original state flags were?

[WernherVonTrapp]

All of the Southern state flags were adopted during the war. This doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is that I don't know what they replaced. Even looking online I can't find what the flag of, say, Alabama was prior to 1861.

Do you know what the original state flags were?It is my understanding, from some research online, that many states didn't have an official flag before the Civil War.
e.g., Alabama (http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us-al.html)

Flags Of The World.com (http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/index.html)

[mookiemookie]

Funny thing about the Civil war, there's a couple different versions of it, and even what it's called depends on who you talk to. Right. The revisonist "state's right's version" and the one where the South fought to maintain the economic advantage that slavery gave them, which boiling it down to the lowest common denominator - fighting to maintain the institution of slavery.

In any event I don't think it was just about slavery. Oh barf. Read the declarations of secession. In their own words it was about slavery.

I think the more informed view is one that many social and economic reasons as well as slavery lead to the Civil war. Well no duh. Slavery gave the South a great economic advantage and they fought to maintain it. Saying that there's a difference there is intentionally obfuscating the issue.

Not just, "OMG they're keeping slaves, lets free them!" The emancipation proclamation could very well be the all time masterpiece of propaganda of any American president in this regard. No, the North was not in the business of doing the right thing because it was the right thing. The North didn't fight to end slavery so much as the South fought to keep it. The two aims may be diametrically opposed, but it wasn't the motivating factor for the North.

Now, I'm not defending the south, I'm just saying there's a bit more to it then a black and white statement of "going to war to retain slaves". Most southerners who served as soldiers didn't even own slaves. And most Nazis who fought for Hitler didn't kill any Jews. So what.

And since this has gone completely off the rails and I'm going to get my hand smacked for taking the discussion there, let's bring it back -

Why does the South really celebrate the Civil War? They got their asses kicked. It was fought for a crappy purpose, no matter how many coats of revisionist shellac they want to put on it. And even if they swallow their own BS on that, it's still war - a war where hundreds of thousands of men and boys died fighting their countrymen. Why does it need to be a source of pride? War is not something to be proud of. It's an ugly and disgusting thing that is the last resort and there's no glory in it. It's diplomacy by force. Why these people want to commemorate such an ugly time in this country's history by flying that flag is beyond me. And in an official capacity - these state governments who fly the Confederate flag - it's a flag of rebellion. That's pretty screwy. You're a part of the government, yet you're going to make your state symbol a historic symbol of rebellion against the government. Makes no sense.

[Armistead]

All of the Southern state flags were adopted during the war. This doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is that I don't know what they replaced. Even looking online I can't find what the flag of, say, Alabama was prior to 1861.

Do you know what the original state flags were?

Most didn't have state flags before the war, some used seals. I think Va and SC may have had a state flag before the CW.

[Armistead]

Untrue, regardless of how many times you repeat it.

http://searavenpress.com/EVERYTHING%20YOU%20WERE%20TAUGHT%20ABOUT%20THE%20C IVIL%20WAR%20IS%20WRONG.htm

[Sailor Steve]

Most didn't have state flags before the war, some used seals. I think Va and SC may have had a state flag before the CW.
Now that I didn't know. It does explain some things.

Off-topic, another big peeve of mine was that I have a book of Flags Of The World. It has the flags of all the French provinces, but none of the Italian ones. At least I can look those up online now. :sunny:

[Feld Grau]

What puzzles me is the dislike the flag seems to get even when flown under the Stars and Stripes.

If I fly the CSA Flag,it does not mean I condone slavery. It does not make me a racist. It does not mean I find pride in the killing of 600,000 Americans over ideological reasons. To me,the CSA Flag is simply a part of my upbringing. And so long as it is flown respectfully and properly,I fail to see how this makes me a bad person. If the Cause is not being glorified,then I see no harm in a CSA Flag being flown.

[Armistead]

What puzzles me is the dislike the flag seems to get even when flown under the Stars and Stripes.

If I fly the CSA Flag,it does not mean I condone slavery. It does not make me a racist. It does not mean I find pride in the killing of 600,000 Americans over ideological reasons. To me,the CSA Flag is simply a part of my upbringing. And so long as it is flown respectfully and properly,I fail to see how this makes me a bad person. If the Cause is not being glorified,then I see no harm in a CSA Flag being flown.

You're free to fly it and display it. My problem is it's being pushed out of federal and state property, parks and museum, even if being used in historical context.

It's pretty bad when a "Museum of the Confederacy" can't fly one.

[Tribesman]

http://searavenpress.com/EVERYTHING%...IS%20WRONG.htm (http://searavenpress.com/EVERYTHING%20YOU%20WERE%20TAUGHT%20ABOUT%20THE%20C IVIL%20WAR%20IS%20WRONG.htm)
Providing a biased source does nothing to back up your claims.
After all an author who does "pro south studies" lacks any balance, and a "traditional southern agrarian" sure likes the way them plantations were set up.

[Wolferz]

Providing a biased source does nothing to back up your claims.
After all an author who does "pro south studies" lacks any balance, and a "traditional southern agrarian" sure likes the way them plantations were set up.

Nah, just the big plantation owners liked it. Those folks were not the cause of the war.
As a native of the emerald isle, sir, I don't see you as having a dog in this fight. It's just the typical history written by the victors and what they write is usually 99% hogwash. So why shouldn't a southerner try to set the record straight, biased or not? King Abraham was the major cause of the conflict with his "proclamations" and the same old tired GOP rhetoric that has been attempting to circumvent the constitution both then and now.:hmmm:
I still feel that General Sherman should have been tried for war crimes. Just for the burning of Atlanta alone. Lincoln got what he deserved. All the south got out of it was wrecked. Damn Yankees!

[AVGWarhawk]

It's pretty bad when a "Museum of the Confederacy" can't fly one.

Yes, quite silly. Nothing like being spoon fed what some feel you should see and understand.

[Onkel Neal]

Well I guess you could fly a Nazi flag, but you'd probably regret the decision.

And the "heritage not hate" argument is tired. If your heritage involves going to war to retain the right to own slaves, then that part of your heritage sucks and shouldn't be celebrated.

http://celtic.theoffside.com/files/2009/03/boxing_giant.jpg

[Sailor Steve]

As a native of the emerald isle, sir, I don't see you as having a dog in this fight.
That's a dismissal used over and over by Americans to try to shut up anyone who disagrees with them. While I disapprove of Tribesman's tactics in many cases, he has shown himself to be a student of history and a fan of the truth.

It's just the typical history written by the victors and what they write is usually 99% hogwash.
Not even close, as I have shown on many occasions here.

So why shouldn't a southerner try to set the record straight, biased or not? King Abraham was the major cause of the conflict with his "proclamations" and the same old tired GOP rhetoric that has been attempting to circumvent the constitution both then and now.:hmmm:
Everyone should always try to set the record straight. The problem is that most Southerners who make that claim are more biased than anyone arguing for the other side. "History", as presented by Southern apologists, is invariably one-sided and self-serving, and nowhere near the truth.

I still feel that General Sherman should have been tried for war crimes. Just for the burning of Atlanta alone. Lincoln got what he deserved. All the south got out of it was wrecked. Damn Yankees!
I won't argue with you there, because your feelings are as valid as anyone's. On the other hand I once met a man from Georgia who said that a lot of modern Atlantans wish Sherman would come back and finish the job.

[Sailor Steve]

It's pretty bad when a "Museum of the Confederacy" can't fly one.
In this case I agree with you absolutely.

http://searavenpress.com/EVERYTHING%20YOU%20WERE%20TAUGHT%20ABOUT%20THE%20C IVIL%20WAR%20IS%20WRONG.htm
I just noticed this. Should I go through his points one by one and show how many of them are themselves wrong, or even outright lies, or will you take my word for it?

[Takeda Shingen]

http://searavenpress.com/EVERYTHING%20YOU%20WERE%20TAUGHT%20ABOUT%20THE%20C IVIL%20WAR%20IS%20WRONG.htm

Shall I simply link to the arguments you never bothered to answer the last time around. Or the time before that? Or that? How about the Cornerstone speech again?

Willful ignorance for the sake of sentimentality is foolhardy enough to border on vice.

[em2nought]

Doesn't matter what flags "we" can or can't fly, "we" now suck! :D

[Armistead]

In this case I agree with you absolutely.


I just noticed this. Should I go through his points one by one and show how many of them are themselves wrong, or even outright lies, or will you take my word for it?

You already did:haha:

I find it about 50% true, but I never let truth get in the way of a good argument if it stirs a northern feather....:03:

Still, we will continue to disagree the war was about slavery or the south protecting slaves, leaving the union over slaves.
The industrial North for years leading up to the war wanted tariffs. The South believed in free trade, the North didn't. It wanted to
force the South to buy their goods. Lincoln said the Morrill tariff was the most important issue in the US in his campaign, that he would pass it.
Add the issue with new states being slave or free, it became an issue of political power and votes. Certainly the tariffs were a big part of SC succeeding.

"Robert Barnwell Rhett similarly railed against the then-pending Morrill Tariff before the South Carolina convention. Rhett included a lengthy attack on tariffs in the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States, which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance.

