# Confederate Flag



## Fennick

I've been watching on the TV news and seen this on several media news websites. That several groups want the Confederate Flag taken down from South Carolina State Capitol and also to be removed from license plates and the Governor of South Carolina is also calling for its removal. 

What's your opinion about that? Should it be removed or stay?


----------



## susieneddy

yanno, if the state had lowered the flag to half mast nothing might have been said about it


----------



## HDRider

We are all about symbols. Hollow symbols. 

Remove he symbol. Remove the problem. 

Feel good.


----------



## kasilofhome

I think it is a sharp flag. I worry about how the flag hurts because Jesus in pee did not kill. Flags don't kill.


----------



## joseph97297

kasilofhome said:


> because Jesus in pee done not kill.



Huh?

If the gov and the people want to remove it, then go for it.


----------



## Fennick

kasilofhome said:


> I think it is a sharp flag. I worry about how the flag hurts because Jesus in pee done not kill. Flags don't kill.


You're right, flags don't kill, people kill, and flags are just pieces of cloth with symbolic pictures on them. If I understand correctly what objectors are objecting to, it's not the flag as a piece of cloth that they're concerned about. Their concern is about what the Confederate flag is symbolic of and thoughts and actions the symbolism inspires and motivates in certain individuals.


----------



## kasilofhome

Fennick said:


> You're right, flags don't kill, people kill, and flags are just pieces of cloth with symbolic pictures on them. If I understand correctly what objectors are objecting to, it's not the flag as a piece of cloth that they're concerned about. Their concern is about what the Confederate flag is symbolic of and thoughts and actions the symbolism inspires and motivates in certain individuals.


It is a symbol of many things... in America we all need to deal with being offended without the potential of being offended... you live in a controlled environment lacking freedom, sound American to me.


----------



## kasilofhome

joseph97297 said:


> Huh?
> 
> If the gov and the people want to remove it, then go for it.


Yep, the artist set out to create art that touch on persons emotions... no one was killed, and most simple forgot it. I will remember it because it was a moment to test freedoms boundaries and our nation of citizens past that test understanding that words and images do not have to be nice to be accepted.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

susieneddy said:


> yanno, if the state had lowered the flag to half mast nothing might have been said about it


They cannot, by law, lower that flag without a congressional vote.

If you read "flag etiquette" you'll find most of the "flag lowering" is done improperly to begin with.

That flag really has nothing to do with Roof's crime


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> I think it is a sharp flag. I worry about how the flag hurts because Jesus in pee done not kill. Flags don't kill.


It's often painful trying to comprehend your posts
Proofreading and editing really doesn't take much time


----------



## gapeach

The flag that is flying in Columbia on the Statehouse grounds is not even a copy of the orginal Confederate Flag.


A Confederate "Stars and Bars" flag, captured by soldiers of the Union Army at Columbia, South Carolina.

This is the real one:


----------



## gapeach

Second national flag, also used as the Confederate navy's ensign, 1.5:1 ratio


----------



## 7thswan

It's a freedom of speech issue. So no, leave it alone.


----------



## susieneddy

Bearfootfarm said:


> They cannot, by law, lower that flag without a congressional vote.
> 
> If you read "flag etiquette" you'll find most of the "flag lowering" is done improperly to begin with.
> 
> That flag really has nothing to do with Roof's crime


if it is used improperly already then it wouldn't have made any difference if they flew it at half mast


----------



## Nevada

7thswan said:


> It's a freedom of speech issue. So no, leave it alone.


Not really. When it's displayed on a government building it's no longer just free speech.


----------



## gapeach

Bearfootfarm said:


> They cannot, by law, lower that flag without a congressional vote.
> 
> If you read "flag etiquette" you'll find most of the "flag lowering" is done improperly to begin with.
> 
> That flag really has nothing to do with Roof's crime


It really doesn't. The flag has been a bone of contention ever since the NAACP put the ban on South Carolina as a venue for sports and other events. A lot of people in SC feel that it may be hurting business and that companies might not relocate there because of the NAACP ban. That is the biggest issue and then there is the sensitivity for some
to the flag, pro and con.


----------



## kasilofhome

Nevada said:


> Not really. When it's displayed on a government building it's no longer just free speech.


Really...

We have flown flags that states have designed as there flag for quite some time each and every flag flow IS freedom of speech...

Oh, can you see... the the freedom of expression.


----------



## gapeach

The flag was flying on the Confederate Memorial not on top the Statehouse.
You could not have done anything with the flag that would have mattered.
The flag was already an issue just like it has been now for a good many years. Black college football players have expressed that they don't like it flying at all just like they don't like the state flag at Ole Miss.


----------



## Marshloft

Fennick said:


> I've been watching on the TV news and seen this on several media news websites. That several groups want the Confederate Flag taken down from South Carolina State Capitol and also to be removed from license plates and the Governor of South Carolina is also calling for its removal.
> 
> What's your opinion about that? Should it be removed or stay?


 Gov. Haley is probably being forced into removing it.
Other than that, it's no ones business outside of the state of south carolina.
Taking it down isn't going to change anything other than it will no longer fly on government property.
Born a *Rebel*, die a* Rebel*. Life goes on.


----------



## MO_cows

Well it will probably backfire because everyone who is extra proud of that flag will just display it at their home, business, on their car, their t-shirt, screen saver, etc. Quick, somebody write an app to insert the confederate flag into everything you do with your smart phone and make a buck!


----------



## Nevada

Marshloft said:


> Gov. Haley is probably being forced into removing it.
> Other than that, it's no ones business outside of the state of south carolina.
> Taking it down isn't going to change anything other than it will no longer fly on government property.
> Born a *Rebel*, die a* Rebel*. Life goes on.


I'm understanding that there are a lot of proud southerners who see it as a symbol of the south, and that it might honor their war heroes who died defending that flag. But you have to also recognize that the flag doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. To many, the confederate flag says "we liked it the way it used to be", and many see that as wishing for the days of slavery to return.


----------



## kasilofhome

Nevada said:


> I'm understanding that there are a lot of proud southerners who see it as a symbol of the south, and that it might honor their war heroes who dies defending that flag. But you have to also recognize that the flag doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. To many, the confederate flag says "we liked it the way it used to be", and many see that as wishing for the days of slavery to return.


I'll start checking but I doubt I will find where symbols are legally required to have the same emotional meaning to all.


----------



## gapeach

I would rather get on you tube and play all my favorite renditions of "Dixie" anytime than to fly a Rebel Flag.

I miss hearing Dixie during football games but then we don't go to football games anymore anyway. It is pc now for Southern college bands *not* to play it because "it might offend someone". We still have freedom to listen to anything we want to in our own homes and if we want to, to display anything we want to on our property unless there is some kind of community ordinance against it.

As far as the flag goes, Bill Clinton signed for the Arkansas state flag to have the Confederate stars and bars that Hillary claims to be against.
* Bill Clinton Signed Law Honoring Confederacy In ...*









www.inquisitr.com/2190474/*bill*-*clinton*-*signed*-law...

Jun 20, 2015 Â· While governor of *Arkansas*, *Bill* *Clinton* reportedly *signed* into law a *bill* that honored the *Confederacy* in the *state* *flag*.


----------



## Nevada

kasilofhome said:


> I'll start checking but I doubt I will find where symbols are legally required to have the same emotional meaning to all.


Either way, it doesn't belong on a government building.


----------



## gapeach

Nevada said:


> Either way, it doesn't belong on a government building.


That is just your opinion.

It is really nobody's business what SC flies on their statehouse but the Governor of SC and the General Assembly!


----------



## gibbsgirl

Caught a headline earlier that said amazon was going to remove all items for sale involving the Confederate flag. Seems like a little mob mentality and hysteria going around about this. And, I've always found decisions made by a mob rarely are the wisest choices.

Reminds me a bit of kristallnacht.


----------



## Nevada

gibbsgirl said:


> And, I've always found decisions made by a mob rarely are the wisest choices.


It's called democracy.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> Caught a headline earlier that said amazon was going to remove all items for sale involving the Confederate flag. Seems like a little mob mentality and hysteria going around about this. And, I've always found decisions made by a mob rarely are the wisest choices.
> 
> Reminds me a bit of kristallnacht.


People have been working for years for this result. No hysteria except from those who don't like the result.


----------



## kasilofhome

Nevada said:


> Either way, it doesn't belong on a government building.


Opinion or fact. Emotional or logical. American resection freedom or a drone on repeat mode.


----------



## kasilofhome

nevada said:


> it's called democracy.


fyi... We are a republic


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> People have been working for years for this result. No hysteria except from those who don't like the result.


Never let a crisis mis an opportunity to increase control by trampling on freedoms.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Nevada said:


> Either way, it doesn't belong on a government building.


It's not on a government building! Problem solved!


----------



## Patchouli

My personal opinion is it is up to the people of the state of South Carolina. I have read a whole ton of horse manure about the Confederate flag since the shooting. Lots of skewed headlines. All the usual nonsense to whip people up. 

The first fuss was why isn't it flying at half mast? Well because it can't, it's a physical impossibility. The flag is chained to it's pole so you can leave it up or take it down but no half mast is possible. And no one can actually take it off that pole without 2/3s of the state Congress approving it.

Second fuss was why is it on the Capitol. Well it isn't. Ironically it used to be and if it still was hanging where it used to fly it would be at half mast along with the US flag and the state flag. But it is now a part of a Civil War memorial. 

For better or worse every time something comes up involving the Civil War we get to fight it all over again because Americans have 3 views. One they just don't care or don't know anything about it. Then we have the Unionist view and the Secessionist view and they are very different. Both can trot out their books, websites, favorite historians, movies, documentaries, etc. Nobody ever wins those arguments. But a lot of people have family who died in it and a lot of people have pride in those family members. And if yo think the Civil War was all about slavery and white people hating black people we can't explain it to you. But a lot of us know it was a whole lot more complex and that most people in the Union and the Confederacy didn't care one iota about slavery. 

My final thought is this: I find it deeply ironic that people who scream bloody murder about stereotyping anyone or hating anyone based solely on the color of their race feel perfectly comfortable doing so based on where they live or their ownership of a flag.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> fyi... We are a republic


Well, we were, but we keep sliding into that abyss of democracy further all the time. Anyone with half sense knows that democracy is doomed to failure from the get go. As soon as the public figures out they can vote themselves a free lunch from the public treasury they will do it every time.


----------



## Evons hubby

gibbsgirl said:


> Caught a headline earlier that said amazon was going to remove all items for sale involving the Confederate flag. Seems like a little mob mentality and hysteria going around about this. And, I've always found decisions made by a mob rarely are the wisest choices.
> 
> Reminds me a bit of kristallnacht.


Yeppers, mob mentality, aka majority rule or democracy has lynched many an innocent man... and a few women.


----------



## gapeach

Patchouli said:


> My personal opinion is it is up to the people of the state of South Carolina. I have read a whole ton of horse manure about the Confederate flag since the shooting. Lots of skewed headlines. All the usual nonsense to whip people up.
> 
> The first fuss was why isn't it flying at half mast? Well because it can't, it's a physical impossibility. The flag is chained to it's pole so you can leave it up or take it down but no half mast is possible. And no one can actually take it off that pole without 2/3s of the state Congress approving it.
> 
> Second fuss was why is it on the Capitol. Well it isn't. Ironically it used to be and if it still was hanging where it used to fly it would be at half mast along with the US flag and the state flag. But it is now a part of a Civil War memorial.
> 
> For better or worse every time something comes up involving the Civil War we get to fight it all over again because Americans have 3 views. One they just don't care or don't know anything about it. Then we have the Unionist view and the Secessionist view and they are very different. Both can trot out their books, websites, favorite historians, movies, documentaries, etc. Nobody ever wins those arguments. But a lot of people have family who died in it and a lot of people have pride in those family members. And if yo think the Civil War was all about slavery and white people hating black people we can't explain it to you. But a lot of us know it was a whole lot more complex and that most people in the Union and the Confederacy didn't care one iota about slavery.
> 
> My final thought is this: I find it deeply ironic that people who scream bloody murder about stereotyping anyone or hating anyone based solely on the color of their race feel perfectly comfortable doing so based on where they live or their ownership of a flag.


Great post!

So many spout off and don't even know the SC History of why the flag was even at the Statehouse to begin with. It did not always fly on the grounds of the Statehouse.

That flag started flying atop the Statehouse in Columbia in 1962, and guess who put it there? &#8212; then-Gov. Fritz Hollings, a Democrat. He later became a senator. He was the longest serving junior Senator at a little over 38 yrs.. Strom Thurmond was always the senior senator. If that flag is racist, then how exactly would you describe the Democrat who put it there? I would never have called him a racist. About the only negative thing I could say about him was that he was very close friends with Teddy Kennedy.

The South Carolina State House, site of the 2000 controversy
On April 12, 2000, the South Carolina State Senate passed a bill to remove the Confederate flag from the top of the State House dome by a majority vote of 36 to 7. (The flag had originally been placed on the dome in 1962.)[45] "...[T]he new bill specified that a more traditional version of the battle flag would be flown in front of the Capitol next to a monument honoring fallen Confederate soldiers". The bill also passed the state's House of Representatives, but not without some difficulty. On May 18, 2000, after the bill was modified to ensure that the height of the flag's new pole would be 30 feet (9 m),[why?] it was passed by a majority of 66 to 43. Governor Jim Hodges signed the bill into law five days later after it passed the state Senate. On July 1, 2000 the flag was removed from atop the State House by two students (one white and one black) from The Citadel; a more historically accurate Confederate battle flag was then raised next to a monument on the front lawn of the capitol. Current state law prohibits the flag's removal from the State House grounds without additional legislation."


----------



## gibbsgirl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, mob mentality, aka majority rule or democracy has lynched many an innocent man... and a few women.


It seems to me that regardless of what reason people believe this young man committed all these murders, there was a consensus that none of them made the results of his actions acceptable. I guess this is just an easier thing to make a decision about taking action ob than debating medications or guns or online hate groups or any others number of things that I've read being debated. Amazon and the politicians and the media can announce victory and meaningful change by banning a flag and its associated merchandise. Seems like a bit of a scapegoat solution. But, definitely is an easier victory. Especially since the media and amazob's words and actions have nothing to do with legislated actions.


----------



## Muskrat

I wonder if anyone noted that for some descendants of Confederate soldiers/citizens, the Stars and Stripes, the flag of our nation, is a symbol of Northern aggression, occupation, disenfranchisement, and radical reconstruction?

But we got our revenge: we elected Carter as President.


----------



## gapeach

I can't imagine who got revenge when Obama was elected twice.


----------



## Marshloft

Nevada said:


> I'm understanding that there are a lot of proud southerners who see it as a symbol of the south, and that it might honor their war heroes who died defending that flag. *But you have to also recognize that the flag doesn't mean the same thing to everyone.* To many, the confederate flag says "we liked it the way it used to be", and many see that as wishing for the days of slavery to return.


 You're right, and everyone does know that. The problem is, politico's and the media only want it to mean just one thing and one thing only. And there lies the rub, if we don't see it their way, we're racist.
And some are offended because they were taught to be offended by that
flag. Who's fault is that?


----------



## Marshloft

gapeach said:


> I can't imagine who got revenge when Obama was elected twice.


 Sure we do. And they are still exacting their revenge.


----------



## Muskrat

Marshloft said:


> Sure we do. And they are still exacting their revenge.


No. They got what they thought they wanted. They were wrong. 

The rest of my comment would not do the world any good so I'm going to go watch hound puppies tree a supremely uninterested tomcat.


----------



## gapeach

Muskrat said:


> No. They got what they thought they wanted. They were wrong.
> 
> The rest of my comment would not do the world any good so I'm going to go watch hound puppies tree a supremely uninterested tomcat.


They were wrong and that is for sure. He has dragged us down so far that we may never recover.
I will have to say too, that I have never once in my life ever known one person who thought we should ever go back to slavery. We were not the ones who brought the slaves here either. Their own people sold them into slavery.
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9510/ghana_slavery/


----------



## Lisa in WA

gibbsgirl said:


> inCaught a headline earlier that said amazon was going to remove all items for sale involving the Confederate flag. Seems like a little mob mentality and hysteria gog around about this. And, I've always found decisions made by a mob rarely are the wisest choices.
> 
> Reminds me a bit of kristallnacht.


Comparing a corporation's decision not to sell merchandise displaying confederate flags to a violent anti-Jewish pogrom that's very name represents some of the worst that mankind can do to other people is one of the most ridiculous comparisons I think I have ever seen.


----------



## Old Vet

I think that flag and all it represents should be banned for all times. Also ban slavery and the mention if it. Remove it from history that way we can live it again.


----------



## gibbsgirl

basketti said:


> Comparing a corporation's decision not to sell merchandise displaying confederate flags to a violent anti-Jewish pogrom that represents some of the worst that mankind can do to other people is one of the most ridiculous comparisons I think I have ever seen.


I said it reminded me a bit of it because there were many steps that led to the path of genocide a whole bunch of populations faced. I moved to a neighborhood that had a lot of holocaust survivors when I was a kid. So, maybe for me, it's engrained in me in a different way to see things through the lenses some if them showed me more often. Some of those people spent time with me as a kid and made me think a lot about the path that led to genocide. Doesn't mean to me that keeping or banning that flag is the ultimate path to genocide. But, I do see the similarity of the general public being upset about this guys actions and taking knee jerk reactios to address it with this flag that really probably aren't significantly related to him being crazy and doing such an evil thing. Genocide has also been on my mind because I think his intention was to carry out and inspire genocide against black people.

But, I can respect you feeling differently about it without calling your ideas ridiculous.


----------



## Lisa in WA

gibbsgirl said:


> I said it reminded me a bit of it because there were many steps that led to the path of genocide a whole bunch of populations faced. I moved to a neighborhood that had a lot of holocaust survivors when I was a kid. So, maybe for me, it's engrained in me in a different way to see things through the lenses some if them showed me more often. Some of those people spent time with me as a kid and made me think a lot about the path that led to genocide. Doesn't mean to me that keeping or banning that flag is the ultimate path to genocide. But, I do see the similarity of the general public being upset about this guys actions and taking knee jerk reactios to address it with this flag that really probably aren't significantly related to him being crazy and doing such an evil thing. Genocide has also been on my mind because I think his intention was to carry out and inspire genocide against black people.
> 
> But, I can respect you feeling differently about it without calling your ideas ridiculous.


This doesn't even make sense. You just appear to have thrown words together in no rational way to try and make an argument. I also grew up in close proximity to Holocaust survivors and my friend's grandfather was one. I don't think you have any special lens. That sounds like a bit of self-aggrandizement to no specific purpose.
I still would like to know (without all the babble) how exactly Amazon removing confederate flags from their merchandise remotely approaches anything to do with genocide.