And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue— to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.[23]"

You can argue had several states not succeeded, Morrill wouldn't have passed, but that misses the point. Lincoln running promoting it, new states to be non slave, thus insuring later votes for the North, states simply were tired of the industrial North protectionist policies and left the union to protect their economic status, which of course was crops and slaves. Lincoln calling up troops was the nail. It's hard for many to grasp, but with the attitude and feelings the South had towards the North, the thought of Northern armies crossing into their states, the war was a done deal.

We do know the North as a whole had no issue over slavery. If the South hadn't left and Morrill passed, it would've been a great benefit to the North.

Charles Dickens
“Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.”

[Ducimus]

Right. The revisonist "state's right's version"

I stopped reading there. Verses what your liberal progressive version? Not worth reading.

[Takeda Shingen]

As a native of the emerald isle, sir, I don't see you as having a dog in this fight.

So we're going to start with this 'beat it, outlander' stuff again? It is an international forum. If your argument is strong, it can stand up to scrutiny from anyone, anywhere. The problem is that your argument is not strong.

It's just the typical history written by the victors and what they write is usually 99% hogwash. So why shouldn't a southerner try to set the record straight, biased or not? King Abraham was the major cause of the conflict with his "proclamations" and the same old tired GOP rhetoric that has been attempting to circumvent the constitution both then and now.:hmmm:

Except that succession began before Lincoln even took office. And the Emancipation Proclaimation? Really? Your going to blame that for starting a war that was already in effect?

I still feel that General Sherman should have been tried for war crimes. Just for the burning of Atlanta alone. Lincoln got what he deserved. All the south got out of it was wrecked. Damn Yankees!

And I still feel Lee should have been hung for treason but history is past and we can't do anything about it. The healthy thing is to accept it and move on.

[Takeda Shingen]

Doesn't matter what flags "we" can or can't fly, "we" now suck! :D

Speak for yourself; I certainly don't suck. I'm pretty great, in fact.

[em2nought]

Speak for yourself; I certainly don't suck. I'm pretty great, in fact.

Yes, some individuals are ok, but taken as a collective whole "we" now suck! :know:

[Takeda Shingen]

Yes, some individuals are ok, but taken as a collective whole "we" now suck! :know:

In before "liberal progressives are destroying America and the space-time continuum!!!!!11!!oneoneone".

I stopped reading there. Verses what your liberal progressive version? Not worth reading.

Crap.

http://img3.joyreactor.cc/pics/post/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82-%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%81%D 1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D 0%B0-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82-%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BA-577663.jpeg

[Tribesman]

As a native of the emerald isle, sir, I don't see you as having a dog in this fight.
If its rubbish being spouted its rubbish no matter where you come from.
And lets face it that link was full of rubbish simply because it was so tilted.
As for having a dog in the race, you are making huge assumptions about my family history aren't you:yep:

I still feel that General Sherman should have been tried for war crimes.
Under what law Wolferz?
If you can make a valid case using laws in place at that time in that location you may have a point.
So can you find anything in the Code which says Sherman couldn't start the fires in Atlanta?
Because if not you are just the same as the David Irvings of the world, attempting to re write history to fit their own agenda without letting facts get in the way.

[Armistead]

So we're going to start with this 'beat it, outlander' stuff again? It is an international forum. If your argument is strong, it can stand up to scrutiny from anyone, anywhere. The problem is that your argument is not strong.



Except that succession began before Lincoln even took office. And the Emancipation Proclaimation? Really? Your going to blame that for starting a war that was already in effect?



And I still feel Lee should have been hung for treason but history is past and we can't do anything about it. The healthy thing is to accept it and move on.

Succession was a preventive measure, states tired of the industrial protectionism policies the North was pushing on the South for their own benefit.

As I said,if the South didn't leave, accepted the coming tariffs, the North would've gladly supported MORE slavery in order to fill their banks and support their industry.

The problem today is we try to make this a moral and social issue, it wasn't, it was about power,, politics and wealth.

Why do you think it was so easy for the North to enslave the indians after they freed the slaves? I think Sherman said it well. " indians are worse
than {insert N word}" They stood in the way of railroads and northern industry.

[Takeda Shingen]

Succession was a preventive measure, states tired of the industrial protectionism policies the North was pushing on the South for their own benefit.

Okay, so it was a 'preventative measure'. Now we can finally put to rest the myth of the freedom-loving secessionist. I'm glad that you have come to your senses.

As I said,if the South didn't leave, accepted the coming tariffs, the North would've gladly supported MORE slavery in order to fill their banks and support their industry.

Citation needed.

The problem today is we try to make this a moral and social issue, it wasn't, it was about power,, politics and wealth.

Cornerstone speech.

Why do you think it was so easy for the North to enslave the indians after they freed the slaves?

They murdered them wholesale. That isn't slavery, it is genocide. And the south was involved in that too. It was a horrible, horrible thing. I think that this illustrates the difference between you and I. For me, the past is objective; for you it is subjective. I have no interest in whitewashing it.

[Armistead]

Nah, just the big plantation owners liked it. Those folks were not the cause of the war.
As a native of the emerald isle, sir, I don't see you as having a dog in this fight. It's just the typical history written by the victors and what they write is usually 99% hogwash. So why shouldn't a southerner try to set the record straight, biased or not? King Abraham was the major cause of the conflict with his "proclamations" and the same old tired GOP rhetoric that has been attempting to circumvent the constitution both then and now.:hmmm:
I still feel that General Sherman should have been tried for war crimes. Just for the burning of Atlanta alone. Lincoln got what he deserved. All the south got out of it was wrecked. Damn Yankees!

Grant, Sherman, Sheridan....

Isn't it amazing how they sought a "final solution" to the indian tribes. Notice how we celebrate these men for the CW, but hardly mention their enslaving and exterminating the indians for the progression of industry.

Sherman burnt our family farm/plantation. When his bummers came, only an elderly uncle was there. I'm sure he put up a big fight.

[CaptainHaplo]

The South didn't go to war, we left the union and were invaded.

History does not bear that fact. The troops in Ft. Sumpter did not sally forth or take any aggressive or offensive action. Thus, by definition, they can not be accused of their mere presence being an "invasion" since they were there before the war started.

While I do not accept the "slavery was evil and that's why the North had to conquer the South", I do prefer facts to the feel good but baseless claims.

[Armistead]

They murdered them wholesale. That isn't slavery, it is genocide. And the south was involved in that too. It was a horrible, horrible thing. I think that this illustrates the difference between you and I. For me, the past is objective; for you it is subjective. I have no interest in whitewashing it.

You obviously don't know much about history here. They enslaved a great majority on reservations as well.

When Lincoln was elected, it was a done deal. His campaign wasn't one of anti slavery, but one of tariffs and policies to support northern industry over the South.

[Sailor Steve]

Still, we will continue to disagree the war was about slavery or the south protecting slaves, leaving the union over slaves.
The industrial North for years leading up to the war wanted tariffs. The South believed in free trade, the North didn't.
It wanted to
force the South to buy their goods. Lincoln said the Morrill tariff was the most important issue in the US in his campaign, that he would pass it.
Add the issue with new states being slave or free, it became an issue of political power and votes. Certainly the tariffs were a big part of SC succeeding.

"Robert Barnwell Rhett similarly railed against the then-pending Morrill Tariff before the South Carolina convention. Rhett included a lengthy attack on tariffs in the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States, which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance.

We do know the North as a whole had no issue over slavery. If the South hadn't left and Morrill passed, it would've been a great benefit to the North.
And the Republicans were also widely known as the "Party of Abolition". You conveniently don't mention that at all.

Succession was a preventive measure, states tired of the industrial protectionism policies the North was pushing on the South for their own benefit.
Really? So why did they seceed again? What did they say? I guess I really do have to do this again.

Texas:
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming 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. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.
https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html

South Carolina:
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

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. 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.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

Florida:
WHEREAS, anti-slavery agitation persistently continued in the non-slaveholding States of this Union...
http://www.civilwarcauses.org/florida-dec.htm

So tell me again why they seceeded?

Why do you think it was so easy for the North to enslave the indians after they freed the slaves? I think Sherman said it well. " indians are worse
than {insert N word}" They stood in the way of railroads and northern industry.
Possibly true, but what does that have to do with secession or the Confederate flag?

I'm not saying the US government has always been the good guy. Not in the least. You keep piling up arguments that it was all somebody else's fault, and keep trying to show evidence that has little or nothing to do with what they actually said at the time. All I wanted to do was stick with the 'Flag' topic.

[Armistead]

History does not bear that fact. The troops in Ft. Sumpter did not sally forth or take any aggressive or offensive action. Thus, by definition, they can not be accused of their mere presence being an "invasion" since they were there before the war started.

While I do not accept the "slavery was evil and that's why the North had to conquer the South", I do prefer facts to the feel good but baseless claims.

They were told to leave the Fort....They were trespassing and thus got shot at.

Your assumption that Lincoln would've left the South alone had they not fired the first shot is silly. He could've emptied the fort and left the South alone, but that got in the way of his plans to break the economy of the South.