----------



## arabian knight

gibbsgirl said:


> I said it reminded me a bit of it because there were many steps that led to the path of genocide a whole bunch of populations faced. I moved to a neighborhood that had a lot of holocaust survivors when I was a kid. So, maybe for me, it's engrained in me in a different way to see things through the lenses some if them showed me more often. Some of those people spent time with me as a kid and made me think a lot about the path that led to genocide. Doesn't mean to me that keeping or banning that flag is the ultimate path to genocide. But, I do see the similarity of the general public being upset about this guys actions and taking knee jerk reactios to address it with this flag that really probably aren't significantly related to him being crazy and doing such an evil thing. Genocide has also been on my mind because I think his intention was to carry out and inspire genocide against black people.
> 
> But, I can respect you feeling differently about it without calling your ideas ridiculous.


It is about time this comes to a head. Been a sore in many peoples eyes for a long time. I am so glad so many stores both on line and brick and Mortar ones are now finally coming to their senses and sport this insane selling of such sad that of that rebel flag. They lost so get over it.


----------



## gibbsgirl

basketti said:


> This doesn't even make sense. You just appear to have thrown words together in no rational way to try and make an argument. I also grew up in close proximity to Holocaust survivors and my friend's grandfather was one. I don't think you have any special lens. That sounds like a bit of self-aggrandizement to no specific purpose.
> I still would like to know (without all the babble) how exactly Amazon removing confederate flags from their merchandise remotely approaches anything to do with genocide.


I don't mean it at all as self aggrandizement. I only meant it as saying I know I definitely had my eyes opened to things I really didn't understand about the holocaust and might not have without them sharing with me some very true and terrible things. I guess maybe it changed the way how u was processing things and seeing the world the same way some people say experiencing a holocaust museum might.

The amazon thing bothered me cause I bet you they would have taken no action to remove those items if this guy hasn't killed all those people. And, it is a in poor taste to try and gain popularity and praise by acting like a picture of this kid with a Confederate flag was totally an integral part of why he chose to commit murder on all those people and dessicrate their church. And, so I don't see there actions as anything other than trying to get ahead by planting the idea in people's minds that citizens who honir that flag in any way must somehow be like him. He was evil, and I I don't respect amazon at all for trying to paint other people with the same brush he painted himself with 

If they had chosen to roll-out this change to there site when nothing in particular related to the Confederate flag and this shooting was plastered all over the media, political talking points and the topic was not trending so high on social media, it would not feel that way to me. But they didn't. They're being opportunists trying to capitalize on public support of alienating a demographic in the US. And, during the kristallnacht and those times, their were plenty of businesses, individuals, and politicians who were also trying to gain wealth and power by getting support for stripping it from Jews and others and anyone who supported them.


----------



## Lisa in WA

gibbsgirl said:


> I don't mean it at all as self aggrandizement. I only meant it as saying I know I definitely had my eyes opened to things I really didn't understand about the holocaust and might not have without them sharing with me some very true and terrible things. I guess maybe it changed the way how u was processing things and seeing the world the same way some people say experiencing a holocaust museum might.
> 
> The amazon thing bothered me cause I bet you they would have taken no action to remove those items if this guy hasn't killed all those people. And, it is a in poor taste to try and gain popularity and praise by acting like a picture of this kid with a Confederate flag was totally an integral part of why he chose to commit murder on all those people and dessicrate their church. And, so I don't see there actions as anything other than trying to get ahead by planting the idea in people's minds that citizens who honir that flag in any way must somehow be like him. He was evil, and I I don't respect amazon at all for trying to paint other people with the same brush he painted himself with
> 
> If they had chosen to roll-out this change to there site when nothing in particular related to the Confederate flag and this shooting was plastered all over the media, political talking points and the topic was not trending so high on social media, it would not feel that way to me. But they didn't. They're being opportunists trying to capitalize on public support of alienating a demographic in the US. And, during the kristallnacht and those times, their were plenty of businesses, individuals, and politicians who were also trying to gain wealth and power by getting support for stripping it from Jews and others and anyone who supported them.


So kind of a "six degrees of separation" thought process, huh? Congrats...that took some real gymnastics to hook that comparison together. I don't think it really worked, but kudos for trying!


----------



## Old Vet

gibbsgirl said:


> I don't mean it at all as self aggrandizement. I only meant it as saying I know I definitely had my eyes opened to things I really didn't understand about the holocaust and might not have without them sharing with me some very true and terrible things. I guess maybe it changed the way how u was processing things and seeing the world the same way some people say experiencing a holocaust museum might.
> 
> The amazon thing bothered me cause I bet you they would have taken no action to remove those items if this guy hasn't killed all those people. And, it is a in poor taste to try and gain popularity and praise by acting like a picture of this kid with a Confederate flag was totally an integral part of why he chose to commit murder on all those people and dessicrate their church. And, so I don't see there actions as anything other than trying to get ahead by planting the idea in people's minds that citizens who honir that flag in any way must somehow be like him. He was evil, and I I don't respect amazon at all for trying to paint other people with the same brush he painted himself with
> 
> If they had chosen to roll-out this change to there site when nothing in particular related to the Confederate flag and this shooting was plastered all over the media, political talking points and the topic was not trending so high on social media, it would not feel that way to me. But they didn't. They're being opportunists trying to capitalize on public support of alienating a demographic in the US. And, during the kristallnacht and those times, their were plenty of businesses, individuals, and politicians who were also trying to gain wealth and power by getting support for stripping it from Jews and others and anyone who supported them.


There is a lot of things that should open your eyes if you really want them opened. Not just about the flag but what the government has planed for you.


----------



## Guest

basketti said:


> So kind of a "six degrees of separation" thought process, huh? Congrats...that took some real gymnastics to hook that comparison together. I don't think it really worked, but kudos for trying!


Kind of like requiring the display of the Star of David on their chest, a few degrees of separation from the gas chambers. Making symbols evil in the eyes of the public makes winnings the battle of public support for your end game easy. Amaazion just helped the cause. (Misspelled to avoid embedded link)


----------



## BlackFeather

So as I understand it, the flag should be banned because it was the flag of some people who did some bad things and it is offensive because it reminds others of those bad things. Well that applies to almost any flag of any country. I am sure people have been offended by the actions of the United States, I guess we should ban the stars and stripes too. Ask Mexicans who lost territory in our south west, They might be offended with the U.S.flag. How about the American Indian? Maybe they would not like to see the U.S. flag. Then there is the British empire, I bet somebody is offended by their flag. Lets take all the flags down. People have to learn to grow thicker skin.


----------



## Lisa in WA

dlmcafee said:


> Kind of like requiring the display of the Star of David on their chest, a few degrees of separation from the gas chambers. Making symbols evil in the eyes of the public makes winnings the battle of public support for your end game easy. Amaazion just helped the cause. (Misspelled to avoid embedded link)


Amazon is not making a symbol evil, it's trying to ban something that symbolizes evil to many people. Symbols by definition always represent something or they are not symbols. Far more likely that the display of the Confederate flag will foment the kind of behavior you are attibuting to Amazon. Your argument is a bit backward.


----------



## WildernesFamily

basketti said:


> Amazon is not making a symbol evil, it's trying to ban something that symbolizes evil to many people. Symbols by definition always represent something or they are not symbols. Far more likely that the display of the Confederate flag will foment the kind of behavior you are attibuting to Amazon. Your argument is a bit backward.


I'll repeat my posts, edited for readability to this thread, here:

And yet Amazon...

Still sells items with Swastikas.
Still sells the Rhodesian flag.
Still sells the old South African flag.
Still sells Hamas flags and other items like Shahada paraphernalia. 

What's up with that?


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> I'm understanding that there are a lot of proud southerners who see it as a symbol of the south, and that it might honor their war heroes who died defending that flag. But you have to also recognize that the flag doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. To many, the confederate flag says "we liked it the way it used to be", and many see that as wishing for the days of slavery to return.


Some people aren't very bright.
Nobody gave it a thought until democrats started using it to promote racism


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> It's called democracy.


We have laws, mobs, riots and chaos are brought to us by the left, and are not to be admired


----------



## no really

WildernesFamily said:


> I'll repeat my posts, edited for readability to this thread, here:
> 
> And yet Amazon...
> 
> Still sells items with Swastikas.
> Still sells the Rhodesian flag.
> Still sells the old South African flag.
> Still sells Hamas flags and other items like Shahada paraphernalia.
> 
> What's up with that?




Sad isn't it playing politics after a tragedy. There is more media coverage about a flag than the community black, white and those in between that came together in support. Basically this w hole discussion is sad.


----------



## painterswife

no really said:


> Sad isn't it playing politics after a tragedy. There is more media coverage about a flag than the community black, white and those in between that came together in support. Basically this w hole discussion is sad.


Yet you participated to voice your opinion. Just as did the others.


----------



## Guest

basketti said:


> Amazon is not making a symbol evil, it's trying to ban something that symbolizes evil to many people. Symbols by definition always represent something or they are not symbols. Far more likely that the display of the Confederate flag will foment the kind of behavior you are attibuting to Amazon. Your argument is a bit backward.


Supporting a bigoted cause of a government by the non jewish community sure did harm a lot of people. In the eyes of many your red white and blue symbolizes their g.d, evil or something in between. Maybe they should pull it? I think the whole debate in the media is ridiculous and fueled by the politically motivated evil.


----------



## MO_cows

WildernesFamily said:


> I'll repeat my posts, edited for readability to this thread, here:
> 
> And yet Amazon...
> 
> Still sells items with Swastikas.
> Still sells the Rhodesian flag.
> Still sells the old South African flag.
> Still sells Hamas flags and other items like Shahada paraphernalia.
> 
> What's up with that?


Oooh, oooh, pick me, I know!

Because........the public isn't paying any attention to those other symbols at this moment.


----------



## Marshloft

basketti said:


> Amazon is not making a symbol evil, *it's trying to ban something that symbolizes evil to many people.* Your argument is a bit backward.


 Oh Bull Hockey,,,, The amozon's and walmarts of the world could give a sh... about banning something because it represents evil.
Its all about the money,,,, and nothing but the money.
And a good many sign shops are now printing 24/7 to make up the difference.
The best part of that is, at least now they will be made/printed in the USA and not China.


----------



## no really

painterswife said:


> Yet you participated to voice your opinion. Just as did the others.


Yeah, and your comment is in itself indicative of this whole thing. If your not focusing on a flag than you are not playing the right game.


----------



## gibbsgirl

MO_cows said:


> Oooh, oooh, pick me, I know!
> 
> Because........the public isn't paying any attention to those other symbols at this moment.


Exactly, which is why I said watching amazon trying and harm the livelihood of people who make and sell Confederate merchandise in an online marketplace, because we're all supposed to understand those people should somehow be associated with the shooter's evil actions, is similar to trying to run jrws out of business and commandeer their livelihood, because those the Nazis wanted to give the pipulation a bad guy to blame for upsetting things in their society.

And, it is tragic that the insincere headline grabbing actions of amazon and politicians have snuffed out the stories of how truly amazing the reactions of that south Carolina community gave been to this tragedy. It was incredible to see and heare those people left behind after this shooting. And, so inspiring, after all the sad things that have happened in Ferguson and other places. Many communities face tragedy and injustice. But, I was really moved to see those local people respond in a way that really seemed to be trying to quash any notion of letting this destroy or hurt their community further. They knew who the bad guy was, and that comforting and healing were what was most needed to move forward.


----------



## Lisa in WA

dlmcafee said:


> Supporting a bigoted cause of a government by the non jewish community sure did harm a lot of people. In the eyes of many your red white and blue symbolizes their g.d, evil or something in between. Maybe they should pull it? I think the whole debate in the media is ridiculous and fueled by the politically motivated evil.


What bigoted cause by a government are you talking about?


----------



## gapeach

Today, all the talk in the media has been mostly about the Confederate flag and that it was going to probably be taken down. There was an overemphasis about it like nothing else in the world is going on so most people quite naturally focused on it too. 

The people in Charleston and the families of the victims still have a lot to go through this week with the funerals and all of the sadness. Nothing really takes away from their love, forgiveness and their strength. Rudy Guiliani said yesterday that these families have the love of Jesus Christ in their hearts and that is him who has given them this great faith and stoicism.


----------



## Guest

basketti said:


> What bigoted cause by a government are you talking about?


I doubt highly that you are that unlearned. If you do not know I'll just leave it alone and let history sneak back up on you unaware, much more comforting for you in the interim.


----------



## arabian knight

basketti said:


> Amazon is not making a symbol evil, it's trying to ban something that symbolizes evil to many people. Symbols by definition always represent something or they are not symbols. Far more likely that the display of the Confederate flag will foment the kind of behavior you are attibuting to Amazon. Your argument is a bit backward.


 So true. Others should be thinking the same way.


----------



## Patchouli

gibbsgirl said:


> I don't mean it at all as self aggrandizement. I only meant it as saying I know I definitely had my eyes opened to things I really didn't understand about the holocaust and might not have without them sharing with me some very true and terrible things. I guess maybe it changed the way how u was processing things and seeing the world the same way some people say experiencing a holocaust museum might.
> 
> The amazon thing bothered me cause I bet you they would have taken no action to remove those items if this guy hasn't killed all those people. And, it is a in poor taste to try and gain popularity and praise by acting like a picture of this kid with a Confederate flag was totally an integral part of why he chose to commit murder on all those people and dessicrate their church. And, so I don't see there actions as anything other than trying to get ahead by planting the idea in people's minds that citizens who honir that flag in any way must somehow be like him. He was evil, and I I don't respect amazon at all for trying to paint other people with the same brush he painted himself with
> 
> If they had chosen to roll-out this change to there site when nothing in particular related to the Confederate flag and this shooting was plastered all over the media, political talking points and the topic was not trending so high on social media, it would not feel that way to me. But they didn't. They're being opportunists trying to capitalize on public support of alienating a demographic in the US. And, during the kristallnacht and those times, their were plenty of businesses, individuals, and politicians who were also trying to gain wealth and power by getting support for stripping it from Jews and others and anyone who supported them.


I have 2 real questions here: will Amazon just quietly let the Confederate flag be sold again once all the fuss and bother settles down? Because ultimately they are all about money and nothing else.

And second question: are they willing to take down anything that a large group of people finds offensive or hateful? Because that is not a road they probably want to go down.


----------



## Old Vet

WildernesFamily said:


> I'll repeat my posts, edited for readability to this thread, here:
> 
> And yet Amazon...
> 
> Still sells items with Swastikas.
> Still sells the Rhodesian flag.
> Still sells the old South African flag.
> Still sells Hamas flags and other items like Shahada paraphernalia.
> 
> What's up with that?


Sales are up on confederate flags and other memorials by 3000 percent so they may sell them out by the time they quit selling them.


----------



## Patchouli

Sales have gone through the roof for the stuff with the Confederate flag on it. You know what happens when you try to ban freedom of expression? People get really, really expressive!


----------



## gibbsgirl

Patchouli, It wouldn't surprise me at all possible f they did the first thing you asked. And, I would be shocked if they bent to so called "pressure" to ban other items.

Old vet, I believe that easily is happening. It's similar I think to when production companies try and drum up a scandal about people in a reality show to get a bunch of publicity for one of their shows to raise their viewing audience numbers and profit from merchandising.

But, in this case I think it's on a whole other level because of the murders they are attempting to indirectly link to their products. There's no downside for them in this business decision. Those who agree will become more loyal to the amazon brand. Those who disagree will try and use the power of the dollar to show the products should stay for sale because there's too many sales they'll be sacrificing by removing them.


----------



## Old Vet

gibbsgirl said:


> Patchouli, It wouldn't surprise me at all possible f they did the first thing you asked. And, I would be shocked if they bent to so called "pressure" to ban other items.
> 
> Old vet, I believe that easily is happening. It's similar I think to when production companies try and drum up a scandal about people in a reality show to get a bunch of publicity for one of their shows to raise their viewing audience numbers and profit from merchandising.
> 
> But, in this case I think it's on a whole other level because of the murders they are attempting to indirectly link to their products. There's no downside for them in this business decision. Those who agree will become more loyal to the amazon brand. Those who disagree will try and use the power of the dollar to show the products should stay for sale because there's too many sales they'll be sacrificing by removing them.


Your eyes are open on this subject.


----------



## WildernesFamily

MO_cows said:


> Oooh, oooh, pick me, I know!
> 
> Because........the public isn't paying any attention to those other symbols at this moment.


Oh I see, thanks for clearing that up for me. And here I thought Amazon was just letting their hypocrisy show in their heroic fight to "ban something that symbolizes evil to many people."


----------



## Jolly

dlmcafee said:


> I doubt highly that you are that unlearned. If you do not know I'll just leave it alone and let history sneak back up on you unaware, much more comforting for you in the interim.


There are three kinds of people.

1. Those who make things happen.
2. Those who watch things happen.
3. Those who wonder, "What the heck just happened?".


----------



## Lisa in WA

Cornhusker said:


> Some people aren't very bright.
> Nobody gave it a thought until democrats started using it to promote racism


You mean like these guys?


----------



## Lisa in WA

WildernesFamily said:


> Oh I see, thanks for clearing that up for me. And here I thought Amazon was just letting their hypocrisy show in their heroic fight to "ban something that symbolizes evil to many people."


I don't disagree at all. Corporations are usually cold and hypocritical. My opinion was/is that comparing amazons hypocritical decision to the nazi's Kristallnacht is unusually asinine.


----------



## Lisa in WA

dlmcafee said:


> I doubt highly that you are that unlearned. If you do not know I'll just leave it alone and let history sneak back up on you unaware, much more comforting for you in the interim.


you aren't very good at being patronizing. :hysterical:


----------



## arabian knight

*General Lee From &#8220;Dukes of Hazzard&#8221; Losing Its Confederate Flag*


> Say goodbye to the General Lee as you&#8217;ve always known it.
> 
> In the wake of the deadly South Carolina shooting and the decision by several major retailers to stop selling merchandise featuring the Confederate battle flag, the toy spawned by the hit TV series &#8220;Dukes of Hazzard&#8221; that became a Southern icon wearing those colors will no longer be produced.





> Warner Bros. Consumer Products has one licensee producing die-cast replicas and vehicle model kits featuring the General Lee with the confederate flag on its roof&#8211;as it was seen in the TV series. We have elected to cease the licensing of these product categories.


https://www.yahoo.com/autos/general-lee-from-dukes-of-hazzard-losing-its-122294326432.html


----------



## Old Vet

arabian knight said:


> *General Lee From âDukes of Hazzardâ Losing Its Confederate Flag*
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/autos/general-lee-from-dukes-of-hazzard-losing-its-122294326432.html


But you cacn still buy it until they run out of it. If they were really against selling it they would recall any left.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Marshloft said:


> Oh Bull Hockey,,,, The amozon's and walmarts of the world could give a sh... about banning something because it represents evil.
> Its all about the money,,,, and nothing but the money.
> And a good many sign shops are now printing 24/7 to make up the difference.
> The best part of that is, at least now they will be made/printed in the USA and not China.


So you are against corporations making money? 
But if the sign shops are making money by printing "24/7"....that's okay?


----------



## AmericanStand

BlackFeather said:


> So as I understand it, the flag should be banned because it was the flag of some people who did some bad things and it is offensive because it reminds others of those bad things. Well that applies to almost any flag of any country. I am sure people have been offended by the actions of the United States, I guess we should ban the stars and stripes too. Ask Mexicans who lost territory in our south west, They might be offended with the U.S.flag. How about the American Indian? Maybe they would not like to see the U.S. flag. Then there is the British empire, I bet somebody is offended by their flag. Lets take all the flags down. People have to learn to grow thicker skin.



The winners don't usually give a lot of thought to the losers. The losers seldom get to make the rules for the winners. 
So yes it's about time a symbol of those that would defile the United States be banned.


----------



## Shrek

The Confederate Battle Flag flies historically in the present without any of the hatred spewed by some in this country.

Of course where it flies is where Confederates who expatriated, cased the battle flag and traveled to the city state of Americana in San Pau Brazil to grow cotton and tobacco .

Our local news ran a series interviewing the descendants of Os Confederados back in the 1990s.

It was interesting to see folks who looked Brazilian speaking English and Portuguese with Southern drawls.

One old resident whose great grandfather was one of the original 10,000 expatriates was asked if he ever wanted to "return to the United States" and he replied in a southern drawl "Why would I? My people came from the Confederate States of America." 

He then showed pictures of his great grandfather as a CSA officer and later as an officer in the Brazilian army as a line commander defending against a rebellion of the Brazilian government.


----------



## JJ Grandits

People spend too much time overthinking this. The Confederate flag represented States rights over an expanding federal government. I think flying it over a States capitol is appropriate. It also explains why our liberal and progressive friends hate it so.

The rebellion, the racism, the symbol of hate is only a smokescreen.

I think I'll put one on my truck.


----------



## Wolf mom

Remove the flag, tear down statues, rewrite history.

Who else in history does this remind you of?


----------



## HDRider

wolf mom said:


> remove the flag, tear down statues, rewrite history.
> 
> Who else in history does this remind you of?


Orwell.
Stalin
Mao
Take your pick.

I am glad now with a black president, and the removal of vile symbols our country is at peace with its former racial tensions. Seems so easy in retrospect.


----------



## HDRider

Pick the flag that offends you the least and bring peace between the warring races.


----------



## Txsteader

Nevada said:


> It's called democracy.


Really? So the rest of the nation can tell SC what to do? 

This is a perfect example of why we are *NOT* a democracy.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> Orwell.
> Stalin
> Mao
> Take your pick.
> 
> I am glad now with a black president, and the removal of vile symbols our country is at peace with its former racial tensions. Seems so easy in retrospect.


Or almost any conquering army in history. I remember sitting by the television and watching US soldiers use a military vehicle to pull down a statue of a deposed leader in downtown Baghdad not that many years ago to cheers from the locals and praise from the American people. Who knew we were just emulating Stalin and Mao.

Now that I've got that out of my system here's how I really feel. More people will rally around the confederate flag today than would have last week. More people will rally against it today than would have a week ago. Both sides are reacting with different sides of the same emotional coin. Removing the flag won't remove the hate from those who troll the dark regions of the interweb and society fomenting the feelings and ideas that led to a young man shooting nine people in a church. In fact, it will likely strengthen and embolden them. It will give them one more thing to rally around and blame on those they already hate. I understand the cultural context and meaning of the flag to many. But there are two sides to that context. That context is best displayed, to me, at historical sights and in museums. Not flying over state houses and other government buildings. It is, though, a decision best left to the citizens of those states to decide.


----------



## Tricky Grama

gapeach said:


> I would rather get on you tube and play all my favorite renditions of "Dixie" anytime than to fly a Rebel Flag.
> 
> I miss hearing Dixie during football games but then we don't go to football games anymore anyway. It is pc now for Southern college bands *not* to play it because "it might offend someone". We still have freedom to listen to anything we want to in our own homes and if we want to, to display anything we want to on our property unless there is some kind of community ordinance against it.
> 
> As far as the flag goes, Bill Clinton signed for the Arkansas state flag to have the Confederate stars and bars that Hillary claims to be against.
> * Bill Clinton Signed Law Honoring Confederacy In ...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.inquisitr.com/2190474/*bill*-*clinton*-*signed*-law...
> 
> Jun 20, 2015 Â· While governor of *Arkansas*, *Bill* *Clinton* reportedly *signed* into law a *bill* that honored the *Confederacy* in the *state* *flag*.


I really hope that during the '16 election the 'buttons' that were used to elect Bill/Hill will be proudly displayed by the opposition. They had their faces on the confed flag on campaign buttons.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> It's called democracy.


Huh, everyone voted?
Its really up to SC right now.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Fennick said:


> I've been watching on the TV news and seen this on several media news websites. That several groups want the Confederate Flag taken down from South Carolina State Capitol and also to be removed from license plates and the Governor of South Carolina is also calling for its removal.
> 
> What's your opinion about that? Should it be removed or stay?



When you put a band-aid on a compound fracture, you may look like you are 'doing something' for the break, when actually you are really doing nothing to fix the break.....it's all for show.

Taking down a flag does not change a heart.
If anything, it makes the heart more bitter than it was before.


----------



## 7thswan

Nevada said:


> Not really. When it's displayed on a government building it's no longer just free speech.


Well, the government is supposed to represent the people-BUT we know they are a seperate entity now. Next-the American flag, might "offend" someone,probably those illigals and others that don't want to assimulate.


----------



## Shrek

JJ Grandits said:


> People spend too much time overthinking this. The Confederate flag represented States rights over an expanding federal government. I think flying it over a States capitol is appropriate. It also explains why our liberal and progressive friends hate it so.
> 
> The rebellion, the racism, the symbol of hate is only a smokescreen.
> 
> I think I'll put one on my truck.


Complaints of Southern history and accusation of slavery injustices are nothing new, yet the really sad passages of history like Northern slave owners selling their slave stock to southern plantations before the northern abolition of slavery went into effect to avoid losing money instead of freeing them or the freed former slaves turned Louisiana slave owners who leased out their slaves seldom get covered n U.S. history classes.


----------



## AmericanStand

I have lived on Army bases where it's display would land you in the brig.


----------



## J.T.M.

basketti said:


> You mean like these guys?


 ~ :yawn: ~


----------



## HDRider

7thswan said:


> Well, the government is supposed to represent the people-BUT we know they are a seperate entity now. Next-the American flag, might "offend" someone,probably those illigals and others that don't want to assimulate.












Esparza, who moved to the United States when she was 2, is an undocumented student. That meant she faced financial insecurity, anxiety over losing family members to deportation and judgment from others because of her Mexican citizenship.

&#8220;Being an undocumented student on campus has definitely motivated me to work as hard as I can to ensure I am opening doors for the next generation of undocumented students,&#8221; Esparza said.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/jun/14/UCSD-graduation-thurgood-marshall-college/

Full boat scholarship....


----------



## Woolieface

It's just another division tactic. Can't get blacks and whites hating each other enough? Invite them to fight over a stupid flag. This game gets real old.


----------



## FarmerKat

There are many people who find the American flag offensive too (there have been many stories on the news over the years where organizations have banned it - lately UC Irvine comes to mind) ... so should the US drop the flag as its symbol because of that? Should we drop other symbols just in case someone was offended by them? 

I was listening to a discussion about the Confederate flag and one of the people speaking said that the flag was the inspiration for the murders in SC. Does anyone really think that if the only place to see the flag is in a museum (it was said in the same interview that it is where it belongs), Dylann Roof would now be a well adjusted, highly intelligent college student?


----------



## arabian knight

And one flag maker here in WI will stop making the flag and selling it to distributers.


----------



## mmoetc

FarmerKat said:


> There are many people who find the American flag offensive too (there have been many stories on the news over the years where organizations have banned it - lately UC Irvine comes to mind) ... so should the US drop the flag as its symbol because of that? Should we drop other symbols just in case someone was offended by them?
> 
> I was listening to a discussion about the Confederate flag and one of the people speaking said that the flag was the inspiration for the murders in SC. Does anyone really think that if the only place to see the flag is in a museum (it was said in the same interview that it is where it belongs), Dylann Roof would now be a well adjusted, highly intelligent college student?


Nope, the same people who long for a simpler, better time would still have found an easily influenced, disaffected youth to fill with their particular brand of hatred. Taking it down may have even given them one more reason. By the same token had the flag not been flying for the last 50 years would life have been one iota different?


----------



## 7thswan

Well, as a Russian AMERICAN, I'm totaly offended we have a communist in the WH. But, noone cares,so nothing will be done about it,birds of a feather and all.


----------



## arabian knight

WildernesFamily said:


> I'll repeat my posts, edited for readability to this thread, here:
> 
> And yet Amazon...
> 
> Still sells items with Swastikas.
> Still sells the Rhodesian flag.
> Still sells the old South African flag.
> Still sells Hamas flags and other items like Shahada paraphernalia.
> 
> What's up with that?



Again how many state buildings fly those?


----------



## WildernesFamily

arabian knight said:


> Again how many state buildings fly those?


How many people buying Confederate flags on Amazon are buying them to fly on state buildings?


----------



## nchobbyfarm

arabian knight said:


> Again how many state buildings fly those?


How many State buildings had the Confederate battle flag flying over them two weeks ago?


----------



## Nevada

Alabama took their confederate flag down, on orders by the governor.


----------



## gibbsgirl

The words red herring and subversion seem so appropriate to all this.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Nevada said:


> Alabama took their confederate flag down, on orders by the governor.


They took it down at a memorial. It was not flying over the State Capital building. And if that is what they wanted, fine! But some are trying to say these flags are flying over State Buildings. That is incorrect!


----------



## wiscto

The Civil War was all about slavery. All you have to do is actually read the secession declarations of Confederate States or read about the political debates in Washington and it's painfully obvious. The abolitionists were winning, and the south didn't like it. The Confederate Flag is a scar, and a symbol of an institution that was nothing less than evil. Take it down and burn it off.


----------



## wiscto

7thswan said:


> Well, as a Russian AMERICAN, I'm totaly offended we have a communist in the WH. But, noone cares,so nothing will be done about it,birds of a feather and all.


Okay you can't actually believe that Obama is a communist. Have you read anything about the Trans Pacific Partnership he wants so badly? It's pretty much the opposite of communism.


----------



## gibbsgirl

I have yet to encounter a war in history that can be so easily defined as being all about one issue.


----------



## wiscto

JJ Grandits said:


> People spend too much time overthinking this. The Confederate flag represented States rights over an expanding federal government. I think flying it over a States capitol is appropriate. It also explains why our liberal and progressive friends hate it so.
> 
> The rebellion, the racism, the symbol of hate is only a smokescreen.
> 
> I think I'll put one on my truck.





Wolf mom said:


> Remove the flag, tear down statues, rewrite history.
> 
> Who else in history does this remind you of?





HDRider said:


> Orwell.
> Stalin
> Mao
> Take your pick.
> 
> I am glad now with a black president, and the removal of vile symbols our country is at peace with its former racial tensions. Seems so easy in retrospect.


You all know that the south was seceding over slavery, right? You can all admit that, right? No one is re-writing history when they say that the Civil War was 100% about the South wanting to secede in order to protect slavery as an institution. Almost half of the Confederacy outright listed slavery as their primary cause.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

The rest just use language like, "hostility toward domestic institutions..." Which obviously was a reference to abolition of slavery.
http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordinances_secession.htm?PageSpeed=noscript#Missouri

You all may identify with states rights, but that flag represents the institutional defense of slavery. You understand what that means, correct? Slavery? I mean South Carolina even had the balls to complain that they couldn't travel to New York with their slaves, and that New York shouldn't have been allowed to pass such a law. They also complained that northern states shouldn't be allowed to determine that any slave within their borders was free, and they cited FEDERAL law in that very complaint.

The hypocrisy of the Confederacy's "states rights" argument was ludicrous then, and it's ludicrous now. Abolition was about INDIVIDUAL liberty. Should my state determine that it has the right to label me a slave?

Edit: By the way, ORWELL??? When people say, "That's Orwellian," they're talking about the plot of his stories, not the man himself. He was decidedly against "big brother," and "the thought police," and he's the reason people think of "big brother" as a dirty word in terms of politics. I think it's kind of enlightening that you put him on the same list as Stalin and Mao. Have you read 1984 or Animal Farm?


----------



## wiscto

gibbsgirl said:


> I have yet to encounter a war in history that can be so easily defined as being all about one issue.


That's interesting. I have a history degree and I can tell you that most wars had one factor that was so prominent in the path to war that without it the war wouldn't have happened. For the Civil War, slavery was that factor. The revisionists are the ones trying to tell everyone that it wasn't. If you take away the abolition movement. If you extend the Mason-Dixon Line to the West Coast. If you have the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT enforce property (slave) law in states which had chosen (states rights y'all) to outlaw slavery....the south likely would not have seceded. 

People enlist for various reasons. But without slavery, that war doesn't happen. Period.


----------



## gibbsgirl

I have no issue with considering slavery to have been a significant catalyst to causing the war. But, it was not the be all end all, one and done, definition of what the war was all about.

It was not the sole, only factor to causing that war anymore than the assassination that preceded ww1 was.

Stating that you have a degree in history to claim that is a qualifier to somehow being more correct than others, is interesting to me. I would think that a historian would want to open people up to seeing the broader scope of history, rather than oversimplify things.


----------



## 7thswan

wiscto said:


> Okay you can't actually believe that Obama is a communist. Have you read anything about the Trans Pacific Partnership he wants so badly? It's pretty much the opposite of communism.


Yes I do, his entire family and many of his close friends/advisors/mentors ect are and he said himself he sought out the radical left and marxists. A combo of Fashism/communisum/socialism is being used. Far as the TPP, I don't know much about it and if Obama want's it's gotta be bad for US, but more and more what O is doing falls in with a one world governemt, under the control of com.
And yes, Islam falls in with the control of com.=Control. Gorebul warming=control,our healthcare take over=control,PC over a flag=control, yelling "rasism" over everything=control, and all the lies=control; on and on.


----------



## wiscto

gibbsgirl said:


> I have no issue with considering slavery to have been a significant catalyst to causing the war. But, it was not the be all end all, one and done, definition of what the war was all about.
> 
> It was not the sole, only factor to causing that war anymore than the assumption that preceded ww1 was.
> 
> Stating that you have a degree in history to claim that is a qualifier to somehow being more correct than others, is interesting to me. I would think that a historian would want to open people up to seeing the broader scope of history, rather than oversimplify things.


The broader scope of history demonstrates that without slavery, the Civil War would not have happened. You're talking in the abstract when the math is right in front of you. Read the declarations of secession. Read about the debates taking place in Congress in the 19th century. 

The broader scope of history surely shows us that there were many causes to World War I, but there were also a lot of "sides" in World War 1. World War I and World War II are considered unique for a lot of reasons, one of those being that there were a lot of parties involved. But even in World War I you can get right down to the immediate cause and say that without Serbian Nationalism the dominoes might not have fallen.

There's a difference between being open and using "openness" to avoid obvious conclusions. There were only two sides in the Civil War, and those two sides were primarily divided along the lines of slavery, as the Confederate States themselves largely declared when they seceded.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Well wiscto, I don't think I can help explain my thoughts and understanding of historical events any better for you.

And, i'm sure you have no interest in considering any of them seeings how you have a degree in history.

But, I find it a bit comical that you seem to assume that others here are less informed or educated than yourself. You're making interesting points. But, it would probably seem more worthwhile to consider them, if you didn't start out by declaring those who would disagree were clearly and obviously off track and wrong.

By the way, my dad is a historian. I have yet to hear him ever interject that fact the way you did into a duscussion. He's made it very clear to us that history is so broad, no one will ever understand it all. So if he mentions it in a discussion it's always been by letting people know what areas he's got experience in and how that may or may not be relevant to the topic.


----------



## 7thswan

KGB expert who defected to the 
good guys was explaining it for us back in the 80s. Yuri Bezmenov tried 
to warn us: 

Stage One: Demoralization &#8211; Elimination of 
American Exceptionalism, fundamental change of national identity, 
structural deconstruction of foundational principles, elimination of 
religion. Embedding a new societal design upon the psyche of generations 
through ideological academia. Peer pressure by elites upon academics 
and society to convince that prior values were inherently flawed, 
racist, prejudiced etc. National identity is diluted with aspersions 
toward historical references. National history is re-written, 
re-defined, and molded to fit the new intended behavioral model and 
create the new values. 

Stage Two: Destabilization &#8211; Creation of 
economic, financial, and national security crisis. Also includes social 
crisis and breakdown of previous self-evident restrictions on moral 
behavior. Cloward Piven approach to overloading the system, ie more 
takers than producers. The crisis produces benevolent leaders who will 
promise to deliver &#8220;things&#8221; (Hope and Change) to meet people&#8217;s needs 
through Social and Economic Justice. False illusions that the situation 
is under control if certain strategic directions are followed (Bailouts, 
Stimulus, Jobs Bills, Regulations of industry, Unconstitutional Power 
Grabs, Dismissal of Historical Laws, Changes in legislative processes, 
Changes in checks and balances of power etc). 

Stage Three: Crisis (becomes accepted) &#8211; The 
uncomfortable feelings of change including losses of freedom are 
absorbed and accepted. Lost national identity becomes accepted as the 
norm within the new societal model. A period of national 
rebranding transition where people are so overwhelmed by the change they 
become numb and begin to accept a &#8216;new normal&#8217;. This period of 
normalization lasts indefinitely as the progression is continually 
advanced and acceptance takes place in small controlled doses. (New 
limits on behavior, Regulations, TSA Patdowns, Intrusions into privacy, 
Controls into daily life) These things begin to be accepted as &#8220;just the 
way it is now&#8221;.. 

Stage Four: Communist Normalization &#8211; Unlike the 
period of &#8220;Crisis&#8221; the people who helped orchestrate the change are now 
no longer needed. The new overarching centralized governmental model 
begins to take control. Leftist usurpers who initially thought they were 
going to be part of the new power structure begin to realize they were 
used and manipulated and they themselves become the new enemy. Because 
they have first hand knowledge of the agenda they are the primary target 
for elimination. They may simply be disregarded, obfuscated, thrown 
out, or they may be collected, imprisoned, or worse killed. There is no 
longer room for dissention. Dissent is only possible within the free 
system that has now been deconstructed. Therefore the leftist purpose is 
served once the destabilization is complete. Totalitarian Government 
takes control&#8230;


I figure we are in process of number 3. Libs and the ones that ignore obama's past and val jaretts=pay attention to #4.