[Takeda Shingen]

You obviously don't know much about history here. They enslaved a great majority on reservations as well.

You are aware that I'd have to have some respect for your character and/or intellectual capacity in order for your insults to stick, right?

When Lincoln was elected, it was a done deal. His campaign wasn't one of anti slavery, but one of tariffs and policies to support northern industry over the South.

Nothing changes the fact that slavery was the core issue behind the American Civil War. You can wish it all you'd like, and I am sure you will. But, when you put your fingers in your ears it is time for me to claim my victory and ride off into the sunset again. And yes, before you ask, it isn't hard at all to be this good. In fact, it is very, very easy.

[Sailor Steve]

They were told to leave the Fort....They were trespassing and thus got shot at.
They were negotiating handing over the fort already. They only had a few days of food left. All they had to do was wait.

Your assumption that Lincoln would've left the South alone had they not fired the first shot is silly. He could've emptied the fort and left the South alone, but that got in the way of his plans to break the economy of the South.
Completely wrong. He said he would not fire the first shot. All Jefferson Davis and Francis Pickens had to do was say "Fine. Keep that fort. We'll make money selling them supplies and we'll take it as a sign that you're willing to let us seceed peacefully." Lincoln would have been over the moral barrel and unable to do anything about it.

Your problem is that Davis and Pickens wanted that war just as much as anybody.

[Armistead]

Steve,

The abolition movement was small by comparison. Sure, many in the North were anti-slavery, but not to the point of changing it. Simply, what little moral conflicts they had weren't gonna stand in the way of taxing it.

All across the world slavery died a natural death. It would've in the US as well, but the North was more interested in using it to their benefit. The South fought against this unfairness.

The war probably could've ended in 64. Many in the North, as well as the South knew the South couldn't win and wanted to end the war without destroying the entire economics and culture of the South. Oh, but for the fall of Atlanta. However, by then, the North wanted to punish the South and break it totally, so they could control the economics and culture.

Sadly, it was the unfair and brutal policies of the North that led up to the war. It was the greed of industrial protectionists that insured war, instead of seeking a fair economic result that would've eventually ended slavery. Had that happened, it's probable our race relations and issues would've resolved in a much better way.

That doesn't make slavery right, but neither side held the high ground in historical context. Again, it's clear if the South had accepted taxes that supported the North, all would've been well for northern industry and life would've gone on as usual, with slavery dying out

[Sailor Steve]

Steve,
I need to change my screen name. Everybody who wants to make a point starts with "Steve". That's fine except when it comes from people who hide behind anonymity. If you're going to use my name to make a point, at least have the decency to tell me yours.

The abolition movement was small by comparison. Sure, many in the North were anti-slavery, but not to the point of changing it. Simply, what little moral conflicts they had weren't gonna stand in the way of taxing it.
Fine, but they didn't say that, did they? They cited Slavery as either the main or the sole cause for their secession. How many of the other side were this or that becomes irrelevant. They seceeded over Slavery. Unless of course their own statements of causes were lies, or "Northern revisionist history".

All across the world slavery died a natural death. It would've in the US as well, but the North was more interested in using it to their benefit. The South fought against this unfairness.
I agree it might have died a natural death, but the South was intent on hanging onto it as long as they possibly could. You just said that most Northerners were not abolitionists, so how could they be more interested in using it to their benefit if most of the North didn't care one way or the other? The South seceeded over Slavery. They said so themselves.

The war probably could've ended in 64. Many in the North, as well as the South knew the South couldn't win and wanted to end the war without destroying the entire economics and culture of the South. Oh, but for the fall of Atlanta. However, by then, the North wanted to punish the South and break it totally, so they could control the economics and culture.
Possibly, but on the other hand you still seem to want it all to be the fault of the Evil North, and the Poor Innocent South was just screwed from the start. Have you ever seen Birth Of A Nation?

Sadly, it was the unfair and brutal policies of the North that led up to the war. It was the greed of industrial protectionists that insured war, instead of seeking a fair economic result that would've eventually ended slavery. Had that happened, it's probable our race relations and issues would've resolved in a much better way.
Bull. Read about the Great Compromise. Read about Henry Clay. All, and I mean every single one, of the fights were about Slavery in one form or another. Again you want it all one way. Evil North. Poor Poor South. It's nothing more than single-sided objectivism.

That doesn't make slavery right, but neither side held the high ground in historical context. Again, it's clear if the South had accepted taxes that supported the North, all would've been well for northern industry and life would've gone on as usual, with slavery dying out
No, it's not clear at all. The South got the Constitution revised so slaves were counted as "partially free" though they weren't free at all. The South insisted loudly that for every new Free State there should be a new Slave State, and couldn't handle it when all the new states wanted to be Free States. The South did everything within their power to see that slavery continued.

The nascent Republican Party was the party of Abolition, and when a Republican got elected they bailed out. Lincoln's overriding concern was for keeping the Union together. The South seceeded over Slavery, period. They said so, and all your talk about tariffs doesn't change what they said, in their own documents, in their own words.

[Armistead]

They were negotiating handing over the fort already. They only had a few days of food left. All they had to do was wait.


Completely wrong. He said he would not fire the first shot. All Jefferson Davis and Francis Pickens had to do was say "Fine. Keep that fort. We'll make money selling them supplies and we'll take it as a sign that you're willing to let us seceed peacefully." Lincoln would have been over the moral barrel and unable to do anything about it.

Your problem is that Davis and Pickens wanted that war just as much as anybody.

If you study it, Lincoln wanted and insured that the South would fire the first shot. That was his plan, along with his tariffs. Lincoln spurned the negotiating at the start. History reveals Lincoln had to devise a plan to provoke the South to fire the first shot.

“The Sumter expedition failed of its ostensible object, but it brought about the Southern attack on that fort. The first gun fired there effectively cleared the air… and placed Lincoln at the head of the united people.” ~ Secretary of State Seward’s opinion about Ft. Sumter.

“You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.” ~ Lincoln to Gustavus Fox, in a letter dated May 1 1865. The phrase ‘even if it should fail’ is a tip off to Lincoln’s real motivations.

“President Lincoln in deciding the Sumter question had adopted a simple but effective policy. To use his own words, he determined to “send bread to Anderson”; if the rebels fired on that, they would not be able to convince the world that he had begun the civil war.” ~ The account of John G. Nicolay and John Hay, Lincoln’s trusted confidential secretaries.

“He told me that the very first thing placed in his hands after his inauguration was a letter from Major Anderson announcing the impossibility of defending or relieving Sumter…. He himself conceived the idea, and proposed sending supplies, without an attempt to reinforce giving notice of the fact to Governor Pickens of S.C. The plan succeeded. They attacked Sumter – it fell, and thus, did more service than it otherwise could.” ~ Senator Orville H. Browning, Lincoln’s close friend for twenty years, and staunch supporter of Lincoln’s dictatorship, in his daily diary that Lincoln didn’t know he kept, July 3, 1861.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/2002/10/adam-young/the-real-abraham-lincoln/

[Sailor Steve]

If you study it, Lincoln wanted and insured that the South would fire the first shot. That was his plan, along with his tariffs. Lincoln spurned the negotiating at the start. History reveals Lincoln had to devise a plan to provoke the South to fire the first shot.
No argument there. I've said so many times myself. Lincoln was a lot smarter than his opponents, and they fell for it. As I said, they could have put him over a barrel by simply refusing to fire that shot. Unfortunately they wanted a fight just as much as anybody else did, so they jumped right in and started the war.

And blamed Lincoln for it. Rightfully so, within that context, but you don't call it the "War of Southern aggression that Lincoln tricked us into", do you?

Great quotes, by the way, but I had already figured that out for myself.

[Armistead]

Steve,

It's your choice to use your real name, so expect people to refer to you as that. Feel free to call me Martin.

You're viewing history from the side of the victor. I'll address more later.

[nikimcbee]

Maybe they should use this flag instead:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/Bonnieblue.svg/250px-Bonnieblue.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bonnieblue.svg)

[Sailor Steve]

Feel free to call me Martin.
Thanks, but what's your real name? :O:

I usually respond badly when people use my name that way (it sounds like a teacher shaking her head and saying "Steve, Steve, Steve..."), but the truth is if I was doing it over I'd use my whole name the way Neal does now.

You're viewing history from the side of the victor. I'll address more later.
Not really. I actually don't care. I've had Southern Apologists tell me that everything I know came from Northern history books, but the fact is I looke things up for myself and read every viewpoint I can find. In this case there were a lot of causes, but it always comes back to what they actually said themselves, and that can't be denied.

[Armistead]

No argument there. I've said so many times myself. Lincoln was a lot smarter than his opponents, and they fell for it. As I said, they could have put him over a barrel by simply refusing to fire that shot. Unfortunately they wanted a fight just as much as anybody else did, so they jumped right in and started the war.

And blamed Lincoln for it. Rightfully so, within that context, but you don't call it the "War of Southern aggression that Lincoln tricked us into", do you?

Great quotes, by the way, but I had already figured that out for myself.