----------



## HDRider

wiscto said:


> You all know that the south was seceding over slavery, right? You can all admit that, right? No one is re-writing history when they say that the Civil War was 100% about the South wanting to secede in order to protect slavery as an institution. Almost half of the Confederacy outright listed slavery as their primary cause.
> 
> http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
> 
> The rest just use language like, "hostility toward domestic institutions..." Which obviously was a reference to abolition of slavery.
> http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordinances_secession.htm?PageSpeed=noscript#Missouri
> 
> You all may identify with states rights, but that flag represents the institutional defense of slavery. You understand what that means, correct? Slavery? I mean South Carolina even had the balls to complain that they couldn't travel to New York with their slaves, and that New York shouldn't have been allowed to pass such a law. They also complained that northern states shouldn't be allowed to determine that any slave within their borders was free, and they cited FEDERAL law in that very complaint.
> 
> The hypocrisy of the Confederacy's "states rights" argument was ludicrous then, and it's ludicrous now. Abolition was about INDIVIDUAL liberty. Should my state determine that it has the right to label me a slave?
> 
> Edit: By the way, ORWELL??? When people say, "That's Orwellian," they're talking about the plot of his stories, not the man himself. He was decidedly against "big brother," and "the thought police," and he's the reason people think of "big brother" as a dirty word in terms of politics. I think it's kind of enlightening that you put him on the same list as Stalin and Mao. Have you read 1984 or Animal Farm?


I had typed 1984, but realized she asked author. I wish I was a smart as you.


----------



## Evons hubby

wiscto said:


> That's interesting. I have a history degree and I can tell you that most wars had one factor that was so prominent in the path to war that without it the war wouldn't have happened. For the Civil War, slavery was that factor. The revisionists are the ones trying to tell everyone that it wasn't. If you take away the abolition movement. If you extend the Mason-Dixon Line to the West Coast. If you have the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT enforce property (slave) law in states which had chosen (states rights y'all) to outlaw slavery....the south likely would not have seceded.
> 
> People enlist for various reasons. But without slavery, that war doesn't happen. Period.


I have to agree with you that nearly all wars have the popular excuse for them, but at the bottom of every war ever fought is the reason.... money and power. In the case of the Civil War the excuse made by the aggressor was slavery... of course that wasnt the reason. The north had fortunes at stake, and they werent about to give them up when the southern states opted out of the union. That war would have happened slaves or no slaves, there would have been some other excuse made but it would have happened. What would have prevented the war would have been for the northern states to live up to their end of the bargain when the union was formed. If they had simply followed the rules everyone had agreed to there would have been no need for the southern states to secede or for the union forces to take by force the wealth of the south. You are a historian, show me a war anywhere in the history of man that was not fought over money and power.


----------



## mnn2501

wiscto said:


> You all know that the south was seceding over slavery, right? You can all admit that, right? No one is re-writing history when they say that the Civil War was 100% about the South wanting to secede in order to protect slavery as an institution. Almost half of the Confederacy outright listed slavery as their primary cause.


No, it was about the rights of states, no matter what you Yankee history revisionists keep saying.

The 10th Amendment provided that powers not given to the federal government remain with the states. 
Old dishonest Abe and the neo-communist North didn't like that.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> No, it was about the rights of states, no matter what you Yankee history revisionists keep saying.
> 
> The 10th Amendment provided that powers not given to the federal government remain with the states.


Which rights were the confederate states upset about? Any in particular?


----------



## Nevada

mnn2501 said:


> No, it was about the rights of states, no matter what you Yankee history revisionists keep saying.


But I just don't see how you can get around individual liberty. People in a state can't vote to deny a class of people constitutional rights. That's not states' rights, that's flat out ignoring core principles of the constitution.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Wolf mom said:


> Remove the flag, tear down statues, rewrite history.
> 
> Who else in history does this remind you of?


Didn't take the time to answer this earlier. But, the first two that popped in my mind was the Islamic state and our country.

This is such a common thing to happen in societies, it's really sad to see it playing out and watch how we're having so little success in stopping it, even though it's so un-pc to say we're only going to be an exceptional nation if we can make our actions show that we are willing to continue to strive for exceptional. Otherwise, we'll just follow the same paths as many people before us.

This whole debate speaks volumes about how intolerant modern tolerance practices have become. There's no such thing anymore I guess as being allowed to respect other people's differences.

Wolf, another great example of rewriting things are the many mosques, temples, and cathedrals that have been built over in Europe and the middle East over the centuries. Isis is trying to do somewhat those same practices now, except they seem to be less focused on building over and more focused on destroying and leaving behind ruins as an example to others.

Except if course when they feel they could profit from the loot they've pillage by selling artifacts on the black market...there's that pesky power and money coming into play that Yvonne's hubby was talking about.

So disappointing to see how some people can't live and let live about the Confederate flag.

Thank you 7thswan for sharing what you did. My kids are really fascinated by Russian, USSR, Ukrainian history. They've learned a lot of wonderful things about that part of the world's history. And, they've learned a lot of not wonderful things. I've founding it interesting to watch them connect the dots as we follow the news together. More than once I've had some of them make comments about not understanding why the US is doing something cause it sounds like something they've learned about Soviet state govt.

We don't always get all the details right, but at least they're learning to think comprehensively.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> Which rights were the confederate states upset about? Any in particular?


As I recall, one of them had to do with the confederacy not being willing to allow a foreign country (the us) to maintain a military installation on their soil in ft. Sumter.

Lincoln was rather proactive in trying to bait the confederacy into taking the first shots. Which to me is a bit like when a bully taunts someone mercilessly and then cries foul when they get punched by that person.

In order for me to buy the idea that the Confederate flag represents evil and slavery, AND very little else, I'd have to be convinced that the opposing side in the war had clean hands on the issue of slavery. And, the union states had a long history of dirty hands on that subject.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Nevada said:


> But I just don't see how you can get around individual liberty. People in a state can't vote to deny a class of people constitutional rights. That's not states' rights, that's flat out ignoring core principles of the constitution.


I agree, but launching a civil war and saying it was just to fix a slavery problem that was slowly being ended state by state was a pretty destructive solution. Especially for the states who had not finished working through how to make that transition yet in a stable way. Many northerners figured out how to stop the economic impact by simply selling slaves south before they were declared legally free.


----------



## Nevada

gibbsgirl said:


> I agree, but launching a civil war and saying it was just to fix a slavery problem that was slowly being ended state by state was a pretty destructive solution. Especially for the states who had not finished working through how to make that transition yet in a stable way. Many northerners figured out how to stop the economic impact by simply selling slaves south before they were declared legally free.


Well sure. When that many states drop out of the Union and stop paying taxes, you're talking about enough money to be worth fighting over.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Nevada said:


> Well sure. When that many states drop out of the Union and stop paying taxes, you're talking about enough money to be worth fighting over.


I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. After all the federal govt in the north didn't just lose those states as an asset by succession. They also lost all the liabilities of those states membership in the union.

I guess it kind of was what you say if you compare the economies of the north and south and show that the south was more of an strong economic force than the north. I know I've read some things that support that economic comparison. But, we don't stop marriage unions from being dissolved because one spouse is more economically strong than another. And, we don't accept them resolvinge those issues violently. It has to be worked outby negotiating terms.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gibbsgirl said:


> As I recall, one of them had to do with the confederacy not being willing to allow a foreign country (the us) to maintain a military installation on their soil in ft. Sumter.
> 
> Lincoln was rather proactive in trying to bait the confederacy into taking the first shots. Which to me is a bit like when a bully taunts someone mercilessly and then cries foul when they get punched by that person.
> 
> In order for me to buy the idea that the Confederate flag represents evil and slavery, AND very little else, I'd have to be convinced that the opposing side in the war had clean hands on the issue of slavery. And, the union states had a long history of dirty hands on that subject.


I was under the impression it was because of slavery, and the question of slavery being allowed in the new territories, among other things. The Civil War wasn't just about slavery, but slavery played a large part. 

It was a group of states that started an insurrection. The trigger was the firing on a federal ship and later on a federal fort. 

I don't like the confederate flag, it is an ugly reminder of an ugly time in American history.


----------



## Old Vet

Irish Pixie said:


> I was under the impression it was because of slavery, and the question of slavery being allowed in the new territories, among other things. The Civil War wasn't just about slavery, but slavery played a large part.
> 
> It was a group of states that started an insurrection. The trigger was the firing on a federal ship and later on a federal fort.
> 
> I don't like the confederate flag, it is an ugly reminder of an ugly time in American history.


You may want to educate your self on history.


----------



## gapeach

mnn2501 said:


> No, it was about the rights of states, no matter what you Yankee history revisionists keep saying.
> 
> The 10th Amendment provided that powers not given to the federal government remain with the states.
> Old dishonest Abe and the neo-communist North didn't like that.


I hate discussing the War Between the States with Yankees who dislike the South and everything about it. Would the New England states be considered traitors? The Hartford Convention was intended for discussion of the New England states seceding from the Union many years before the War Between the States. They also quoted states rights. General Sherman and his soldiers marched through the South burning towns and plantation houses, stealing priceless family heirlooms and raping Southern women. What kind of low life would do things like that? No Confederate General would have even considered using such a low tactic to destroy the North. I don't object to the flag being taken down now but am ready to let it lie.
Millions of yankees from Ohio and New Jersey have swarmed down here to the Southern States like locusts to devour what little bit of Southern culture we have left.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Old Vet said:


> You may want to educate your self on history.


Care to elaborate? Or am I just plain old wrong on everything?


----------



## HDRider

White Northern people should not speak to what







means to me.

And, I don't care what it means to you.


----------



## gapeach

HDRider said:


> White Northern people should not speak to what
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> means to me.
> 
> And, I don't care what it means to you.


Me either!


----------



## Old Vet

Irish Pixie said:


> Care to elaborate? Or am I just plain old wrong on everything?


Not everything but some.


----------



## wiscto

gibbsgirl said:


> I agree, but launching a civil war and saying it was just to fix a slavery problem that was slowly being ended state by state was a pretty destructive solution. Especially for the states who had not finished working through how to make that transition yet in a stable way. Many northerners figured out how to stop the economic impact by simply selling slaves south before they were declared legally free.


That is an incredibly poor examination. If the north needed their slaves, how is it that they had survived economically for so long while the population of slaves in the north dwindled? They chose not to rely on massive farms worked by slaves, that's how. Honestly, they could have, but they didn't. Oh there were probably plenty of industrialists who would have been interested, but the tide of change was working against them.

You say "they hadn't yet found a solution" as if they were working on it. The reality is that their number one cause of secession, which they themselves stated, was that they were not going to be allowed to _expand_ slavery into the territories.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Old Vet said:


> Not everything but some.


OK. What do you suggest?


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> White Northern people should not speak to what
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> means to me.
> 
> And, I don't care what it means to you.





gapeach said:


> Me either!


I think you have forgotten that we northern (it doesn't matter the color) people lost ancestors too.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Wow wistco, you really do see the world through rose colored glasses.


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> OK. What do you suggest?


American history lessons. From un-biased sources.


----------



## gapeach

Irish Pixie said:


> I think you have forgotten that we northern (it doesn't matter the color) people lost ancestors too.


We were discussing the flag not the soldiers.


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> American history lessons. From un-biased sources.


What do I have wrong? Can you go into detail?


----------



## Lisa in WA

gibbsgirl said:


> Wow wistco, you really do see the world through rose colored glasses.


LOL...as opposed to your special lens?:hysterical:


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> We were discussing the flag not the soldiers.


Northerners (white or otherwise) are not supposed to have an opinion on a flag that our ancestors died because of? Why is that?


----------



## gibbsgirl

OK, to be fair. I guess I could suggest you spend some time reading about the changes that the "market revolution" brought to our economic structure.

It was cheaper to simply pay wages to employees than take on the expense of providing for slaves. If course urban development allowed for that set up to develop better in areas where nonagricultural production was predominant. In the south under plantation and agricultural industries, you just did not have the same type of set up that could lead to building as many urban centers to house workers. The north definitely had a headstart with urbanization. The climate differences in the north and south also impacted how much agriculture was going to dominate the economies.

But, I really don't know that I should be spending time being a crutch for you on figuring this all out, since you're so far ahead of the game with your college degree in history.


----------



## gapeach

I don't remember your flag being the source of conversation for the last week. I don't know why Yankees even want to keep this whole issue of our flag going. 
I should shut up too but as long as I have breath in my body, I will not sit back and let people make detrimental comments about the South and the Confederate flag. The states do have the right to do whatever they want to now with the flag. It is their choice and not a single yankee has any input into it. I think that SC will take the flag down and that should be the end of the controversy about the Confederate flag.
The murderous little monster who murdered the 9 people in Charleston has nothing to do really with the Confederate flag. He hated Jews as well. He had a black friend so it is pretty well known that he was just looking to commit some really big crime for the attention that he would get. Too bad those friends did not let somebody know what he said he was going to do.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> I don't remember your flag being the source of conversation for the last week. I don't know why Yankees even want to keep this whole issue of our flag going.
> I should shut up too but as long as I have breath in my body, I will not sit back and let people make detrimental comments about the South and the Confederate flag. The states do have the right to do whatever they want to now with the flag. It is their choice and not a single yankee has any input into it. I think that SC will take the flag down and that should be the end of the controversy about the Confederate flag.
> The murderous little monster who murdered the 9 people in Charleston has nothing to do really with the Confederate flag. He hated Jews as well. He had a black friend so it is pretty well known that he was just looking to commit some really big crime for the attention that he would get. Too bad those friends did not let somebody know what he said he was going to do.


My flag is Old Glory, remember? It's yours too.


----------



## gibbsgirl

basketti said:


> LOL...as opposed to your special lens?:hysterical:


Actually everyone has filters they see things through. It's human nature.

But, I think some people are more into examining historical texts and original sources that can represent opposing views. It's really the only way to separate the wheat from the chaff.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> I think you have forgotten that we northern (it doesn't matter the color) people lost ancestors too.


I.have to ask, were those ancestors lost defending their soil? Or were they lost while invading a sovereign nation without provocation? As to the tired argument of how the south fired the first shots..... Exactly where were those shots fired and at who? As I read the history of that encounter those shots were fired at unwelcome foreign troops who had been politely asked to vacate the premises.


----------



## HDRider

Irish Pixie said:


> I think you have forgotten that we northern (it doesn't matter the color) people lost ancestors too.


I didn't forget a thing.


----------



## vicker

wiscto said:


> That is an incredibly poor examination. If the north needed their slaves, how is it that they had survived economically for so long while the population of slaves in the north dwindled? They chose not to rely on massive farms worked by slaves, that's how. Honestly, they could have, but they didn't. Oh there were probably plenty of industrialists who would have been interested, but the tide of change was working against them.
> 
> 
> 
> You say "they hadn't yet found a solution" as if they were working on it. The reality is that their number one cause of secession, which they themselves stated, was that they were not going to be allowed to _expand_ slavery into the territories.



And Cuba, the Caribbean isles, parts of Mexico, Central and South America.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/


----------



## Lisa in WA

gibbsgirl said:


> Actually everyone has filters they see things through. It's human nature.
> 
> But, I think some people are more into examining historical texts and original sources that can represent opposing views. It's really the only way to separate the wheat from the chaff.


I agree...like Wiscto.


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> I didn't forget a thing.


Got it. Nothing has changed in 150 years.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I.have to ask, were those ancestors lost defending their soil? Or were they lost while invading a sovereign nation without provocation? As to the tired argument of how the south fired the first shots..... Exactly where were those shots fired and at who? As I read the history of that encounter those shots were fired at unwelcome foreign troops who had been politely asked to vacate the premises.


Mine were. But in another country altogether and then they emigrated. And we aren't still weeping and wailing and beating our breasts about what happened 150 years ago. Get over it already. Sorest losers ever. Oh...except you aren't...you didn't lose. Your ancestors did. It really has nothing to do with you at all except for a bunch of misplaced pride.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I.have to ask, were those ancestors lost defending their soil? Or were they lost while invading a sovereign nation without provocation? As to the tired argument of how the south fired the first shots..... Exactly where were those shots fired and at who? As I read the history of that encounter those shots were fired at unwelcome foreign troops who had been politely asked to vacate the premises.


No, those ancestors are dead because your ancestors thought that it was fine and dandy to own *people*.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> My flag is Old Glory, remember? It's yours too.


One has to wonder how some people would react if they were asked to take that flag down because it harbors some pretty dark memories. I am pretty sure it went along to a number of horrible acts during the civil war and how many innocent civilians were vaporized in those two cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How many American citizens were rounded up and forced into "concentration" camps simply because their ancestors immigrated to this country from Japan. Old glory has seen its share of dark days in history..... Maybe we should pull it down and hide our history too.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> One has to wonder how some people would react if they were asked to take that flag down because it harbors some pretty dark memories. I am pretty sure it went along to a number of horrible acts during the civil war and how many innocent civilians were vaporized in those two cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How many American citizens were rounded up and forced into "concentration" camps simply because their ancestors immigrated to this country from Japan. Old glory has seen its share of dark days in history..... Maybe we should pull it down and hide our history too.


Nice misdirect, what you've posted has nothing to do with why many people have a real problem with the confederate flag.

I will say that the Japanese-American _containment_ camps, and the reason that Americans were kept there, are heinous. A huge blot on our country.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> No, those ancestors are dead because your ancestors thought that it was fine and dandy to own *people*.


Wrong again.... To the best of my knowledge I had no ancestors mixed up in that war on either side... I did have a few that were possibly responsible for Custers fate.... I spose he is listed among your fallen heroes too.


----------



## wiscto

gibbsgirl said:


> Wow wistco, you really do see the world through rose colored glasses.


Excuse me, but that's hilarious.

You love to speak in the abstract without defending yourself with details, don't you? Did slaves exist in the north? Yup. Everyone is aware of that. We're not talking about slaves in the north. We're not talking about the terrible working conditions in factories in the north. We're not talking about racism in the north. We're not talking about industrialists in the north who profited from slavery. 

We *are* talking about how the south chose to secede from the union and weaken the entire nation over an unjust cause....citing "states rights" when they, in fact, were not recognizing the right of northern states to ban the practice of slavery in all forms in their own states. Again, read the declarations of secession written by the confederate states. They weren't even willing to allow northern states to determine their own course of action regarding what to do with a slave who escaped to a state that had OUTLAWED slavery and considered all human beings to be free. States rights, remember? Come on, that's supposed to be your rallying cry, bless your hearts.

And again, if you actually read what the Confederate leadership said, you would know that the straw that broke the camel's back was when expansion of slavery into the territories had been curtailed. So please explain to me again how the south was looking for a solution to end slavery.

And by the way. Can you identify this passage?


> Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes...


 It's in the Declaration of Independence.

If the south was planning to end slavery by their own means anyway, would the abolition of slavery in the territories not be considered a transient cause? It would. So if it's true that the south intended to find a solution to their slave problem but decided to secede anyway, that's just one more reason to preserve the union...by force if necessary. 

That flag wouldn't exist without slavery. That flag was designed as part of a response against the forcible CONTAINMENT of slavery. Occam's razor.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Wrong again.... To the best of my knowledge I had no ancestors mixed up in that war on either side... I did have a few that were possibly responsible for Custers fate.... I spose he is listed among your fallen heroes too.


No, what I think of Custer would get me banned again if I were to reveal it. 

It doesn't matter if you lost ancestors or not, you support the flag whose people did.


----------



## wiscto

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I did have a few that were possibly responsible for Custers fate....


LOL doesn't everybody though? :hobbyhors


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish pixie, every flag in history has had it's supporters and it's opponents. They are all symbolic and have meaning, sometimes quite different meanings to different people.

I'm curious what you think should be the criteria for banning a flag? It seems like you want the Confederate flag suppressed or gone, so I'm trying to understand what criteria you're basing that on?

I have a really hard time seeing how if we get rid of one, we don't open the floodgates gates to get rid of a lot for the offense they've caused some people. And, if we only get rid of a few then it's really a double standard.

How do you see it?


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> Nice misdirect, what you've posted has nothing to do with why many people have a real problem with the confederate flag.
> 
> I will say that the Japanese-American _containment_ camps, and the reason that Americans were kept there, are heinous. A huge blot on our country.


I was just pointing out that both flags have their moments in history they are very similar.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gibbsgirl said:


> Irish pixie, every flag in history has had it's supporters and it's opponents. They are all symbolic and have meaning, sometimes quite different meanings to different people.
> 
> I'm curious what you think should be the criteria for banning a flag? It seems like you want the Confederate flag suppressed or gone, so I'm trying to understand what criteria you're basing that on?
> 
> I have a really hard time seeing how if we get rid of one, we don't open the floodgates gates to get rid of a lot for the offense they've caused some people. And, if we only get rid of a few then it's really a double standard.
> 
> How do you see it?


Where did I say I want it banned? Can you point that out please? 

We're not talking about all flags in history, we're discussing the confederate flag.


----------



## wiscto

vicker said:


> And Cuba, the Caribbean isles, parts of Mexico, Central and South America.
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/


Oh man, I practically busted my guts laughing when I read this quote from the Richmond newspaper from back then....



> *âThe people of the South,â* says a contemporary, *âare not fighting for slavery but for independence.â* Let us look into this matter. It is an easy task, we think, to show up this new-fangled heresy â a heresy calculated to do us no good, for it cannot deceive foreign statesmen nor peoples, nor mislead any one here nor in Yankeeland. . . Our doctrine is this: *WE ARE FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE THAT OUR GREAT AND NECESSARY DOMESTIC INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY SHALL BE PRESERVED*, and for the preservation of other institutions of which slavery is the groundwork.


Talk about a dog chasing his tail. I mean he couldn't have exposed the flaws in his own convoluted philosophy in a more concise manner. I almost don't even believe that he wasn't mocking his own readership.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> No, what I think of Custer would get me banned again if I were to reveal it.
> 
> It doesn't matter if you lost ancestors or not, you support the flag whose people did.


You just can't seem to get one right. What I support is freedom.


----------



## vicker

I like this flag  ...


----------



## gibbsgirl

Wiscto, I guess I understand now. You must like to only see the facts you want to see. Just how you seem to want to be in control of only letting this conversation include the things you want to. Well, have fun ignoring others and only listening to your own echoes. I'm sure the conversation will be satisfactory.

You keep wanting to cite the words of politicians of the past, and ignore looking at the changes that were actually happening to our society. That's fine and your decision.

But, I value those words with the sam consideration I give today's politicians. I see that people frequently disagree highly with what many say, and am far more interested in seeing what actually happens than believing all the soapbox talkers versions ofn things.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You just can't seem to get one right. What I support is freedom.


According to you anyway. I think I called it perfectly. 

Wait. What? Freedom? You support freedom by honoring a flag that was used as a sign of the support of slavery? Really?


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> Where did I say I want it banned? Can you point that out please?
> 
> We're not talking about all flags in history, we're discussing the confederate flag.


That's why I said seemed and asked it as a question. I wasn't sure.

I'm still curiouy s though about what you are wanting done.


----------



## wiscto

gibbsgirl said:


> Wiscto, I guess I understand now. You must like to only see the facts you want to see. Just how you seem to want to be in control of only letting this conversation include the things you want to. Well, have fun ignoring others and only listening to your own echoes. I'm sure the conversation will be satisfactory.
> 
> You keep wanting to cite the words of politicians of the past, and ignore looking at the changes that were actually happening to our society. That's fine and your decision.
> 
> But, I value those words with the sam consideration I give today's politicians. I see that people frequently disagree highly with what many say, and am far more interested in seeing what actually happens than believing all the soapbox talkers versions ofn things.


I didn't ignore you, I refuted everything you said openly and I supported myself with details. If anyone is refusing to listen, I'd say that'd be you. You're also refusing to defend your own statements with supporting details. You're just attacking me personally instead. But, I value those words with the same consideration I give today's politicians, so I'll be okay.


----------



## gibbsgirl

To wisctoGreat then quit wasting time on me.


----------



## wiscto

vicker said:


> I like this flag  ...


HAH!!! That is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. I think I'm going to print that off and troll the locals with it.


----------



## gibbsgirl

wiscto said:


> HAH!!! That is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. I think I'm going to print that off and troll the locals with it.


Terrific, I fully support your idea of trolling in real life, instead of here. Good luck with that.


----------



## wiscto

gibbsgirl said:


> Terrific, I fully support your idea of trolling in real life, instead of here. Good luck with that.


Trolling and debating fiercely are not the same things. This was a thread about the Confederate Flag. People were expressing opinions. I expressed mine. Thanks again, fellow American.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Wiscto, I guess I understand now. You must like to only see the facts you want to see. Just how you seem to want to be in control of only letting this conversation include the things you want to. Well, have fun ignoring others and only listening to your own echoes. I'm sure the conversation will be satisfactory.


That sounds a lot like someone else I know


----------



## Irish Pixie

vicker said:


> I like this flag  ...


Your flag is sure to cause controversy. :happy2:


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> What do I have wrong? Can you go into detail?


More in depth knowledge.

Just a few things to note....
The South had their own president....Jefferson Davis.
The South minted their own money.
The South was trading with other countries to the detriment of the North, that ------ off Lincoln.
Red legs murdered and pillaged the South.(of course the South had Quantrill, but he also had freed slaves as members)

The history of America is OUR history, and should never, ever be brushed off. Any of it.

Why do you associate the Southern battle flag with racism? Why erase the history of our country, good or bad? 

I've seen enough idiot supremacy groups wrap themselves in the standard American flag too. Should we ban that too! From seeing some folks on the tv stomping on it, some would.


----------



## gibbsgirl

wiscto said:


> Trolling and debating fiercely are not the same things. This was a thread about the Confederate Flag. People were expressing opinions. I expressed mine. Thanks again, fellow American.


No problem, it's actually encouraging to see you clarify that, like every one else here, you were sharing your opinions.


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> More in depth knowledge.
> 
> Just a few things to note....
> The South had their own president....Jefferson Davis.
> The South minted their own money.
> The South was trading with other countries to the detriment of the North, that ------ off Lincoln.
> Red legs murdered and pillaged the South.(of course the South had Quantrill, but he also had freed slaves as members)
> 
> The history of America is OUR history, and should never, ever be brushed off. Any of it.
> 
> Why do you associate the Southern battle flag with racism? Why erase the history of our country, good or bad?
> 
> I've seen enough idiot supremacy groups wrap themselves in the standard American flag too. Should we ban that too! From seeing some folks on the tv stomping on it, some would.


I'm happy with my knowledge of the Civil War, JeffreyD but thank you for expressing the obvious, and your lack of it. Why don't you read this thread a bit and get back to me. K?


----------



## kasilofhome

Some are happy living with less. So, be it.


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm happy with my knowledge of the Civil War, JeffreyD but thank you for expressing the obvious, and your lack of it. Why don't you read this thread a bit and get back to me. K?


Where am i lacking in knowledge about what i posted?

What about those questions? Not going to answer them.....again, are you?


----------



## wiscto

gibbsgirl said:


> No problem, it's actually encouraging to see you clarify that, like every one else here, you were sharing your opinions.


Yea that's what I said... Oh I get it. Go ahead and have the last word then. Maybe that's the best way to refute all of my points you've failed to refute.


----------



## JeffreyD

wiscto said:


> Yea that's what I said... Oh I get it. Go ahead and have the last word then. Maybe that's the best way to refute all of my points you've failed to refute.


It appears that THAT is exactly what your doing. :shrug:


----------



## gapeach

Irish Pixie said:


> No, those ancestors are dead because your ancestors thought that it was fine and dandy to own *people*.


Yours did too!

*Slavery in New York: Uncovering the brutal truth*

NEW YORK â Wall Street and much of this cityâs renowned financial district were built on the burial ground of African slaves. New Yorkâs prosperity stems in large part from the grotesque profits of the African slave trade and African enslavement. 
This is the inescapable conclusion one draws from the evidence presented in a major exhibition on âSlavery in New York,â which opened here Oct. 7 and runs through March 5. Hosted by the New-York Historical Society, the exhibition is the most impressive display ever mounted on slavery in the Empire State and in New York City in particular. 
The exhibition features public programs, walking tours, educational materials and programs for school, college and adult learners. It explores the vital role that slave trading, the labor of enslaved people, and slaveryâs integration with everyday commerce played from 1600 to 1827 in making New York the wealthiest city in the world. 
Hidden history
For a phenomenon that should be common knowledge, the role of New York in the Atlantic slave trade is buried deep in the underground of U.S. history and outside of the consciousness of many New Yorkers. Each year thousands of students in the nationâs largest school system study the history of New York with hardly a mention of this cityâs experience with slavery. 
http://www.peoplesworld.org/slavery-in-new-york-uncovering-the-brutal-truth/


----------



## vicker

I get confused. Is that what is called a straw man?


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> Yours did too!
> 
> *Slavery in New York: Uncovering the brutal truth*
> 
> NEW YORK &#8212; Wall Street and much of this city&#8217;s renowned financial district were built on the burial ground of African slaves. New York&#8217;s prosperity stems in large part from the grotesque profits of the African slave trade and African enslavement.
> This is the inescapable conclusion one draws from the evidence presented in a major exhibition on &#8220;Slavery in New York,&#8221; which opened here Oct. 7 and runs through March 5. Hosted by the New-York Historical Society, the exhibition is the most impressive display ever mounted on slavery in the Empire State and in New York City in particular.
> The exhibition features public programs, walking tours, educational materials and programs for school, college and adult learners. It explores the vital role that slave trading, the labor of enslaved people, and slavery&#8217;s integration with everyday commerce played from 1600 to 1827 in making New York the wealthiest city in the world.
> Hidden history
> For a phenomenon that should be common knowledge, the role of New York in the Atlantic slave trade is buried deep in the underground of U.S. history and outside of the consciousness of many New Yorkers. Each year thousands of students in the nation&#8217;s largest school system study the history of New York with hardly a mention of this city&#8217;s experience with slavery.
> http://www.peoplesworld.org/slavery-in-new-york-uncovering-the-brutal-truth/


Another nice distraction. We're talking about the confederate flag and slavery in the south. 

Everyone knows that we were a slave owning country until Lincoln freed them in 1862. Actually, New York had freed all of it's slaves by 1827.


----------



## Irish Pixie

vicker said:


> I get confused. Is that what is called a straw man?


Yes, it is a fine example of a straw man. :happy2:


----------



## vicker

No, I'm thinking its a red herring. I can't ever keep all those fallacies straight.


----------



## gapeach

Irish Pixie said:


> Another nice distraction. We're talking about the confederate flag and slavery in the south.
> 
> Everyone knows that before we were a slave owning country until Lincoln emancipated the slaves in 1862.


You were the one who posted this!



Irish Pixie said:


> No, those ancestors are dead because your ancestors thought that it was fine and dandy to own *people*.


----------



## vicker

There should be an APP.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> Wiscto, I guess I understand now. You must like to only see the facts you want to see. Just how you seem to want to be in control of only letting this conversation include the things you want to. Well, have fun ignoring others and only listening to your own echoes. I'm sure the conversation will be satisfactory.
> 
> You keep wanting to cite the words of politicians of the past, and ignore looking at the changes that were actually happening to our society. That's fine and your decision.
> 
> But, I value those words with the sam consideration I give today's politicians. I see that people frequently disagree highly with what many say, and am far more interested in seeing what actually happens than believing all the soapbox talkers versions ofn things.


Please note again ad hominem attacka are not allowed on this forum.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> You were the one who posted this!


OK. I'm totally lost. I'm sure you have a point but I honestly don't know what it is.


----------



## gapeach

New York owned people too.
Each year thousands of students in the nation&#8217;s largest school system study the history of New York with hardly a mention of this city&#8217;s experience with slavery.


----------



## wiscto

gapeach said:


> New York owned people too.
> Each year thousands of students in the nation&#8217;s largest school system study the history of New York with hardly a mention of this city&#8217;s experience with slavery.


Yup. That much I agree with. They had slaves until 1827. Even some Quakers had slaves early on (as in before the Revolution), but they were also some of the first to acknowledge that slavery was wrong and act on it...shortly after the founding of this nation.

The Civil War started in 1861. It was the only war fought over one side's right to expand slavery beyond their traditional region. The Confederate Flag (in this country) was the only flag flown by an army produced out of the need to defend slavery as an institution.

I mean to be really honest, I don't actually feel that laws need to be passed against the Confederate Flag. I think it's dangerous to get into that kind of legislation. But there is no way I'm going to pretend that flag means something else. The people who created it overwhelmingly created it as part of a mission to protect and expand their institution of slavery. They said it themselves. Maybe that isn't racist. Maybe it's just an archaic and unfortunate reminder that people used to think it was okay to own other people.

Edit: Said 1865 meant 1861.


----------



## vicker

New York didn't attempt to secede from the Union. Nor did they dream of expanding their "peculiar institution" over the Western Hemisphere.


----------



## gibbsgirl

The emancipation proclamation did not free all the slaves actually.


----------



## gibbsgirl

The civil war started in 1861 actually.


----------



## vicker

The flag is about racism, actually.


----------



## wiscto

gibbsgirl said:


> The civil war started in 1861 actually.


Does editing for mistakes now constitute a debate? Also, who brought up the Emancipation Proclamation?


----------



## nchobbyfarm

wiscto said:


> Does editing for mistakes now constitute a debate? Also, who the hell brought up the Emancipation Proclamation?


If the war was truly about slavery, why didn't Lincoln or Congress abolish it at the first chance after the Southern States didn't send representation if in fact they were still in the Union? If Lincoln wanted to free all the slaves, why didn't the Emancipation Proclamation do just that?


----------



## tarbe

gapeach said:


> I can't imagine who got revenge when Obama was elected twice.


Marx?


----------



## gapeach

wiscto,
I mean to be really honest, I don't actually feel that laws need to be passed against the Confederate Flag. I think it's dangerous to get into that kind of legislation. 

I agree with this. The Civil War was not all about slavery though.

About Abraham Lincoln
*Lincoln didnât believe blacks should have the same rights as whites.*
Though Lincoln argued that the founding fathersâ phrase âAll men are created equalâ applied to blacks and whites alike, this did not mean he thought they should have the same social and political rights. His views became clear during an 1858 series of debates with his opponent in the Illinois race for U.S. Senate, Stephen Douglas, who had accused him of supporting â***** equality.â In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. âI will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,â he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. 
There is more.
http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

Anyway, arguing solves nothing. Slavery was wrong then and it is still going on today in many place in the world today.
The flag is coming down in SC as it should.
All of this other stuff about monuments being taken down is nothing but ridiculous overreacting.


----------



## wiscto

gapeach said:


> wiscto,
> I mean to be really honest, I don't actually feel that laws need to be passed against the Confederate Flag. I think it's dangerous to get into that kind of legislation.
> 
> I agree with this. The Civil War was not all about slavery though.
> 
> About Abraham Lincoln
> *Lincoln didn&#8217;t believe blacks should have the same rights as whites.*
> Though Lincoln argued that the founding fathers&#8217; phrase &#8220;All men are created equal&#8221; applied to blacks and whites alike, this did not mean he thought they should have the same social and political rights. His views became clear during an 1858 series of debates with his opponent in the Illinois race for U.S. Senate, Stephen Douglas, who had accused him of supporting &#8220;***** equality.&#8221; In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. &#8220;I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,&#8221; he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites.
> There is more.
> http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation
> 
> Anyway, arguing solves nothing. Slavery was wrong then and it is still going on today in many place in the world today.
> The flag is coming down in SC as it should.
> All of this other stuff about monuments being taken down is nothing but ridiculous overreacting.


I understand all that about Lincoln. Lincoln was willing to preserve the Union without freeing all slaves. That compromise was already in place before the war, which is why the traditional south still had the right to keep their slaves at the time of secession. The south still seceded. Why? Because they weren't going to be able to expand slavery into the new territories. Tell me what these other reasons for the Civil War are. You all keep mentioning them, but you're not giving me any details. I keep posting the links to the actual declarations of secession given by the Confederate States.... Have you read it? Did you read Vickers' link? Lincoln's intentions do not change the south's. He was reacting _to_ the south, and the south was reacting to anti-slavery efforts in the territories. How is this not all about slavery?

Yes, Lincoln originally only fought to preserve the union....*from southern secession over slavery. *


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Which rights were the confederate states upset about? Any in particular?


The right to self-govern.

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


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> New York owned people too.
> Each year thousands of students in the nation&#8217;s largest school system study the history of New York with hardly a mention of this city&#8217;s experience with slavery.


Thank you for explaining. You're right in that New York people owned slaves until 1827, but they never started a war over slavery, correct? That war didn't cost the lives of 620,000+ men total. Among those dead men were northerners, and that gives us (northern people regardless of color) the right to say that the confederate flag is an ugly reminder of an ugly time in our history.

I don't think the confederate flag should be banned. But I don't think it should be flown over government offices either.


----------



## Irish Pixie

wiscto said:


> Does editing for mistakes now constitute a debate? Also, who brought up the Emancipation Proclamation?


I did, and I misspoke/typed. Fixed it too.