I actually agree, Lincoln got the South to fire a shot. The South,nor Davis wanted war, Davis actually feared it if you read his numerous statements before

"The Confederacy did not want war. One of the first things Jefferson Davis did after assuming office as president of the Confederacy was to send a peace delegation to Washington, D.C., in an effort to establish friendly ties with the federal government (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 360-362; Kenneth Davis, Don’t Know Much About the Civil War, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1996, pp. 156-157). The Confederacy offered to pay the South’s share of the national debt and to pay compensation for all federal installations in the Southern states (Charles Roland, The Confederacy, University of Chicago Press, 1960, p. 28; Patrick, Jefferson Davis and His Cabinet, p. 77; William C. Davis, Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America, New York: The Free Press, 2002, p. 87). The Confederacy also announced that Northern ships would continue to enjoy free navigation of the Mississippi River (Hummel, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, p. 138; Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1, pp. 210-213). Yet, Lincoln rejected all Confederate peace offers and insisted that federal armies would invade if the Southern states didn’t renounce their independence and recognize federal authority"

Read this in full when you have time.at least the two references.

What Caused the War
Who Started the War

http://www.southernheritage411.com/truehistory.php?th=031

[Armistead]

Thanks, but what's your real name? :O:

I usually respond badly when people use my name that way (it sounds like a teacher shaking her head and saying "Steve, Steve, Steve...")

Well, I meant no offense by writing "Steve":)

When I want your attention from now on, I'll just say "Hey Arsehole"

My guess is that the old saying

"shoot first, ask questions later"

was first spoken by a Confederate.

I do have have southern pride. I believe in standing my ground and fear no man. However, if I don't get the kitchen cleaned before my wife
gets home, I'll be in a world of trouble.

Later.....

[Sailor Steve]

Well, I meant no offense by writing "Steve":)
I knew you didn't. Most people don't, but it seems to be a habit of using someone's name when the user wants to grab the subject's attention. Kind of like when your mom uses your full name to call you rather than just your first name. No big deal, but this time it got me for some reason.

When I want your attention from now on, I'll just say "Hey Arsehole"
And you'll get it. :D

[mookiemookie]

I stopped reading there. Verses what your liberal progressive version? Not worth reading.

Versus the version that completes the phrase "state's rights to allow slavery." Convenient how the second part always gets left out, eh?

[Stealhead]

Actually the little known truth is that the Civil War was caused by a neurotic house cat named Mr.Bojangles.

I read it in a book entitled Mr.Bojangles Evil House Cat That Caused the American Civil War.

[Penguin]

2 cents from a Europeckerwood who bought the Confederate Battle Flag hanging in my cave in the same year I payed tribute to Dr. King when visiting his grave:

I've read the comparision with the swastika flag quite often, though there are significant differences:
The Swazi "Blood Flag" was introduced by a bunch of criminals who formed a gang, aka as a party flag. When this party was at power, they made it the official German country flag. The connotation remains the same: it represents the ideas of the very same party - if it represents a country, then only for the 12 years it was used.

As important and interesting (and probably pointless :know:) the debate about the US Civil War is; to me the Confederate flag represents more than that. I see it as a symbol for the Southern States and all its inhibitants, for hospitality, good food, even greater music, a certain way of life, but also state rights and a little bit of rebellion of course.

Some white power goons use it, yes, but they also use the celtic cross as a symbol, or stole the raised fist from Northern Soul (the British music).
When I see those clowns of the American Nazi Party or the KKK holding a parade, they also sport the the Stars&Stripes. Under the later flag, people of color where withheld equal rights some 100 years after the Civil War. Using the same standards, it would make the US flag also a symbol of racism. :hmmm:

Aktungbby made a good point about the British Flag: I'm going out on a limb and say that a huge amount of the ships which were involved in the triangle slave trade, were sailing under the Union Jack. The UK folks who fly this flag today (hopefully) don't mean to represent slavery -purposely leaving out many other injustices which happened under this flag, but use it in other meanings - context is king.

[Armistead]

I knew you didn't. Most people don't, but it seems to be a habit of using someone's name when the user wants to grab the subject's attention. Kind of like when your mom uses your full name to call you rather than just your first name. No big deal, but this time it got me for some reason.


And you'll get it. :D

Haha....

I'm going to visit Appomattox tomorrow. I suspect there will be some flaggers protesting. I may join them for a few minutes.

Also plan to visit my wife's ancestors farm. She comes from a more aristocratic family. Her ancestor was one of the first to bring settlers to Pittsylvania county in Va in 1760 and started Cooksburg, that later became another town. His original home/cabin still stands and still in the family.

In 1785 he signed a petition against the emancipation of slaves {not sure exactly what that was about.} The same year he signed a petition against the established church for equality for all denominations. Hows that for equality....

They built one plantation that burned down before the CW, but built another one not far from it still standing today back in the woods. During the CW they had about 5000 acres, only 14 slaves that we can find recorded. Like most, the slave records are basic names and dates. Her gggrandpappy rode with Stuart, under F Lee.

Course, I will bringing my metal detector.

[Aktungbby]

http://celtic.theoffside.com/files/2009/03/boxing_giant.jpg
That's me on the right. When I order a crash dive on my boat, I'm the only one who needs to rush forward. This saves mayhem and bruising of others as the hatches are tight and the the ubootwaffers can stay at their posts.:arrgh!:

[Armistead]

Most aren't aware the Confederate battle flag only became a symbol of hate in the 1930's onward.

" Beginning late in the 1930s, however, two things happened more or less at the same time: first, the battle flag became a fixture of pop culture, representing the generic Old South of the film Gone with the Wind (1939); and second, it was adopted by the third incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan. Previously, the Klan had displayed only the United States flag during its marches, but as the organization was pushed by law enforcement out of such Midwestern redoubts as Indiana and back into the South, it garbed itself in more explicitly southern symbolism."

The battle flag itself was designed because in early battles you could hardly tell the flags apart and Gen. Johnston saw the need. Another problem with early CSA flags were large white backgrounds, which sometimes the enemy thought were flags of surrender.

Here is the history of CSA flags.
http://txscv.tripod.com/csa.htm

In reality, blacks and others don't hate the battle flag itself because it was used in the CW, but that it became a symbol of some hate groups much later. In that, they wanted it banned from certain places. I can understand that. However, now people want the right to deny even the historical use of it. The next step is to make it even illegal for private citizens to fly it.

Recently a local black collar professor wrote this after the 150th Gettysburg commemoration.

"After the 150th commemoration, I no longer think the Confederate battle flag belongs at Gettysburg, Antietam, Shiloh, or any other battlefields. They should be banned. Any planted at monuments should be uprooted and thrown out"

I have just as much right to celebrate my heritage and history as anyone, yet some would deny that right.

Talk about sore winners.

We could learn from these guys.
http://i.azcentral.com/commphotos/view/348058.jpg

[mookiemookie]

I have just as much right to celebrate my heritage and history as anyone, yet some would deny that right.

Slavery is nothing to celebrate.

[Sailor Steve]

Slavery is nothing to celebrate.
No it isn't, but neither are sneak attacks, and there's the Japanese flag, and no complaints. You can respect and even honor your past without saying it's all good.

Some of my ancestors fought with Lee, and some of my ancesters were Normans back in the day. It is what it is.

[Simmy]

[QUOTE=Takeda Shingen;2098172
Nothing changes the fact that slavery was the core issue behind the American Civil War.You can wish it all you'd like, and I am sure you will. But, when you put your fingers in your ears it is time for me to claim my victory and ride off into the sunset again. And yes, before you ask, it isn't hard at all to be this good. In fact, it is very, very easy.[/QUOTE]

“my paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it 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.”
Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley

Many Blacks didn't see Lincoln has their “Great Emancipator”.

Many of Lincoln’s critics, especially African-Americans, go so far as to claim that he was no friend of blacks and did not want to risk the political fallout that would surely result from emancipation, but was eventually forced by circumstances to do so. In the words of Julius Lester, “Blacks have no reason to feel grateful to Abraham Lincoln. How come it took him two whole years to free the slaves? His pen was sitting on his desk the entire time.”

Many also have questioned the real significance of the Emancipation Proclamation, arguing that it was merely a piece of propaganda and that it actually freed no slaves. As Richard Hofstadter wrote, “had the political strategy of the moment called for a momentous human document of the stature of the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln could have risen to the occasion.” Instead, he produced a document with “all the moral grandeur of a bill of lading.” In addition, the document he issued only freed slaves where the federal government had no power. It did not apply to slaves in the loyal slave states or in those parts of the Confederacy under Union control. Indeed, Lincoln did not free the slaves; they freed themselves.

Editorial
March 2004
by Mackubin T. Owens
ashbrook.org

Seems not all Blacks agree with your assessment.

[mookiemookie]

No it isn't, but neither are sneak attacks, and there's the Japanese flag, and no complaints. You can respect and even honor your past without saying it's all good.


I don't disagree. The United States has done (is doing?) some pretty despicable things, and we still wave the flag. But the difference there and with the Japanese flag, or even the Rising Sun flag, is that those flags have been used for a very long time, and long before WW2. There's the precedence of history. The flag isn't a symbol of one act, or one war, or one political issue. It's a symbol of a nation.