----------



## wiscto

Txsteader said:


> The right to self-govern.
> 
> http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp


Yea. Sure. They were all about the right of states to self govern until the State of New York said they couldn't bring their slaves with them to the State of New York, or until states like Iowa and Ohio refused to return slaves on the grounds that their states had decided that slavery was ultimately illegal and immoral and that all human beings were free..._then_ they tried to get Congress (in other words the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) to intervene. States rights my blue butt....

I guess you might have missed some of my points. Here are some links to what the Confederate States were actually saying at the time of secession. You should read it. The word slavery comes up a lot. Read that and tell me why slavery was not the fundamental cause of the Civil War.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordinances_secession.htm?PageSpeed=noscript#Missouri


----------



## Shine

There sure are a lot of semantics in many of these arguments, not to mention strawmen. I hope you'll pardon me for the further absence of my posts...


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> I was under the impression it was because of slavery, and the question of slavery being allowed in the new territories, among other things. *The Civil War wasn't just about slavery, but slavery played a large part.
> *
> .


It was a large part, but if you'll read the states' declarations of secession, as well as the Constitution (as it was written at that time), perhaps you'll understand the bigger issue.


----------



## Jolly

Gee...Wonder how many of you would be willing to personally tear the Confederate Naval Jack down?

Maybe the ones in South Carolina?

Maybe the one on my front porch?

How about this one?










This last one was raised by the Marines on Okinawa in WWII. I can't think of a bunch of less patriotic guys, can you?

Racist, evil men...


----------



## wiscto

gapeach said:


> I hate discussing the War Between the States with Yankees who dislike the South and everything about it. Would the New England states be considered traitors? The Hartford Convention was intended for discussion of the New England states seceding from the Union many years before the War Between the States. They also quoted states rights. General Sherman and his soldiers marched through the South burning towns and plantation houses, stealing priceless family heirlooms and raping Southern women. What kind of low life would do things like that? No Confederate General would have even considered using such a low tactic to destroy the North. I don't object to the flag being taken down now but am ready to let it lie.
> Millions of yankees from Ohio and New Jersey have swarmed down here to the Southern States like locusts to devour what little bit of Southern culture we have left.


1. I like visiting the south actually. Music, sports, food, scenery, and a lot of skills and knowledge handed down through generations the old way. People are going where the jobs are taking them, so, not sure what to tell you about that. I seriously doubt your culture is really in jeopardy, in fact, I've really seen a lot more interest and praise regarding southern culture over the last decade. But I'm not there. Maybe people from Ohio are running around burning down BBQ joints and refusing to go to high-school football games.
2. Never said I liked Sherman. 
3. Sure about that thing about the Confederate leaders? Not that they were really in a strategic position to keep their armies in the north for long...but they managed to commit some atrocities anyway.... http://listverse.com/2013/03/17/10-war-crimes-of-the-us-civil-war/



vicker said:


> The flag is about racism, actually.


Yea I guess you're right. The justification for slavery was pretty much always racial.


----------



## wiscto

Txsteader said:


> It was a large part, but if you'll read the states' declarations of secession, as well as the Constitution (as it was written at that time), perhaps you'll understand the bigger issue.


Interesting how none of you care to elaborate. I read the declarations... Almost half of them directly cited slavery as the primary reason. The rest were all smart enough to say things like, "hostile to domestic institutions." To be honest that sounds a lot to me like, "I have no recollection of that."


----------



## vicker

Well, just for the record, Sherman didn't burn Columbia Sc. The rebels got a little careless there.


----------



## wiscto

Jolly said:


> *Gee...Wonder how many of you would be willing to personally tear the Confederate Naval Jack down?*
> 
> Maybe the ones in South Carolina?
> 
> Maybe the one on my front porch?
> 
> How about this one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This last one was raised by the Marines on Okinawa in WWII. I can't think of a bunch of less patriotic guys, can you?
> 
> Racist, evil men...


Is that bold part intended to question my bravery or something? I can never tell when people are bringing tough guy talk to a philosophical disagreement. Would I? No. Like I said, I don't really believe in enforcing flag laws of any kind, and I don't intend to break the law by stealing someones' property.

And honestly, it's possible for people to be on the right side of history in World War II and on the wrong side of history in the Civil War. So. I don't think anyone here was referring to modern southerners as evil. We're talking about the flag. So...speaking of straw men.


----------



## Jolly

wiscto said:


> Is that bold part intended to question my bravery or something? I can never tell when people are bringing tough guy talk to a philosophical disagreement. Would I? No. Like I said, I don't really believe in enforcing flag laws of any kind, and I don't intend to break the law by stealing someones' property.
> 
> And honestly, it's possible for people to be on the right side of history in World War II and on the wrong side of history in the Civil War. So. I don't think anyone here was referring to modern southerners as evil. We're talking about the flag. So...speaking of straw men.


I think most of the philosophy has been stomped out of this thread about two or three pages back...


----------



## wr

Txsteader said:


> It was a large part, but if you'll read the states' declarations of secession, as well as the Constitution (as it was written at that time), perhaps you'll understand the bigger issue.


I have absolutely no dog in this fight but am quite disappointed about the references and suggestions to do some homework. 

History fascinates me and because I was educated outside the US, I would welcome an opportunity to learn a bit more than the basics about your history. Sadly, when each member tells another to 'do a bit more research,' they miss the opportunity to share with outsiders.


----------



## Txsteader

wiscto said:


> Yea. Sure. They were all about the right of states to self govern until the State of New York said they couldn't bring their slaves with them to the State of New York, or until states like Iowa and Ohio refused to return slaves on the grounds that their states had decided that slavery was ultimately illegal and immoral and that all human beings were free..._then_ they tried to get Congress (in other words the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) to intervene. States rights my blue butt....
> 
> I guess you might have missed some of my points. Here are some links to what the Confederate States were actually saying at the time of secession. You should read it. The word slavery comes up a lot. Read that and tell me why slavery was not the fundamental cause of the Civil War.
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/
> http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
> http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordinances_secession.htm?PageSpeed=noscript#Missouri


You should read the Constitution. The argument was based on the charge that the federal government was exceeding its powers as contained in the Constitution.


----------



## Txsteader

wr said:


> I have absolutely no dog in this fight but am quite disappointed about the references and suggestions to do some homework.
> 
> History fascinates me and because I was educated outside the US, I would welcome an opportunity to learn a bit more than the basics about your history. Sadly, when each member tells another to 'do a bit more research,' they miss the opportunity to share with outsiders.


See post #205

Also:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.html

The issue began as far back as the Alien & Sedition Acts.


----------



## vicker

wr said:


> I have absolutely no dog in this fight but am quite disappointed about the references and suggestions to do some homework.
> 
> 
> 
> History fascinates me and because I was educated outside the US, I would welcome an opportunity to learn a bit more than the basics about your history. Sadly, when each member tells another to 'do a bit more research,' they miss the opportunity to share with outsiders.



Are you saying that the links so handily provided are too much trouble. There is plenty of good history here to read. I think I'm missing your point.


----------



## wr

vicker said:


> Are you saying that the links so handily provided are too much trouble. There is plenty of good history here to read. I think I'm missing your point.


Not at all and I'm working through many, which results in further research. It's just nice to get actual human responses rather than cryptic comments because it is an opportunity to teach others about your culture. 

I had to deliver parts to the big guy today and I swear the big truck stop in Calgary was a hotbed of hostility when a segment came on the news.


----------



## vicker

I get ya. Personal human opinions are misleading, as the flag means things to others that it doesn't necessarily mean to me. The bottom line is, that to MANY, it represents racism and oppression. And, rightly so. I have learned that what it once represented to me is at great odds to what it represents to many of my friends and neighbors. Those who want to fly it should, high and proud. To a few it represents one thing, to most it represents hurtful and fearful things that have little to do with the civil war and lots more to do with civil rights.


----------



## BlackFeather

wiscto said:


> The Civil War was all about slavery. All you have to do is actually read the secession declarations of Confederate States or read about the political debates in Washington and it's painfully obvious. The abolitionists were winning, and the south didn't like it. The Confederate Flag is a scar, and a symbol of an institution that was nothing less than evil. Take it down and burn it off.


http://www.etymonline.com/cw/economics.htm

More to it than that. It was about money as most things are.


----------



## wiscto

Jolly said:


> I think most of the philosophy has been stomped out of this thread about two or three pages back...


As always, I would encourage you to elaborate.



Txsteader said:


> You should read the Constitution. The argument was based on the charge that the federal government was exceeding its powers as contained in the Constitution.


Oh I read the Constitution. I'm waiting for you to actually state which action the Federal Government took that you think was a violation of states rights. Because I only feel that I can point out the hypocrisy of the south's states rights argument regarding slavery and the Civil War so many times.... 



Txsteader said:


> See post #205
> 
> Also:
> http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.html
> 
> The issue began as far back as the Alien & Sedition Acts.


Again. The whole "states rights" thing cracks me up. The evidence is right here in your own link. The south was using the Federal Government to stop northern states from exercising their own right to refuse to recognize a human being as a slave. The South didn't even accept the idea of new states and territories governing themselves and deciding whether or not they should be free or slave... But that should have been their right, correct? States rights, ya'll. Right?

Here's more evidence from your own link, under the section 'TANEY AND THE TERRITORIES, the period of time that led directly up to the Civil War.



> Many Northerners held that Congress could exclude slavery, as it had done with respect to the Northwest Territory in the Northwest Ordinance (1787, 1789) and with respect to part of the Louisiana Purchase in the Missouri Compromise (1820--1821). Some advocated "popular sovereignty," or "squatter sovereignty," *which would allow the settlers themselves to decide whether to permit slavery in a particular territory, and this principle was embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. **But proslavery Southerners insisted that any prohibition of slavery in a territory, whether by Congress or by the local people, was unconstitutional.*





> From the proslavery point of view, the sovereign stares had delegated to Congress only the power to make routine "rules and regulations" for the territories, not the power to make basic policies for them. When dealing with the subject, the Federal government must act merely as a trustee for the states and must give effect to their laws, particularly the laws respecting slavery State rights was no longer just a defense of local self-determination; it had become a means of imposing a states laws on people outside the state.
> *The theory now called for an enlargement rather than a reduction of Federal authority, at least in regard to the territories, though this authority could be exercised only to protect slavery. As President Franklin Pierce said in 1855, the Federal government was "forbidden to touch this matter in the sense of attack or offense" and could do so only "in the sense of defense."* Proslavery advocates looked to the Supreme Court for an endorsement of their new theory of state sovereignty. The Court obliged in the Dred Scott case (1857) with an obiter dictum declaring unconstitutional the Missouri Compromise prohibition of slavery in part of the Louisiana Purchase. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney said: "*The Government of the United States had no right to interfere for any other purpose but that of protecting the rights of the [slave] owner."*


So again, the south only believed in states rights as long as that state was in favor of the institution of slavery. They also appeared to, according to your own link (and objective historians), believe that the Federal Government could act against a state in defense of slavery...but not against slavery. They actually tried to argue that the self determination of the territories was an attack on the slave holding as a federally protected institution that existed beyond their territorial borders, rather than simply the practice of self government and self determination. So they were for federal powers when it suited them. 

Same section....



> * For the time being, the strongest assertion of state rights in defiance of Federal authority came not from any Southern state hut from Wisconsin, which invoked the doctrine to oppose slavery rather than to support it.* When a Federal court convicted Sherman Booth of violating the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the Wisconsin Supreme Court repeatedly (1854--1855) issued Writs of habeas corpus to release him on the ground that the act was unconstitutional. Booth and fellow antislavery radicals made state rights a test of orthodoxy in the newly formed Republican party; they demanded that the party's candidates endorse the principles of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799. In the case of Ableman v. Booth (1859) Taney and the Supreme Court again upheld the Southern as opposed to the Northern state rights position. They overruled the supreme court of Wisconsin.


 Wisconsin says, "We're not going to recognize a human being in our state as a slave, and you can't indict one of our citizens for acting in accordance with our laws." The South says, "That's not how states rights works! Federal Government! Step in here and take care of that rogue state!" Federal Government says, "Sorry Wisconsin. No states rights for you."

I'll say it again. The Confederacy's claim that their states rights had been violated was hypocritical. They seceded over slavery after abusing the rights of states like Wisconsin, Iowa, and Ohio. Yet they claimed their secession was about states rights; well, they also went on and on about slavery....but yea they claimed the states rights high ground as well. They wouldn't even recognize the right of new states to determine whether or not they were going to be free or slave, and certainly didn't recognize the right of northern abolitionist states to write their own laws regarding slaves.... 

The Confederacy was all about states rights? I think not...

Edit: Edited a couple points for clarity.


----------



## wr

vicker said:


> I get ya. Personal human opinions are misleading, as the flag means things to others that it doesn't necessarily mean to me. The bottom line is, that to MANY, it represents racism and oppression. And, rightly so. I have learned that what it once represented to me is at great odds to what it represents to many of my friends and neighbors. Those who want to fly it should, high and proud. To a few it represents one thing, to most it represents hurtful and fearful things that have little to do with the civil war and lots more to do with civil rights.


Absolutely but I guess I'd kinda like to know where that passion comes from and a pack of angry American truck drivers who were to the point that several were asked to leave before a fight broke out.


----------



## vicker

Stick around.  the same will likely happen here. It doesn't take rocket science to determine what that flag has stood for in the 20th and 21st century. People like to have their pretty lies. It disturbs them to see them exposed.


----------



## Patchouli

Irish Pixie said:


> My flag is Old Glory, remember? It's yours too.


Now there is a flag that only represents sweetness and light and all that is good..... I am sure there is no one out there that sees it as representing hate or oppression or death and violence.


----------



## vicker

The thing is, most people fly the flag because it means a certain thing to them. They have difficulty seeing that it means an entirely different thing to many others. What it means to them makes it even more difficult for them to see what it really means to others. Then, the more they see the more they don't like seeing it. That flag makes a much louder political statement than most are willing to realize.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> According to you anyway. I think I called it perfectly.
> 
> Wait. What? Freedom? You support freedom by honoring a flag that was used as a sign of the support of slavery? Really?


Again you seem to have gotten it wrong. I support freedom. I'm opposed to slavery in any of its forms. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? That flag was a flag that represented a short lived sovereign nation, one with a nearly identical Constitution to the one originally drafted and duly ratified by all parties in 1778. The basic difference being the bill of rights were included in the main body instead of in amendments. If some believe it represented some evil force I must disagree with them. It merely stood for the same thing our original old glory did. It wasn't the south that changed the game plan in mid game. That lays entirely upon the nawthern states.


----------



## Evons hubby

Patchouli said:


> Now there is a flag that only represents sweetness and light and all that is good..... I am sure there is no one out there that sees it as representing hate or oppression or death and violence.


Yeppers, old glory once proudly flew over every slave, indentured servant and other deliberately oppressed citizen in this fine country.


----------



## JJ Grandits

Old Glory is also a symbol for the fact that we can all sit here on a public forum and have a heated disagreement on a political subject without fear of reprisal.
Maybe that's something we can all agree on.

And maybe we can also agree on is keeping it that way.


----------



## HDRider

Irish Pixie said:


> Got it. Nothing has changed in 150 years.


You live in the world of assumptions and false conclusions. You got nothing.


----------



## HDRider

vicker said:


> I get ya. Personal human opinions are misleading, as the flag means things to others that it doesn't necessarily mean to me. The bottom line is, that to MANY, it represents racism and oppression. And, rightly so. I have learned that what it once represented to me is at great odds to what it represents to many of my friends and neighbors. Those who want to fly it should, high and proud. To a few it represents one thing, to most it represents hurtful and fearful things that have little to do with the civil war and lots more to do with civil rights.


Some people hold their beliefs firmly even in the face of this hysteria sweeping across our country. What I love today, is what I'll love tomorrow. 

I don't love the flag. I love the South, and the people of the South, all the people of the South, regardless of their color.

The herd mentality on the CF flag just shows how weak minded, or maybe even vindictive people are.

The flags means what you want it to mean. No one can tell me what it means to me.

All I am saying is that each American should respect that. If what I display bothers you, avert your eye, or if crossing my path offends you give me a wide berth.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> Some people hold their beliefs firmly even in the face of this hysteria sweeping across our country. What I love today, is what I'll love tomorrow.
> 
> I don't love the flag. I love the South, and the people of the South, all the people of the South, regardless of their color.
> 
> The herd mentality on the CF flag just shows how weak minded, or maybe even vindictive people are.
> 
> 
> 
> The flags means what you want it to mean. No one can tell me what it means to me.
> 
> All I am saying is that each American should respect that. If what I display bothers you, avert your eye, or if crossing my path offends you give me a wide berth.


Easy to do when it's just you. A little tougher to do when it flys over the building where laws representing all are made and administered.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Patchouli said:


> Now there is a flag that only represents sweetness and light and all that is good..... I am sure there is no one out there that sees it as representing hate or oppression or death and violence.


I never said it was, those are your words not mine. I said that it's our flag now.


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> Easy to do when it's just you. A little tougher to do when it flys over the building where laws representing all are made and administered.


Address what is at fault. Did the flag lead racism in Ferguson, Baltimore and NY and the many other places where racism lives?

The flag is a monument. There are many Confederate monuments all through the South. Now you won't be happy until they are removed, physically and mentally.

Slavery is a shameful episode in our history. We have our share, since Columbus set foot here.

I got no problem moving it from the state house, if the government of SC decides to do so. I have a problems with this hysteria that attacks symbols but not the real cause of racism.

Racism is big business. No danger of a going out of business sale the way we chase false positives.

Care about something that matters. That flag means two things, racism for a select few that stole it, and southern pride to those that own it rightfully. A war was fought under that flag, right or wrong. Right or wrong, history cannot be changed. The future is what we need to deal with, and not act like stupid animals afraid of shadows and ghosts.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> It was a large part, but if you'll read the states' declarations of secession, as well as the Constitution (as it was written at that time), perhaps you'll understand the bigger issue.





wiscto said:


> Interesting how none of you care to elaborate. I read the declarations... Almost half of them directly cited slavery as the primary reason. The rest were all smart enough to say things like, "hostile to domestic institutions." To be honest that sounds a lot to me like, "I have no recollection of that."


Apparently a bunch of people that reside in the southern region think they are the only people that can (and have) read anything about the Civil War except what came out of a elementary class room in any area of the US. 

My Yankee kid attended a southern military college where Stonewall Jackson taught. I was immersed in the Civil War for four years. I know more about the Battle of Haymarket (Field of Lost Shoes) than anyone really should. So, I took what I learned in the New York school system and expanded it to encompass both sides of the divide. 

I don't hate the south, it's people, or it's heritage. I don't even hate the confederate flag but every person who is supporting it needs to understand that there is a reason why many are asking for it to be removed from government buildings. It does symbol racism and represents an ugly time to many people.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Again you seem to have gotten it wrong. I support freedom. I'm opposed to slavery in any of its forms. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? That flag was a flag that represented a short lived sovereign nation, one with a nearly identical Constitution to the one originally drafted and duly ratified by all parties in 1778. The basic difference being the bill of rights were included in the main body instead of in amendments. If some believe it represented some evil force I must disagree with them. It merely stood for the same thing our original old glory did. *It wasn't the south that changed the game plan in mid game. That lays entirely upon the nawthern states.*




Those horrible Union soldiers just came down because they wanted to vacation in the sunny south, right?


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> Address what is at fault. Did the flag lead racism in Ferguson, Baltimore and NY and the many other places where racism lives?
> 
> The flag is a monument. There are many Confederate monuments all through the South. Now you won't be happy until they are removed, physically and mentally.
> 
> Slavery is a shameful episode in our history. We have our share, since Columbus set foot here.
> 
> I got no problem moving it from the state house, if the government of SC decides to do so. I have a problems with this hysteria that attacks symbols but not the real cause of racism.
> 
> Racism is big business. No danger of a going out of business sale the way we chase false positives.
> 
> Care about something that matters. That flag means two things, racism for a select few that stole it, and southern pride to those that own it rightfully. A war was fought under that flag, right or wrong. Right or wrong, history cannot be changed. The future is what we need to deal with, and not act like stupid animals afraid of shadows and ghosts.



Much of this conversation has been about changing, sanitizing and disavowing history. And the history of this flag. My comment was specific to it flying over public buildings. Hard to avoid when you're part of the public who has to do business in that building and sees that flag representing different things than you. Memorials, museums, private homes, tshirts, underwear- display it where you will. I can avoid those if I wish. I shouldn't have to avoid my own state Capitol because of others "pride" in a piece of cloth.

Racism won't disappear. It's part of the human condition. It can be deinstituionalized and marginalized, something this country has made strides in. It's interesting that you point to Ferguson, Baltimore and NY for examples of racism. How many were gunned down in churches there in the name of racial supremacy under a bygone banner?


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> [/B]
> 
> Those horrible Union soldiers just came down because they wanted to vacation in the sunny south, right?


A lot of them came down here because they were starving and they were paid to sign up...How many Irish fought for the Union, Irish that didn't care about the South one way or another, but were the recipient of bounty money from some Northerner avoiding the draft?


----------



## Jolly

HDRider said:


> Address what is at fault. Did the flag lead racism in Ferguson, Baltimore and NY and the many other places where racism lives?
> 
> The flag is a monument. There are many Confederate monuments all through the South. Now you won't be happy until they are removed, physically and mentally.
> 
> Slavery is a shameful episode in our history. We have our share, since Columbus set foot here.
> 
> I got no problem moving it from the state house, if the government of SC decides to do so. I have a problems with this hysteria that attacks symbols but not the real cause of racism.
> 
> Racism is big business. No danger of a going out of business sale the way we chase false positives.
> 
> Care about something that matters. That flag means two things, racism for a select few that stole it, and southern pride to those that own it rightfully. A war was fought under that flag, right or wrong. Right or wrong, history cannot be changed. The future is what we need to deal with, and not act like stupid animals afraid of shadows and ghosts.


They were recently defacing Southern monuments in Austin (a liberal city, believe it or not).


----------



## mmoetc

Jolly said:


> A lot of them came down here because they were starving and they were paid to sign up...How many Irish fought for the Union, Irish that didn't care about the South one way or another, but were the recipient of bounty money from some Northerner avoiding the draft?


When discussion if modern warfare comes up here we are often lectured on how it is being fought wrongly. How not stomping your enemy into the ground, not fighting total war, not salting the earth, not making your enemy's life unbearable shows weakness and lack of will. One would think we should be praising Sherman and holding him up as an example of how wars should be fought. The object is to win, after all.


----------



## MoonRiver

wiscto said:


> That is an incredibly poor examination. If the north needed their slaves, how is it that they had survived economically for so long while the population of slaves in the north dwindled? They chose not to rely on massive farms worked by slaves, that's how. Honestly, they could have, but they didn't. Oh there were probably plenty of industrialists who would have been interested, but the tide of change was working against them.
> 
> You say "they hadn't yet found a solution" as if they were working on it. The reality is that their number one cause of secession, which they themselves stated, was that they were not going to be allowed to _expand_ slavery into the territories.


How much would it cost to house slaves for the winter in New York or New England? With a shorter growing season and cold temperatures, slavery made little economic sense in the North.


----------



## Tricky Grama

FarmerKat said:


> There are many people who find the American flag offensive too (there have been many stories on the news over the years where organizations have banned it - lately UC Irvine comes to mind) ... so should the US drop the flag as its symbol because of that? Should we drop other symbols just in case someone was offended by them?
> 
> I was listening to a discussion about the Confederate flag and one of the people speaking said that the flag was the inspiration for the murders in SC. Does anyone really think that if the only place to see the flag is in a museum (it was said in the same interview that it is where it belongs), Dylann Roof would now be a well adjusted, highly intelligent college student?


Post of the week award.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> A lot of them came down here because they were starving and they were paid to sign up...How many Irish fought for the Union, Irish that didn't care about the South one way or another, but were the recipient of bounty money from some Northerner avoiding the draft?


The same back at you- how many confederate soldiers owned slaves? Very, very few. They were supporting the plantation class and their way of life. 

Many of the Irish hadn't been here very long, the Potato Famine drove many to emigrate, and didn't much care about the south but they did what their new country asked. 

Much the same as the average confederate solder.


----------



## J.T.M.

JJ Grandits said:


> Old Glory is also a symbol for the fact that we can all sit here on a public forum and have a heated disagreement on a political subject without fear of reprisal.
> Maybe that's something we can all agree on.
> 
> And maybe we can also agree on is keeping it that way.


.....


----------



## Jolly

mmoetc said:


> When discussion if modern warfare comes up here we are often lectured on how it is being fought wrongly. How not stomping your enemy into the ground, not fighting total war, not salting the earth, not making your enemy's life unbearable shows weakness and lack of will. One would think we should be praising Sherman and holding him up as an example of how wars should be fought. The object is to win, after all.


Actually, I thought the first president of LSU was a pretty decent general. And if he'd had his way, would have been magnanimous towards the South after the war was over, since Sherman actually liked Southerners.


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> Much of this conversation has been about changing, sanitizing and disavowing history. And the history of this flag. My comment was specific to it flying over public buildings. Hard to avoid when you're part of the public who has to do business in that building and sees that flag representing different things than you. Memorials, museums, private homes, tshirts, underwear- display it where you will. I can avoid those if I wish. I shouldn't have to avoid my own state Capitol because of others "pride" in a piece of cloth.
> 
> Racism won't disappear. It's part of the human condition. It can be deinstituionalized and marginalized, something this country has made strides in. It's interesting that you point to *Ferguson, Baltimore and NY for examples of racism*. How many were gunned down in churches there in the name of racial supremacy under a bygone banner?


So your definition of America's racism is one deranged, drug addled fool of a man with a gun? You truly do not get it.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> The same back at you- how many confederate soldiers owned slaves? Very, very few. They were supporting the plantation class and their way of life.
> 
> Many of the Irish hadn't been here very long, the Potato Famine drove many to emigrate, and didn't much care about the south but they did what their new country asked.
> 
> Much the same as the average confederate solder.


Some of the Irish signed up. Many were bought and paid for, especially early in the war.

Your family fought in the war?

Mine did, and there ain't a Big House within 30 miles of here, in any direction. So no, I don't believe I'd say the vast majority of Southerners fought for the plantation owners.


----------



## mmoetc

MoonRiver said:


> How much would it cost to house slaves for the winter in New York or New England? With a shorter growing season and cold temperatures, slavery made little economic sense in the North.


Slavery wasn't just a plantation thing with people toiling in the fields. Look at the history of Charleston and many other southern cities. Slaves were the backbone of many businesses from blacksmiths to retail. How much would it have cost to feed and house slaves rather than pay those often unruly mill workers in New England?


----------



## Txsteader

We don't own a Confederate flag and I'm certainly not defending slavery, but I can understand how things came to the point of secession. 

IMO, the reason(s) why the south seceded back then are parallel to why there was/is so much resistance to Obamacare or the issue of gun rights today; the federal government was & had been exceeding their authority/power. The issue of slavery was the tipping point back then.

Admittedly (obviously, shamefully), there are still some who see the Confederate flag as a symbol of white supremacy. I can understand how it can cause feelings of pain & resentment, & personally I think the flag shouldn't fly over state buildings today. But the CW and the causes behind it *are*, like it or not, part of our national history. Erasing the symbols isn't going to change that or make people forget it.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> So your definition of America's racism is one deranged, drug addled fool of a man with a gun? You truly do not get it.


Nope, but neither is it only what happened in the places you mentioned. That single, deranged soul was fed by many others. Many who use that same flag you revere as a symbol of their supremacy and better times. I get a lot of things.


----------



## J.T.M.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union..."
~ Abraham Lincoln August 22, 1862


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> Nope, but neither is it only what happened in the places you mentioned. That single, deranged soul was fed by many others. Many who use that same flag you revere as a symbol of their supremacy and better times. I get a lot of things.


I named three recent ones. That list is way too long.

Shaking your fist at a flag, stomping your feet and throwing a fit about a flag doesn't change a thing.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Easy to do when it's just you. A little tougher to do when it flys over the building where laws representing all are made and administered.


Which building? You do know it did not-at the present time-fly over S.C. capital? It WAS flown there under dem govs but a while back a R gov took it down & it flew over the lawn instead.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Some of the Irish signed up. Many were bought and paid for, especially early in the war.
> 
> Your family fought in the war?
> 
> Mine did, and there ain't a Big House within 30 miles of here, in any direction. So no, I don't believe I'd say the vast majority of Southerners fought for the plantation owners.


I didn't say that the vast majority of southerners fought for plantation owners, did I? Why must you continuously put words in my mouth? I don't like it. 

Of course some of the Irish signed up, they were penniless. What's your point? They were much like the average confederate solder.


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> I named three recent ones. That list is way too long.
> 
> *Shaking your fist at a flag, stomping your feet and throwing a fit about a flag doesn't change a thing*.


Apparently it does... flags are coming off government buildings all over the south.


----------



## HDRider

Irish Pixie said:


> Apparently it does... flags are coming off government buildings all over the south.


And that is the best example of shallow thinking that everyone should be wary of.


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> And that is the best example of shallow thinking that everyone should be wary of.


I'm sure you think that's true.


----------



## gapeach

mmoetc said:


> Easy to do when it's just you. A little tougher to do when it flys over the building where laws representing all are made and administered.


It does not fly over that building. It flys over a Confederate Memorial which to me was appropriate.
It will soon be removed and hopefully the controversy will move on.

You cannot change history but you can move on. If the country starts removing everthing that ever had any reference to having slaves, then the Washington Memorial would have to be taken down. George Washington had slaves.

I am tired of this issue and apologize to anyone here if I offended anyone. I feel very strongly about my Southern roots even though I have never believed in slavery of anyone and I am thankful that I grew up in South Carolina and learned the history of South Carolina, every bit of it.


----------



## HDRider

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm sure you think that's true.


I really really do believe nothing changes by removing a symbol.

It is beyond me how you think it changes what is in people's hearts and minds. 

If anything it just inflames the issue even more. At best it puts a little cover over the issue. Regardless, racism is still there and will be as long as we look in all the wrong places to find racism and shine lights on symbols and not the reasons racism is as strong today as it has ever been.

I must be wrong though, you , and those like you, are so much smarter and enlightened than me.

I want to live in that pretend world your kind lives in.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Apparently it does... flags are coming off government buildings all over the south.


That flag is not coming off of one single State building anywhere in the south. :hair


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> I really really do believe nothing changes by removing a symbol.
> 
> It is beyond me how you think it changes what is in people's hearts and minds.
> 
> If anything it just inflames the issue even more. At best it puts a little cover over the issue. Regardless, racism is still there and will be as long as we look in all the wrong places to find racism and shine lights on symbols and not the reasons racism is as strong today as it has ever been.
> 
> *I must be wrong though, you , and those like you, are so much smarter and enlightened than me.*
> 
> I want to live in that pretend world your kind lives in.


I didn't say that, but a valiant try to paint me as an elitist. I've stated numerous times that I don't want the flag banned. 

By removing the flag from government buildings *AND PROPERTY* (is the quibbler happy now) it sends the statement that the government (at least) is not supporting a symbol of racism.

EDITED.


----------



## mmoetc

gapeach said:


> It does not fly over that building. It flys over a Confederate Memorial which to me was appropriate.
> It will soon be removed and hopefully the controversy will move on.
> 
> You cannot change history but you can move on. If the country starts removing everthing that ever had any reference to having slaves, then the Washington Memorial would have to be taken down. George Washington had slaves.
> 
> I am tired of this issue and apologize to anyone here if I offended anyone. I feel very strongly about my Southern roots even though I have never believed in slavery of anyone and I am thankful that I grew up in South Carolina and learned the history of South Carolina, every bit of it.


Peach, I understand your love of where you live. A lot of us love where we live and the people before us who brought us here. It's not just a southern thing though it does seem to run deep there.

No one wants to change history. What some would like is to quit honoring some shameful parts of our history. Slavery was an evil institution. That doesn't mean that everyone, or even most, who participated in it were evil. It was part of the cultural fabric of this country for a long time and its residual effects reverberated through the fabric of our country for years and continue to today. I know for you and many others the flag doesn't represent slavery. For many others it is a reminder of that institution. I think the previous compromise to remove it from the top of the Capitol to the statehouse lawn was a good move in its time. Time moves on and maybe it's time to move it further into history. It won't change anyone's material life today, but who knows about the future.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Apparently it does... flags are coming off government buildings all over the south.


Just did a search and I don't see where it has been flying ON government buildings, with the exception of Mississippi where it is actually part of their flag emblem.

Best I can tell, the flags are flying_ near_ those buildings or, otherwise, on government land.

Do you have info to dispute that?


----------



## arabian knight

Irish Pixie said:


> Apparently it does... flags are coming off government buildings all over the south.


And many states have now stopped making that flag on license plates too. Cool


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Just did a search and I don't see where it has been flying ON government buildings, with the exception of Mississippi where it is actually part of their flag emblem.
> 
> Best I can tell, the flags are flying_ near_ those buildings or, otherwise, on government land.
> 
> Do you have info to dispute that?


I edited the post just for you. I'm a reasonable human being... 

It's actually 7 southern states that have incorporated the confederate flag into their state flag. I can quibble too.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> I named three recent ones. That list is way too long.
> 
> Shaking your fist at a flag, stomping your feet and throwing a fit about a flag doesn't change a thing.


Neither does holding your breath, stomping your feet and repeating it doesn't represent slavery. To some it does. Some of those wish it did again.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your score keeping. Blacks are more racist because they get killed by cops. Drug use by blacks causes them to misbehave and they deserve whatever befalls them because of it but self medication by a young white man excuses him killing nine people in a church. Racism exists among people of all colors.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Which building? You do know it did not-at the present time-fly over S.C. capital? It WAS flown there under dem govs but a while back a R gov took it down & it flew over the lawn instead.


Did I specify SC?


----------



## HDRider

It would be good if we had plans to follow instead of using every tragedy that comes along to further some cause. Guns, Racism, whatever. We are a nation of knee jerk reactions with no agreed upon plan to steady progress.

I still say we are two nations, two very differing ideologies, and we may see the idea of separation take root and grow if we don't come together. America can't keep growing further apart and survive.


----------



## MoonRiver

mmoetc said:


> Slavery wasn't just a plantation thing with people toiling in the fields. Look at the history of Charleston and many other southern cities. Slaves were the backbone of many businesses from blacksmiths to retail. How much would it have cost to feed and house slaves rather than pay those often unruly mill workers in New England?


Slavery existed in the South because of tobacco, sugar cane, and most importantly cotton. The North didn't have any equivalent crops.

An argument could be made that the Civil War was about cotton. The northern manufacturers needed it and the South had it.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> It would be good if we had plans to follow instead of using every tragedy that comes along to further some cause. Guns, Racism, whatever. We are a nation of knee jerk reactions with no agreed upon plan to steady progress.
> 
> I still say we are two nations, two very differing ideologies, and we may see the idea of separation take root and grow if we don't come together. America can't keep growing further apart and survive.


And continuing to wave a flag in the face of people who see it as a symbol of a vile practice and hateful times promotes this healing, how? Waving the red scarf at the bull will bring you closer, too.


----------



## gapeach

mmoetc said:


> Peach, I understand your love of where you live. A lot of us love where we live and the people before us who brought us here. It's not just a southern thing though it does seem to run deep there.
> 
> No one wants to change history. What some would like is to quit honoring some shameful parts of our history. Slavery was an evil institution. That doesn't mean that everyone, or even most, who participated in it were evil. It was part of the cultural fabric of this country for a long time and its residual effects reverberated through the fabric of our country for years and continue to today. I know for you and many others the flag doesn't represent slavery. For many others it is a reminder of that institution. I think the previous compromise to remove it from the top of the Capitol to the statehouse lawn was a good move in its time. Time moves on and maybe it's time to move it further into history. It won't change anyone's material life today, but who knows about the future.


Thank you, mmoetc.

If Gov. Hollings had not put it on the statehouse in the 60's there would not even be this contoversy now. He, like most South Carolinians, thought that he was doing the right thing since SC was the state that fired the first shots. He, no doubt,ever had any idea what strife it would eventually cause.


----------



## gibbsgirl

I don't think trying to push it out of sight particularly promotes tolerance either.

I have similar thoughts about when schools try and allow some students to sport Mexican flag shirts but ban American flag t-shirts. Both groups of kids have reasons they want to wear them, but quashing one groups right and allowing another is the govt picking sides and promotes zero positives in my opinion. That is a particularly contentious issue in parts of the southwest where it was Mexico previously.

I don't think it's wrong for state and local govt to decide it's acceptable to allow the Confederate flags on their property. Much government property is peppered with American flags and other flags like the Confederate. 

The confederacy was a separate nation that existed on what is now American soil.

Texans ares allowed to fly flags that honor the existence of their land being governed by Mexico and the republic of Texas without this kind of public outcry.

So, I'm sorry but this does seem like double standards and viral online trending run amuck.


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> And continuing to wave a flag in the face of people who see it as a symbol of a vile practice and hateful times promotes this healing, how? Waving the red scarf at the bull will bring you closer, too.


I am not waving it at anyone. I don't own one. I own this one. Get it?








And this one...








Get it?

They all mean the same to me.


----------



## 7thswan

gapeach said:


> Thank you, mmoetc.
> 
> If Gov. Hollings had not put it on the statehouse in the 60's there would not even be this contoversy now. He, like most South Carolinians, thought that he was doing the right thing since SC was the state that fired the first shots. He, no doubt,ever had any idea what strife it would eventually cause.