The Confederate battle flag has no other symbolism or history than the rebellion of the South in the Civil War. A rebellion fueled by the desire to maintain the institution of slavery. It's a symbol of the Confederacy, which owed it's entire existence to that desire.

That's the difference in my mind.



Seems not all Blacks agree with your assessment.

The fact that the Union wasn't fighting to end slavery doesn't mean that the South wasn't fighting to keep it. That editorial is no rebuttal at all.

[em2nought]

Another problem with early CSA flags were large white backgrounds, which sometimes the enemy thought were flags of surrender.


Wonder how someone could mistake the confederate flag for a flag of surrender whilst looking over his shoulder, and running at breakneck speed back across the Potomac? :D

[Armistead]

“my paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it 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.”
Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley

Many Blacks didn't see Lincoln has their “Great Emancipator”.

Many of Lincoln’s critics, especially African-Americans, go so far as to claim that he was no friend of blacks and did not want to risk the political fallout that would surely result from emancipation, but was eventually forced by circumstances to do so. In the words of Julius Lester, “Blacks have no reason to feel grateful to Abraham Lincoln. How come it took him two whole years to free the slaves? His pen was sitting on his desk the entire time.”

Many also have questioned the real significance of the Emancipation Proclamation, arguing that it was merely a piece of propaganda and that it actually freed no slaves. As Richard Hofstadter wrote, “had the political strategy of the moment called for a momentous human document of the stature of the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln could have risen to the occasion.” Instead, he produced a document with “all the moral grandeur of a bill of lading.” In addition, the document he issued only freed slaves where the federal government had no power. It did not apply to slaves in the loyal slave states or in those parts of the Confederacy under Union control. Indeed, Lincoln did not free the slaves; they freed themselves.

Editorial
March 2004
by Mackubin T. Owens
ashbrook.org

Seems not all Blacks agree with your assessment.

Not really. Lincoln was just smart enough to know when to play his cards whatever the political climate. I think it clear Lincoln was anti slavery, but not to the point he would let it interfere with his political goals. His political timing was about perfect. No, he didn't really care about slavery, until it suited his purposes. Like him or not, he was political genius.

[Armistead]

Wonder how someone could mistake the confederate flag for a flag of surrender whilst looking over his shoulder, and running at breakneck speed back across the Potomac? :D

:haha:

But you can't blame men for following their Generals.

[Simmy]

Not really. Lincoln was just smart enough to know when to play his cards whatever the political climate. I think it clear Lincoln was anti slavery, but not to the point he would let it interfere with his political goals. His political timing was about perfect. No, he didn't really care about slavery, until it suited his purposes. Like him or not, he was political genius.

Your right.
My post was aimed at Takeda Shingen's comment about the Cival War being about slavery. It was, when it was convenient for him (Lincoln) to make it so.
Most Blacks don't think he was their white knight which is why they are in the Democratic Party and not the Republican Party.:D

[Simmy]

Not really. Lincoln was just smart enough to know when to play his cards whatever the political climate. I think it clear Lincoln was anti slavery, but not to the point he would let it interfere with his political goals. His political timing was about perfect. No, he didn't really care about slavery, until it suited his purposes. Like him or not, he was political genius.

Your right.
My post was aimed at Takeda Shingen's comment about the Civil War being about slavery. It was, when it was convenient for him (Lincoln) to make it so.
Most Blacks don't think he was their white knight which is why they are in the Democratic Party and not the Republican Party.:D

[Stealhead]

Your right.
Most Blacks don't think he was their white knight which is why they are in the Democratic Party and not the Republican Party.:D


That is about the most illogical statement I have seen in some time.
The Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party of today are vastly different in almost every respect from the Republican and Democratic parties of 150 years ago.

Hell they are vastly different from the parties that they where 50 years ago much less 150.

Man this whole revisionist history thing is very trendy it seems.It must have a lot to do with the general dissatisfaction that people of varying political views have.I guess it makes people fell better to create a subjective version of history that suits their ideals.

I am in no way denying that the idealized version of official history that most learn in school is the best.You can learn a more objective version even at a community college or by reading a few books and thinking for yourself it is also useful to understand when an author has an agenda.That is why with any subject that I have an interest in I like to read about it from multiple sources.

You got double posted by the way.

Oh, I regret to inform everyone that Mackubin T. Owens is white.Or he has a very serious skin condition.
http://ashbrook.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/OwensM.jpg

[Simmy]

That is about the most illogical statement I have seen in some time.
The Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party of today are vastly different in almost every respect from the Republican and Democratic parties of 150 years ago.

Hell they are vastly different from the parties they where 50 years ago much less 150.

Well you are simply going off what I said and did not read the article did you?
That's quite plain.
The fact is, Blacks joined the Democratic Party almost as soon as the war was over and the greatest part of them are still in that party. The reasons for so have nothing to do with your reasoning.

[Stealhead]

You clearly did not read that article that much is clear.The word "democratic" is not even used once in the entire editorial.

Let me link it for you so you may read it.... http://ashbrook.org/publications/oped-owens-04-guelzo/


Let us see the last paragraph Stealhead why certainly;

"The Emancipation Proclamation may lack the rhetorical elegance of the Gettysburg Address or the Second Inaugural, but Guelzo makes it clear that the Proclamation is the most epochal of Lincoln’s public pronouncements. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation is the definitive treatment of emancipation. Allen Guelzo deserves our immense gratitude for returning this critical document to its place of honor in the history of the American Republic."

You where using an article to prove the statements of Takeda Shingen wrong yet fail to realize that the author of the article holds the same view that Takeda does.


First African American congressman Hiram Rhodes elected into office in 1870 party Republican.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Rhodes_Revels
Here is a list of every African American person elected to federal office during Reconnection all Republicans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_officeholders_during_the_Reconstruction

Anyway keep doing your revisionist thing.Also look up the term "Dixiecrats"

[Wolferz]

It was all about cotton.:yep::D

[Oberon]

It was all about cotton.:yep::D

Lincoln had to invade because of cotton, so he fabricated a claim that the South had slaves that were ready to launch within 45 minutes... :hmmm:

[Schroeder]

Lincoln had to invade because of cotton, so he fabricated a claim that the South had slaves that were ready to launch within 45 minutes... :hmmm:
Garbage, he couldn't fabricate it because you need cotton for fabric.;)

But in seriousness when I read this stuff here then I'm completely astonished how European countries and people can get along as they do just 70 years after the greatest BS this planet has ever seen, while the US still seems to be divided over stuff on a much smaller scale that happened 150 years ago.:hmm2:

[Armistead]

There were about a dozen reason for the CW.

For the Union it was about high tariffs (mostly on the South}, big industry and protectionism. The North wanted the South to buy it's products, not lower priced products from Europe and tax Southern products at a higher level.

For the South it was about low taxes, free trade and economics. The south economics were based off agriculture/farming in which slaves played a major role.

The truth is tariffs had decreased in many aspects to low levels by the 1850's and many were seeking to raise them back up. The bigger issue was how the collected tariffs were spent, mostly to support the northern projects. This is what ticked off many a southern politician.

To say it wasn't about slavery, isn't quite correct. It was about ecomomics based on slavery. Certainly some in the North were against slavery, but not to the point it would interfere with economics. As long as the North got the tariffs from slave labor, it would be business as usual.

Lincoln never thought slavery a good idea, "free labor on free soil" doesn't work well in capitialism. Free labor doesn't create a tax base, you can't tax free labor. Lincoln wasn't radical, but he was against slavery on moral grounds as well. Lincoln worked the politcal climate when he could to support his beliefs against slavery. Certainly Lincoln saw blacks as inferior to whites and we see little of this on TV, but he didn't believe in enslaving man, nor did Robert Lee.


Protective Tariffs "Benefits For The North"
"From the time of the first Congress in 1789 to the outbreak of the Civil War there was dissension between the northern and the southern states over the matter of protective tariffs, or import duties on manufactured goods. Northern industries wanted high tariffs in order to protect their factories and laborers from cheaper European products. Demanding that "American laborers shall be protected against the pauper labor of Europe," tariff proponents argued that the taxes gave "employment to thousands of [American] mechanics, artisans, [and] laborers."
The vast majority of American industry was located in the northern states, whereas the economies of the agricultural southern states were based on the export of raw materials and the importation of manufactured goods. The South held few manufacturing concerns, and southerners had to pay higher prices for goods in order to subsidize northern profits.
The collected tariffs were used to fund public projects in the North such as improvements to roads, harbors and rivers. From 1789 to 1845, the North received five times the amount of money that was spent on southern projects. More than twice as many lighthouses were built in the North as in the South, and northern states received twice the southern appropriations for coastal defense. The sectional friction caused by the tariffs bills eventually led the country to the nullification controversy of 1832, during which South Carolina declared the tariff laws null and void. John C. Calhoun, the father of nullification, developed the theory of secession and detailed the steps by which a state could sever its relationship with the Union and remove itself from the unfair power of the central government. Federal authority prevailed in the nullification crisis of 1832, but the theories developed by Calhoun would be invoked again when the country split apart in 1861. "

The fact remains the majority of "hicks" that fought in the war didn't own slaves. Many of these poor farmers would suffer from higher tariffs, but few truly understood the issue. They mostly heard radical speeches and would not stand for Northern Armies to invade their states. Like most wars, it was "rich men talking, poor men dying."

We should have the right to honor the history and heritage of those that fought and died.

[Armistead]

Garbage, he couldn't fabricate it because you need cotton for fabric.;)

But in seriousness when I read this stuff here then I'm completely astonished how European countries and people can get along as they do just 70 years after the greatest BS this planet has ever seen, while the US still seems to be divided over stuff on a much smaller scale that happened 150 years ago.:hmm2:



Our big melting pot over here runneth over......

A Yankee was traveling through South Carolina when a car ran into him, wrecking both cars.
Both got out, neither was hurt.
The SC man looked at the Yankee and said
" I'm glad neither of us were hurt, let's have a toast to celebrate"
The Yankee agrees.
The Reb gets a bottle out of the trunk and says "to our good health"
and gives the bottle to the Yank who takes a few swigs.
The Yankee passes the bottle back to the Reb "aren't you gonna take a drink"
"No" says the Reb, I just called the cops.

[Sailor Steve]

The bigger issue was how the collected tariffs were spent, mostly to support the northern projects. This is what ticked off many a southern politician.
That's not what they said.

but he didn't believe in enslaving man, nor did Robert Lee.
And yet he didn't free them until he had to.
Some of Lee's slaves loved him.
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/lees%20slave.htm

Others not so much.
http://www.crossroadsofwar.org/discover-the-story/the-coming-storm/civil-war-stories/

Protective Tariffs "Benefits For The North"
You didn't provide a source for that lengthy quote.

We should have the right to honor the history and heritage of those that fought and died.
We should honor the people who fight and die in any cause, since most of them never know the real reasons. On the other hand if young people refused to fight and die the old people would have to find some other way to settle their differences.

[desertstriker]

of a little from the current discussion trend but my 2 cents
My opinion is an unpopular one to say the least. and even though i am a yankee (live in ohio) my family fought on both sides and i proudly display both flags stars and stripes on top stars and bars on the bottom why the heritage. at first the simpletons would accuse me of being racist then saying i condoned slavery you know the whole shabang. finally i got the neighborhood educated enough that they have no probleme with it and infact send their children to borrow from my civil war library for papers but i do get the accasional knock at the door by another simpleton that isn't local who decided to take offense.
Edit forgot to mention state rights which many felt where being trampled on by the north but that is another subject that will take to much time. to discuss

Now there were many reasons for the civil war. much of it as with any war was econamics. slavery is claimed often by those who do not understand what actually happened during during the war and during some battles and after. even president Lincon made some contrary decisions about the treatment of slaves; some captured slaves where assigned to the northern units as "pillage" and "tactical assets" but this was as much to keep them from returning to their masters and being sent back to the lines. but to the average person yeah the war was about slavery and the politicians knew this and used it for propaganda.

anyways done with my 2 cents.

[Sailor Steve]

Now there were many reasons for the civil war.
Actually there were only two main causes: Politics and Secession. Politics going back to the Constitutional Convention. Funny that the whole argument between North and South at that time was over slavery...no, excuse me, it was over representation. Representation involving slaves.

Secession was mainly over slavery. Before you argue with that assessment go back and read what they said at the time. Slavery, period.

slavery is claimed often by those who do not understand what actually happened during during the war and during some battles and after.
An easy out, but what they said shows that you are wrong.

but to the average person yeah the war was about slavery and the politicians knew this and used it for propaganda.
Also to anyone who actually reads what they said at the time.

[Oberon]

And we thought the cause of WWI was complicated enough, eh Schroeder? :haha:

[desertstriker]

i could argue all day but i am not going to. simply because i hate using the internet to find sources for an argument and rather use books. i gave my 2 cents worth and forgot to mention state rights which i will conceed was primarily about slavery. all my good books are on loan at the moment (or not in thier proper shelf possition but a title i would suggest for reading are "Major Problems in the Early Republic" but then again my professor loved that book because it made you infer your own conclussions and he would make us argue them funny thing we learned more by him running the class like a debate class. for that matter "Major Problemes in American History" i would have to recommend as well and "What They Fought For".

thopugh i will say thanks for reminding me to track the people down who borrowed my books and forgot to return them and to go through the personal library and find books out of place.

[Sailor Steve]

i hate using the internet to find sources for an argument and rather use books.
I would agree, but you could look for years before finding a book that contained a listing of the Causes of Secession or the writings of Robert E. Lee's slaves. The internet has its uses. On the other hand the Web has nothing about my favorite subjects, like the complete armor layout of HMS Dreadnought and how it changed over the years. :sunny:

I was briefly a member of the History Book Club long ago, and I still have the little gift they gave me when I joined - a real leather bookmark with a quote from Thomas Jefferson: "I cannot live without books".

[Simmy]

You clearly did not read that article that much is clear.The word "democratic" is not even used once in the entire editorial.

Let me link it for you so you may read it.... http://ashbrook.org/publications/oped-owens-04-guelzo/


Let us see the last paragraph Stealhead why certainly;

"The Emancipation Proclamation may lack the rhetorical elegance of the Gettysburg Address or the Second Inaugural, but Guelzo makes it clear that the Proclamation is the most epochal of Lincoln’s public pronouncements. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation is the definitive treatment of emancipation. Allen Guelzo deserves our immense gratitude for returning this critical document to its place of honor in the history of the American Republic."

You where using an article to prove the statements of Takeda Shingen wrong yet fail to realize that the author of the article holds the same view that Takeda does.


First African American congressman Hiram Rhodes elected into office in 1870 party Republican.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Rhodes_Revels
Here is a list of every African American person elected to federal office during Reconnection all Republicans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_officeholders_during_the_Reconstruction

Anyway keep doing your revisionist thing.Also look up the term "Dixiecrats"

Yeah, I read it.
And yes there are Blacks in the Republican Party. But they were and are only a handful of the general Black population.
The Democrates started the "Freemans Bureau" which later morphed into the Federal Welfare Department. In an attempt to buy votes no doubt.

Oh, I regret to inform everyone that Mackubin T. Owens is white.Or he has a very serious skin condition.
http://ashbrook.org/wp-content/uploa.../06/OwensM.jpg

So? Does that make him a bad guy?
The guy you quoted is an old white Republican (Allen Guelzo) who jumped on the Lincoln bandwagon not all that long ago and now can't pump out enough books about Lincoln. I guess your guy is better than mine!:nope:
Well here is some very respected people who don't think his info is that correct.

Allen Guelzo Misinforms the World Socialist Movement About Lincoln
By Thomas DiLorenzo
April 8, 2013
LewRockwell.com

And "Dixiecrats"? Who broke away from the Democratic Party in 1948 has what to do with the Civil War? As I said there are Blacks in the Republican Party, Rice, Powell,ect. But no where near the number that are Democrates.
Anyway, you can have the last word now. I'm done with this.:salute: And no, I'm not a Republican.

[Glock30Eric]

I am glad that they put the flag up. IMO I think we should burn Lincoln Memorial to the ground because former President Lincoln committed a genocide upon the southern by declaring war against them. The southern states had the right to secede the union as stated in COTUS. Unfortunately, the north won the war so they had the right to write the history in the north's best interest. That is why most of Americans are giving the glory to Lincoln based on the "propaganda history" by the North.

The CSA flag should remind us of what Lincoln did to us and to the COTUS, so that way we could prevent that ever to happen again.

Long Live CSA Flag!
http://www.scv674.org/Jack.gif

Former President Lincoln is in the same league as with Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, et al by committing the politicide (an act of genocide upon the people based on their political standing).

NOTE: The civil war wasn't all about the slaves. It was all about the states and the federal. There are well documentations that the southern slaves did fight along with the southern soldiers, voluntary.

[Glock30Eric]

Actually there were only two main causes: Politics and Secession. Politics going back to the Constitutional Convention. Funny that the whole argument between North and South at that time was over slavery...no, excuse me, it was over representation. Representation involving slaves.

Secession was mainly over slavery. Before you argue with that assessment go back and read what they said at the time. Slavery, period.


An easy out, but what they said shows that you are wrong.


Also to anyone who actually reads what they said at the time.

It wasn't all about slaves. It had a long history that the North states exploited the South on the economical levels (the slaves was the smallest part of the problem in the economical levels). Therefore, the Southern states had enough with the exploits by North and the slaves issue spark the fire and it had caused Lincoln to invade Southern states.

Don't you know that President Lincoln is a really ugly President in USA?

Read more on this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/10/thomas-dilorenzo/lincoln-unmasked/

[Sailor Steve]

I am glad that they put the flag up.
So am I. It's all about liberty.

IMO I think we should burn Lincoln Memorial to ground
I'm glad you said it was your opinion, because advocating the destruction of anybody else's property, private or public, is frowned upon here.

because he had committed a genocide on southern by declaring war against them.
Again, only your opinion. You need to show that he committed genocide with facts. Also, he didn't declare war. That would have implied admitting they were a separate country. He "called for volunteers to put down a rebellion", and then only after they fired the first shot. This has all been covered before. You should read the thread sometime.

The southern states had the right to secede the union as stated in COTUS.
This too is a matter of opinion. whether the States have the right to seceed has been argued since some New England States talked about it in 1812. If the best scholars and experts in the country don't agree, you claiming it doesn't make it so.

Also, do you know how to spell "Constitution"? I'm sure you do, but I have a strong distaste for the new anagrams: POTUS, SCOTUS and now COTUS are to me cheap and easy ways to not have to actually type something. It's not wrong, but it certainly is lazy.

But that's just my opinion. :sunny:

The CSA flag should remind us of what Lincoln did to us and prevent that ever to happen again.
What Lincoln did to you? You weren't even around then, and neither was I. If you're going to take that attitude though, what about what "you" did to countless people who should have been free to live their own lives? I include myself in that statement, because my great-great-grandfather was a slave-owner.

[Glock30Eric]

I'm glad you said it was your opinion, because advocating the destruction of anybody else's property, private or public, is frowned upon here.

I know and that's why I said, IMO. However, I live about a hour away from that landmark and every time I pass this place and it made me really mad.

Again, only your opinion. You need to show that he committed genocide with facts. Also, he didn't declare war. That would have implied admitting they were a separate country. He "called for volunteers to put down a rebellion", and then only after they fired the first shot. This has all been covered before. You should read the thread sometime.

There are many facts everywhere but the North states doesn't want you to know those facts.

You might want to buy this book.

http://www.amazon.com/THE-UNPOPULAR-MR-LINCOLN-President/dp/1932714618/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=19SRXIYY2PGV0&coliid=IP19INU6UYO5N

This too is a matter of opinion. whether the States have the right to seceed has been argued since some New England States talked about it in 1812. If the best scholars and experts in the country don't agree, you claiming it doesn't make it so.

See above for the book link.

Also, do you know how to spell "Constitution"? I'm sure you do, but I have a strong distaste for the new anagrams: POTUS, SCOTUS and now COTUS are to me cheap and easy ways to not have to actually type something. It's not wrong, but it certainly is lazy.

But that's just my opinion. :sunny:

LOL, I am on several forums and it seems everyone like to use COTUS, POTUS, SCOTUS, et al.

What Lincoln did to you? You weren't even around then, and neither was I. If you're going to take that attitude though, what about what "you" did to countless people who should have been free to live their own lives? I include myself in that statement, because my great-great-grandfather was a slave-owner.

What did Lincoln brought to us? We lost our true liberty. I can go much longer on this but to sum it up, we lost our liberty and we cannot enforce our Gov't to the COTUS at all. The Gov't can do whatever it pleases themselves. Maybe you want to buy ammo, guns, water filter, and to be ready for a second civil war or revolutionary 2.0. Maybe you want to buy a tinfoil hat in this discussion... :)

[CaptainHaplo]

What astounds me about the whole "slavery" issue to start with is that the first actual slave in the US - and the institution of slavery itself in America, arise because the very first slaveowner in America was in fact, black. The slave was named John Casor, the slaveowner was named Anthony Johnson.

Casor claimed he was an indentured servant who had been held past the standard 7 years indenture. Johnson successfully sued claiming that he owned Casor "for life".

How many of you actually knew that the first slaveowner in America was in fact, a free black man? More importantly, how many of our children learn that little tidbit in history when they learn about the pure evil of the white, southern racist?

[Oberon]

:hmmm:

Honestly...guys...I live in a country which has at least twelve civil wars. We've been invaded by several nations and repelled several others, and invaded all but 22 nations on this planet. The continent next door has been our ally, enemy and rival for over a thousand years. You've had a couple of wars of independence and a civil war, and there's THIS much aggrovation about it?

Do you see me and Jimbuna arguing over who was a Roundhead and who was a Royalist? Do I argue with Xabbarus over who was right or wrong in the Crimean war? Or with Hunter over the...actually, bad example, we rib each other about the Anglo-Dutch war and the Raid on Medway all the time. :haha: But sheesh, guys, I know the American civil war was a big deal, but at the end of the day, you're not the only country to have had one, some people really need to let it go. :doh:

[Aktungbby]

of a little from the current discussion trend but my 2 cents
My opinion is an unpopular one to say the least. and even though i am a yankee (live in ohio) my family fought on both sides and i proudly display both flags stars and stripes on top stars and bars on the bottom why the heritage. at first the simpletons would accuse me of being racist then saying i condoned slavery you know the whole shabang. finally i got the neighborhood educated enough that they have no probleme with it and infact send their children to borrow from my civil war library for papers but i do get the accasional knock at the door by another simpleton that isn't local who decided to take offense.
Edit forgot to mention state rights which many felt where being trampled on by the north but that is another subject that will take to much time. to discuss

Now there were many reasons for the civil war. much of it as with any war was econamics. slavery is claimed often by those who do not understand what actually happened during during the war and during some battles and after. even president Lincon made some contrary decisions about the treatment of slaves; some captured slaves where assigned to the northern units as "pillage" and "tactical assets" but this was as much to keep them from returning to their masters and being sent back to the lines. but to the average person yeah the war was about slavery and the politicians knew this and used it for propaganda.

anyways done with my 2 cents.
Actually Gen Grant kept two slaves in Ohio during the war: his excuse was "good help is hard to find" Have driven US 50 in my truck-em-up days thru all of Ohio from ravenswood WVA to Seymour Ind. and im still standn'! If you think the flag is bad try having a vintage jockey statue in the front yard to tie up the mustang at night!

[Aktungbby]

There were about a dozen reason for the CW.

For the Union it was about high tariffs (mostly on the South}, big industry and protectionism. The North wanted the South to buy it's products, not lower priced products from Europe and tax Southern products at a higher level.

For the South it was about low taxes, free trade and economics. The south economics were based off agriculture/farming in which slaves played a major role.

The truth is tariffs had decreased in many aspects to low levels by the 1850's and many were seeking to raise them back up. The bigger issue was how the collected tariffs were spent, mostly to support the northern projects. This is what ticked off many a southern politician.

To say it wasn't about slavery, isn't quite correct. It was about ecomomics based on slavery. Certainly some in the North were against slavery, but not to the point it would interfere with economics. As long as the North got the tariffs from slave labor, it would be business as usual.

Lincoln never thought slavery a good idea, "free labor on free soil" doesn't work well in capitialism. Free labor doesn't create a tax base, you can't tax free labor. Lincoln wasn't radical, but he was against slavery on moral grounds as well. Lincoln worked the politcal climate when he could to support his beliefs against slavery. Certainly Lincoln saw blacks as inferior to whites and we see little of this on TV, but he didn't believe in enslaving man, nor did Robert Lee.


Protective Tariffs "Benefits For The North"
"From the time of the first Congress in 1789 to the outbreak of the Civil War there was dissension between the northern and the southern states over the matter of protective tariffs, or import duties on manufactured goods. Northern industries wanted high tariffs in order to protect their factories and laborers from cheaper European products. Demanding that "American laborers shall be protected against the pauper labor of Europe," tariff proponents argued that the taxes gave "employment to thousands of [American] mechanics, artisans, [and] laborers."
The vast majority of American industry was located in the northern states, whereas the economies of the agricultural southern states were based on the export of raw materials and the importation of manufactured goods. The South held few manufacturing concerns, and southerners had to pay higher prices for goods in order to subsidize northern profits.
The collected tariffs were used to fund public projects in the North such as improvements to roads, harbors and rivers. From 1789 to 1845, the North received five times the amount of money that was spent on southern projects. More than twice as many lighthouses were built in the North as in the South, and northern states received twice the southern appropriations for coastal defense. The sectional friction caused by the tariffs bills eventually led the country to the nullification controversy of 1832, during which South Carolina declared the tariff laws null and void. John C. Calhoun, the father of nullification, developed the theory of secession and detailed the steps by which a state could sever its relationship with the Union and remove itself from the unfair power of the central government. Federal authority prevailed in the nullification crisis of 1832, but the theories developed by Calhoun would be invoked again when the country split apart in 1861. "

The fact remains the majority of "hicks" that fought in the war didn't own slaves. Many of these poor farmers would suffer from higher tariffs, but few truly understood the issue. They mostly heard radical speeches and would not stand for Northern Armies to invade their states. Like most wars, it was "rich men talking, poor men dying."

We should have the right to honor the history and heritage of those that fought and died.
"A rich mans war but a poor mans fight" was the expression of the time.:arrgh!:

[Subnuts]

This thread perfectly explains why, try as I might, I can't get myself interested in the Civil War. We can't decide if slavery was bad, but at least we agree that the Nazis were bad. Well...most of us. :yawn:

[Aktungbby]

What astounds me about the whole "slavery" issue to start with is that the first actual slave in the US - and the institution of slavery itself in America, arise because the very first slaveowner in America was in fact, black. The slave was named John Casor, the slaveowner was named Anthony Johnson.

Casor claimed he was an indentured servant who had been held past the standard 7 years indenture. Johnson successfully sued claiming that he owned Casor "for life".

How many of you actually knew that the first slaveowner in America was in fact, a free black man? More importantly, how many of our children learn that little tidbit in history when they learn about the pure evil of the white, southern racist?
Look up a plantation owner named Ball who owned several rice plantations in the Carolinas. He was black and his rice was highly sought after as a food for the slaver ships bringing their cargos to the Americas in what was the triangular trade, largely financed and conducted by New England ship owners! Required reading of the subject is 'the World Afire: the English involvement in the Civil War'. This lends global perspective to what Americans are myopic on. Lincoln signed the emancipation to keep England from supporting the South on the pretext of a victory at Sharpsburg(Antietam to the Bluebellies) Its investment portfolio mangled by the conflict, England turned to Egypt for long strand cotton to fuel its industrial revolution on the back of countless children working and dying in the textile mills. Contemplating invading Canada to unite the nation after the Trent affair, Lincoln decided one war at a time was enough. The unsung hero in all this was Sec of State Seward who kept the back channels friendly with Victoria's cabinet and was an assassination target the night of Lincoln's own murder.:arrgh!:

[Aktungbby]

This thread perfectly explains why, try as I might, I can't get myself interested in the Civil War. We can't decide if slavery was bad, but at least we agree that the Nazis were bad. Well...most of us. :yawn:
You'd be interested if there was a Hunley mod and you had a $50 gold piece!:arrgh!:

[Aktungbby]

:hmmm:

Honestly...guys...I live in a country which has at least twelve civil wars. We've been invaded by several nations and repelled several others, and invaded all but 22 nations on this planet. The continent next door has been our ally, enemy and rival for over a thousand years. You've had a couple of wars of independence and a civil war, and there's THIS much aggrovation about it?

Do you see me and Jimbuna arguing over who was a Roundhead and who was a Royalist? Do I argue with Xabbarus over who was right or wrong in the Crimean war? Or with Hunter over the...actually, bad example, we rib each other about the Anglo-Dutch war and the Raid on Medway all the time. :haha: But sheesh, guys, I know the American civil war was a big deal, but at the end of the day, you're not the only country to have had one, some people really need to let it go. :doh:
Yeah but you guys are NASTY! I mean digging up poor Cromwell post- mortem to execute the corpse for regicide. EGAD. Actually my forbears were given the king's grace to flee to the colonies in 1745 rather than be HD'Q'd as good jacobites not in favor of the Hanover line of descent. Recently did the UK and met the clan head Kincaid! The house was a hospital in WWI. I do tend to lurk off Glasgow in my VIIB in my oilskin kilt:arrgh!:

[Sailor Steve]

Actually Gen Grant kept two slaves in Ohio during the war: his excuse was "good help is hard to find"
Do you have a source for that? The sources I've seen say that Grant personally owned one slave, whom he freed in 1859.
http://www.nps.gov/ulsg/historyculture/slaveryatwh.htm

[eddie]

:hmmm:

Honestly...guys...I live in a country which has at least twelve civil wars. We've been invaded by several nations and repelled several others, and invaded all but 22 nations on this planet. The continent next door has been our ally, enemy and rival for over a thousand years.

Boy, you Brits don't get along with anybody do you!:haha:

[Sailor Steve]

Boy, you Brits don't get along with anybody do you!:haha:
Most of their "civil wars" were just guys killing each other to see who got be king this week. The only one they actually call the "English Civil War" ended up with no King at all. :dead:

[Aktungbby]

Do you have a source for that? The sources I've seen say that Grant personally owned one slave, whom he freed in 1859.
http://www.nps.gov/ulsg/historyculture/slaveryatwh.htm
After hastily exploring my extensive CW library, I stand slightly corrected. Grant emancipated his only owned slave in his own right in 1859. His wife however enjoyed the use of four slaves the gift of her father, a slave owner. As a husband of the times, Grant would have exercised control of his wife's property and thus benefitted in Galena IL. These chattel were liberated in the 1860's as well and one was hired as a nurse. Lee and Washington had similar difficulties as they acquired slaves by marrying "up" financially. A 'gentleman' of the times' of officer and Virginia squire set could manage his wife's nuptual holdings but could not enrich himself as he would be socially ostracized by the mores of the period. So much for the code of the South. Lee's slaves actually worked for him after the war, or his sons and many of Nathan Bedford Forrest's chattel worked for him after the war which is amazing as he was a self made millionaire dealing in slaves, for which he had been held in low esteem by the Jeff Davis set. His statue in Memphis has of course been removed but his tactics are still studied...ie "charge both ways" can translate to "shoot from the front and rear tubes simultaneously":arrgh!:... it works for me! Good to hear from u. Am working on VIIC with renewed vigor after your model upload.

[Aktungbby]

Most of their "civil wars" were just guys killing each other to see who got be king this week. The only one they actually call the "English Civil War" ended up with no King at all. :dead:
No but they got an 'iron sided' Lord Protector who tried to have his poor son succeed him.:arrgh!:

[CaptainMattJ.]

It all comes down to the infinite stubbornness of the average person. People will believe whatever they want to believe, no matter how much evidence is stacked against them and no matter how biased they may be. Its why ive given up arguing over most things. Talking to people about certain things is often talking to a brick wall with lips. They dont talk to you, they talk AT you, regardless of how good of an argument you present. When it comes to political parties, religion, morality, hindsight, sports, ect, it all becomes pointless arguing.

Its why i stay out of arguments about things like the morality of the civil war.

[Takeda Shingen]

This thread perfectly explains why, try as I might, I can't get myself interested in the Civil War. We can't decide if slavery was bad, but at least we agree that the Nazis were bad. Well...most of us. :yawn:

It all comes down to the infinite stubbornness of the average person. People will believe whatever they want to believe, no matter how much evidence is stacked against them and no matter how biased they may be. Its why ive given up arguing over most things. Talking to people about certain things is often talking to a brick wall with lips. They dont talk to you, they talk AT you, regardless of how good of an argument you present. When it comes to political parties, religion, morality, hindsight, sports, ect, it all becomes pointless arguing.

Its why i stay out of arguments about things like the morality of the civil war.

If more people had attitudes like both of yours' I would still be a moderator and regular here as SubSim.

[Aktungbby]

Our big melting pot over here runneth over......

A Yankee was traveling through South Carolina when a car ran into him, wrecking both cars.
Both got out, neither was hurt.
The SC man looked at the Yankee and said
" I'm glad neither of us were hurt, let's have a toast to celebrate"
The Yankee agrees.
The Reb gets a bottle out of the trunk and says "to our good health"
and gives the bottle to the Yank who takes a few swigs.
The Yankee passes the bottle back to the Reb "aren't you gonna take a drink"
"No" says the Reb, I just called the cops.
Musta been moonshine!:arrgh!:

[Sailor Steve]

Musta been moonshine!:arrgh!:
I didn't notice that particular piece before. Armistead, that's just evil.

Gotta love it! :rotfl2:

[Aktungbby]

Lincoln had to invade because of cotton, so he fabricated a claim that the South had slaves that were ready to launch within 45 minutes... :hmmm:
Actually he reinforced Ft. Sumpter knowingly forcing the issue (as did FDR desiring the enemy to fire the first shot). He did so as, ever the lawyer, utilizing Andrew Jackson's own secession threat precedent involving South Carolina, ever the hot-bed of the rebellion.:arrgh!:

[Sailor Steve]

^
:yep:

I've always said that if Davis and Pickens had just said "Okay, cool, another source of revenue", Lincoln would have been screwed, hoist on his own petard. That would never have happened, though.

[Tribesman]

What astounds me about the whole "slavery" issue to start with is that the first actual slave in the US - and the institution of slavery itself in America, arise because the very first slaveowner in America was in fact, black. The slave was named John Casor, the slaveowner was named Anthony Johnson.

Casor claimed he was an indentured servant who had been held past the standard 7 years indenture. Johnson successfully sued claiming that he owned Casor "for life".

How many of you actually knew that the first slaveowner in America was in fact, a free black man? More importantly, how many of our children learn that little tidbit in history when they learn about the pure evil of the white, southern racist?
What a load of agenda driven rubbish.
The codification of slavery under the puritans was entered into the books a decade previously in that area, you do not formally legislate for business if the business does not exist.
Slavery in the Carolinas pre dates that by another 120 years, which also has the first slave rebellion in what was to become the US.
Narvaez slaves also in the 1520s were in Florida and Texas before Mexico, so that's more slaves in the US before the "magic" date of "Casor the 1st"
Then I suppose from another angle you have people like Hunt who ran into legal problems before the Casor case, where he ran into problems when selling slaves from America on the European market.
The Dutch brought slaves to NY in 1628, so that predates Casor too. Though their attempted slave sale in Virginia in 1619 ran into problems because someone had baptised the Africans they had.

To go full on though, slavery in what became the US predates the European arrival so it is a rather moot point about who is the first, but to claim that Casor was the first slave in America is clearly not true.