Peach, I found this comment that says what You seem to say. Many agreed with it.
Sometimes we need only observe the world around us to draw certain conclusions. Why is conservatism staunchly imbedded into he south? Why do race relations generally appear much better in the south than the north? Why do young men from the south enlist in our military in much higher percentages than the north? Why are southerners starkly more friendly, courteous and helpful that northerners? Why are southern, red states, much more charitable than blue states? The list could go on and on.

The point is, there is a reason for the different cultures and the difference didn't start a week ago, or a year ago but two centuries ago and longer. The confederacy was the only one attempt by this part of the country to form its own nation. No normal, rational person would defend the institution of slavery today, but slavery was NORMAL in the world at that time. Looking at it from 2015 is much different than looking at it in 1855, or 1787. What we find abhorrent, our forefathers found acceptable and normal.

If the south, the conservative red states, ever decide to secede again, it will be for many of the same reasons. An overbearing federal government trampling on states' and individual rights that we see today. Whether secession or simply the main redoubt of modern conservatism, we should be glad the spirit of the confederacy still exists, without it, our nation will be lost to the sickness of liberalism forever.


----------



## partndn

7thswan said:


> Peach, I found this comment that says what You seem to say. Many agreed with it.
> Sometimes we need only observe the world around us to draw certain conclusions. Why is conservatism staunchly imbedded into he south? Why do race relations generally appear much better in the south than the north? Why do young men from the south enlist in our military in much higher percentages than the north? Why are southerners starkly more friendly, courteous and helpful that northerners? Why are southern, red states, much more charitable than blue states? The list could go on and on.
> 
> The point is, there is a reason for the different cultures and the difference didn't start a week ago, or a year ago but two centuries ago and longer. The confederacy was the only one attempt by this part of the country to form its own nation. No normal, rational person would defend the institution of slavery today, but slavery was NORMAL in the world at that time. Looking at it from 2015 is much different than looking at it in 1855, or 1787. What we find abhorrent, our forefathers found acceptable and normal.
> 
> If the south, the conservative red states, ever decide to secede again, it will be for many of the same reasons. An overbearing federal government trampling on states' and individual rights that we see today. Whether secession or simply the main redoubt of modern conservatism, we should be glad the spirit of the confederacy still exists, without it, our nation will be lost to the sickness of liberalism forever.


The site doesn't allow me to more than "like" this post. 
It's way beyond "like"


----------



## HDRider

partndn said:


> The site doesn't allow me to more than "like" this post.
> It's way beyond "like"


That goes for me too 7... Well said..


----------



## ||Downhome||

This is a good read. It may help some of you AntiFlag folks get the picture.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/a-northerner-defends-southern-traditions-including-the-battle-flag


----------



## J.T.M.

My fear realized - the chain reaction has begun  


http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/06/lee_circle_statue_robert_e_lee.html

PS:
Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Jude.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr,
der protestieren konnte


----------



## arabian knight

*Top 5 Reasons Confederate Flag should stop Flying at SC Statehouse*


> 1. The Confederate flag in its current form was adopted by the seceding slave states to differentiate their banner from the Stars and Stripes on the battlefield. It isn&#8217;t a symbol of regionalism. It is a symbol of violent attack on the Union.
> 2. Those who fought beneath the Confederate flag were fighting to retain slavery. They wanted an economic system in which they could kidnap people from Africa and coerce them into working for no salary. Any individual found kidnapping people today and coercing their labor for no remuneration would go straight to jail. So why should the flag symbolizing these activities be retained?
> 3. The flag was a symbol of Jim Crow segregation laws in the American South, which resembled those of Apartheid South Africa.
> 4. The flag was used in the 1950s and after as a symbol of opposition to the Civil Rights movement.
> 5. The flag has been adopted as a symbol by many members of the white supremacist and KKK movements. Putting it in the statehouse just makes it look as though the state condones that sort of thing


http://www.juancole.com/2015/06/reasons-confederate-statehouse.html


----------



## 7thswan

Farahacon (sp) calls for removal of the American flag.


----------



## 7thswan

arabian knight said:


> *Top 5 Reasons Confederate Flag should stop Flying at SC Statehouse*
> 
> 
> http://www.juancole.com/2015/06/reasons-confederate-statehouse.html


And yet ,everyone ignores that Obama condones ISIL.


----------



## wiscto

7thswan said:


> And yet ,everyone ignores that Obama condones ISIL.


Woh hey... Sources please. That's a big one.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

arabian knight said:


> *Top 5 Reasons Confederate Flag should stop Flying at SC Statehouse*
> 
> 
> http://www.juancole.com/2015/06/reasons-confederate-statehouse.html


Such gibberish makes my head hurt.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Jtm, that's not the only one up for debate now either. I've read about lots of memorials coming under fire.

The attack on Confederate symbols is quite a Pandora's box.

This is the type of behavior that led to the kristallnacht.

Makes me remember the old quote about "first they came for....and I said nothing, then . ....and I said nothing.....etc...then they came for me and there was no one left to defend me.

I completely agree that slavery is wrong. But, I also understand why it has always been a function in societies somewhere on earth in history.

If all these people who abhor the flag solely want to demand the end of all forms of slavery, there are certainly more important slavery issues they could be devoting their efforts too, that would assist slaves who are alive today, than trying to act like fighting Confederate things is such a noble and worthwhile cause. But, I understand why it's so gratifying to fight the battle they've chosen. The path of least resistance is often chosen first.


----------



## J.T.M.

gibbsgirl said:


> Jtm, that's not the only one up for debate now either. I've read about lots of memorials coming under fire.
> 
> The attack on Confederate symbols is quite a Pandora's box.
> 
> This is the type of behavior that led to the kristallnacht.
> 
> *Makes me remember the old quote about "first they came for....and I said nothing, then . ....and I said nothing.....etc...then they came for me and there was no one left to defend me.
> *
> I completely agree that slavery is wrong. But, I also understand why it has always been a function in societies somewhere on earth in history.
> 
> If all these people who abhor the flag solely want to demand the end of all forms of slavery, there are certainly more important slavery issues they could be devoting their efforts too, that would assist slaves who are alive today, than trying to act like fighting Confederate things is such a noble and worthwhile cause. But, I understand why it's so gratifying to fight the battle they've chosen. The path of least resistance is often chosen first.


*Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Jude.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr,
der protestieren konnte*


----------



## 7thswan

wiscto said:


> Woh hey... Sources please. That's a big one.


Saw this today,and another vid. from a 4 star Adm. This is as handy as I'm going to get because they are up on my screen,and most don't watch/read/ listen.
There is tons of info out there.
http://theamericanreport.org/2015/0...uld-be-arrested-for-this-treasonous-activity/
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zT8tF41KDI[/ame]


----------



## TripleD

I just want to know when all these offended people want us to change the names of all the states that were in the CSA !!!


----------



## gibbsgirl

Well, they did rename part of Virginia, west Virginia.

I don't have anything against west Virginians. But, it certainly was an interesting unique way that whole statehood process played out.


----------



## gapeach

Swan, you said it better than I did. I can't answer all of those questions for you but when the South started getting so many people moving here from the North, we were described by them as dumb,slow and not wanting change. Some always had a better way, like they did it in the North.:hair

We are a friendly people and do accept people for what they are. As long as you don't constantly tell us how we should do things, we all get along pretty well. We are proud of the South and our southern traditions.

We don't have the racial problems that we once had and somehow I think that bugs the heck out of the Whitehouse. You might notice too that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have taken a back seat in Charleston during the last week. Tim Scott has been there working with all of the leaders and with the families too. He belongs there with them. He is a Charlestonian.


----------



## wiscto

Interesting. I have some videos too.

[YOUTUBE]3b0ARNQxAT4[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]fktI2SWeUgo[/YOUTUBE]

By the way. When I was saying 10 years ago that the United States' elite were too cozy with Saudi Arabia, the right wingers laughed at me because it was their guy in office, so it had to be impossible. Now everyone's all hot and bothered over the _exact same alliance_ because now a black liberal president with a Muslim name is involved. 

[YOUTUBE]THLc9VEbC_M[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]YOKGDvijes4[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]OUoycVXw9ew[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]BzQsMMJ31Jo[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## gapeach

J.T.M. said:


> *Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
> habe ich geschwiegen;
> ich war ja kein Kommunist.
> 
> Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
> habe ich geschwiegen;
> ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
> 
> Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
> habe ich nicht protestiert;
> ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
> 
> Als sie die Juden holten,
> habe ich geschwiegen;
> ich war ja kein Jude.
> 
> Als sie mich holten,
> gab es keinen mehr,
> der protestieren konnte*


J.T.M., I think you just might be a rebel at heart:happy2:


----------



## J.T.M.

Well . since we are introducing the " he did it too " meme other wise known as BUSH !!!!!!
I would like to point out that the north had its share of slaves as well .Including the great state of Wisconsin .


----------



## J.T.M.

gapeach said:


> J.T.M., I think you just might be a rebel at heart:happy2:


Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Peachy ,what is it about that Southern twang that just drives us Yankee boys ko ko crazy ~ swoooonnn ~


----------



## gibbsgirl

Gapeach.

I grew up in socal, moved to Indiana for several years, and the ky. My husband and all his people we know are from so il and ky and tn.

My life experience is not definitive of how everyone is. But, I can say that the racial tensions I have lived with in the south are so minimal compared to what I grew up with.

I think it's very easy for people to have at least a little prejudicial thoughts toward strangers or people whose culture is unfamiliar to them, but certainly those can be dispelled very easily when you get to know each other, and you begin to learn race, religion, etc are really not indicative of much. Each group has lots of great people and plenty of butts too.

But, the myth of Yankees being better at challenging racism compared to southerners is in my experience a just that a myth. There are both kinds of people in both places. And, the battle lines of union vs confederacy do very little to prove to me that the union was so much better at setting racial inequality right.

And, ironically assuming the south has more deeply rooted racists than elsewhere, has proved completely false to me in my life.

There were way more in general andcway more militant racists in California and Indiana that I found than in southern places. Not everyone in California was like that, but there was a large population of gangs and those around them who were very segregated along racial lines. And, while lynching people was certainly not their m.o., they had tons of other methods they employed to physically hurt and kill their enemies and tried to actively oppress those around them they targeted and segregate areas. It was absolutely rampant. And, had a very real impact on how everyone living there conducted their daily life. Some people spent their time looking for trouble and some people spent their time looking to avoid it.

In Indiana, lots of people were great. And, I did meet a lot more people in interracial families. But, I was regularly floored by how often I heard people run their mouths making snide, cheap remarks about people based on race.

In Kentucky and near us where the il family is, I've had almost zero things happen around me that indicate any racism at all. In fact, the only one I can recall is one neighbor who I met who told me another neighbor was in some kind of weird cult. (She's Jewish). I found his comment hysterical, and just kind of tried and be polite and avoid them. We found it very ironic our neighbor thought judiasm was a cult, considering originally they thought the Christians were the breakaway cult. We're great friends with the Jewish neighbor, as are my other neighbors.

Now, I haven't lived here as long as the other places. But, my husband has lots of years here, and his family as well. And, they've all assured me that they've had the same great experiences without all the racism for many decades.

Some of the other people I've met who are not originally from here have told me they've had the same experiences enjoying the lack of racism here compared to where they came from.


----------



## wiscto

LOL "Bush did it too meme." Every president since Carter was great friends with the Saudis, so it wasn't just Bush and Obama...my point was really that ya'll are just late the revelation that we're doing insanely stupid things in the Mideast. And yes, slaves were everywhere. Yes, racism was and is a huge problem in the north. I grew up in the KKK capital of the Midwest. And guess which flag they flew.... You got it. 

And the Civil War was still 100% about slavery.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Good grief, I read another article this morning decrying gone with the wind. Said it was unfit for modern consumption and should be relegated to only museum and historical status.

Should we start preparing for cleanup crews that are ridding the world of all inappropriate paraphernalia to enter our homes for confiscation and scrubbing our online contributions for innapripriate, unsanctioned content?


----------



## mnn2501

wiscto said:


> And the Civil War was still 100% about slavery.


Keep repeating that long enough and you may get some people to start believing it -- That is the Liberal M.O. about many things.


----------



## J.T.M.

wiscto said:


> LOL "Bush did it too meme." Every president since Carter was great friends with the Saudis, so it wasn't just Bush and Obama...my point was really that ya'll are just late the revelation that we're doing insanely stupid things in the Mideast. And yes, slaves were everywhere. Yes, racism was and is a huge problem in the north. I grew up in the KKK capital of the Midwest. And guess which flag they flew.... You got it.
> 
> And the Civil War was still 100% about slavery.


Speaking of Jimmy , I wonder if the Saudis ( which includes Bakr BinLadin ) will keep funding the Carter Center after its been divulged that Jimmy is a huge supporter of the stars and bars


----------



## wiscto

mnn2501 said:


> Keep repeating that long enough and you may get some people to start believing it -- That is the Liberal M.O. about many things.


Oh the hypocrisy of "liberals" and "conservatives," it just never ends. As usual all you have are statements like this one. Not one of you has come out to debate the facts. I refuted everything, absolutely everything you all thing that flag stands for, and you have nothing to say in response. I destroyed the notion that the South actually believed in state rights, and none of you care to actually debate me using real facts. Maybe if you just keep repeating yourself, someone out there will consider that an objective argument....

Don't worry, I'll bump my response to the only person in your ranks who actually tried to refute me with evidence.


----------



## wiscto

Bumping for those who may want to refute me point for point, and defend the fallacy that the Confederacy had "states rights" on their side...even though they clearly believed in the Federal Government's right to protect slavery against states rights.

Edit: Apparently quoting isn't going to work. Here's the link to my post. http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/7481161-post224.html


----------



## gibbsgirl

Mnn2501,
It's going to be the same way for how people interpret the scotus decision from this morning.

The dissenting opinion pointed out all kinds of problems with the majority opinions ruling, including redefining "state" from referencing the 50 states' sovereignty to meaning the federal state instead, to taking legislative authority instead of kicking those duties back to the legislative branch. But, it's supporters will simply dismiss those that support the dissenting opinion as being heartless Americans trying to oppress other people and deny them access to healthcare.


----------



## J.T.M.

HOLY SMOKES !!!!! 
This is what the picture of HRC button looked like last night when I first downloaded it : 
And what it looks like today :
http://www.ebay.com/sch/sis.html?_n...RS BARS CONFEDERATE FLAG&_itemId=111701796565


----------



## vicker

Haha, JTM, that is hilarious!


----------



## wiscto

Edit: Misunderstand goal of post I responded to.


----------



## MoonRiver

wiscto said:


> Bumping for those who may want to refute me point for point, and defend the fallacy that the Confederacy had "states rights" on their side...even though they clearly believed in the Federal Government's right to protect slavery against states rights.
> 
> Edit: Apparently quoting isn't going to work. Here's the link to my post. http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/7481161-post224.html


It doesn't make any difference why the South seceded. It's what the flag means now. At different times it has meant different things. Today it is a symbol of Southern heritage.


----------



## TripleD

MoonRiver said:


> It doesn't make any difference why the South seceded. It's what the flag means now. At different times it has meant different things. Today it is a symbol of Southern heritage.


You are very right. There is not a single white alive today that ever owned a slave and not a single black alive today that was ever one. But I fly what flags I want to.........


----------



## HDRider

But to take them out of stores where they were being sold just a few days ago? To keep Civil War buffs from having them in their homes? That is pure Orwellian mind control. Who is so wise and all-seeing that he knows what symbols to take down and which to allow?

And if your answer is that Amazon just does not want to sell anything offensive, get this: It sells dozens of posters of Mao Tse-tung, who killed over eighty million innocent Chinese, of Stalin, who murdered forty or fifty million of his own USSR people, of Che Guevara, a cold-blooded killer. It sells posters of Adolf Hitler looking soulful. Yes, Adolf Hitler. âArt Prints.â

Amazon, what are you doing? Posters of Stalin and Mao? Posters of Che? Posters of Hitler? But no blankets or quilts of the flag under which many Americansâ ancestors fought?

Who is running this Ministry of Truth and when do the Memory Holes open for anything having to with slaveholders Jefferson or Monroe or Madison or Washington? Where does it end?


Read more at http://spectator.org/articles/63255/amazon-goes-orwellian


----------



## gibbsgirl

Hdrider, that's why this has nothing to do with righting wrongs. This is a witch-hunt.

I read a really good article yesterday. I'm gonna try and find it and put it up. It was quoting a man who was calling out some really terrible extreme things being said by a black panther.


----------



## no really

IMHO the people of Charleston did not react in the way that TPTB would have preferred, no riots, no burning of property. Instead they came together in support and love. 

So they created this flag furor. If you don't get the crisis you want create one.


----------



## gibbsgirl

This should be it. It was upsetting, but worth reading. I feel for the man who spoke out against them so publicly. It can't be easy to do for him and his loved ones, as it probably will make him a target of the black panthers, and that could include threats of far more than words.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/finish-the-mission-kill-slave-masters/


----------



## gapeach

J.T.M. said:


> Well . since we are introducing the " he did it too " meme other wise known as BUSH !!!!!!
> I would like to point out that the north had its share of slaves as well .Including the great state of Wisconsin .



Better watch out, that just might be a false flag.:huh::happy2:


----------



## Patchouli

J.T.M. said:


> HOLY SMOKES !!!!!
> This is what the picture of HRC button looked like last night when I first downloaded it :
> And what it looks like today :
> http://www.ebay.com/sch/sis.html?_n...RS BARS CONFEDERATE FLAG&_itemId=111701796565



Good grief this just gets crazier and crazier.


----------



## 7thswan

J.T.M. said:


> Well . since we are introducing the " he did it too " meme other wise known as BUSH !!!!!!
> I would like to point out that the north had its share of slaves as well .Including the great state of Wisconsin .


Blacks had slaves and muslims have slaves.


----------



## 7thswan

wiscto said:


> Interesting. I have some videos too.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]3b0ARNQxAT4[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> [YOUTUBE]fktI2SWeUgo[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> By the way. When I was saying 10 years ago that the United States' elite were too cozy with Saudi Arabia, the right wingers laughed at me because it was their guy in office, so it had to be impossible. Now everyone's all hot and bothered over the _exact same alliance_ because now a black liberal president with a Muslim name is involved.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]THLc9VEbC_M[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> [YOUTUBE]YOKGDvijes4[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> [YOUTUBE]OUoycVXw9ew[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> [YOUTUBE]BzQsMMJ31Jo[/YOUTUBE]


You do realize that Obama is more Arab than black don't you? and
That many Arabs are involved with putting O in office,esp. Kahalid Abdullaha Tariq al Mansour a radical muslim main finnancer for 25 years, -right hand man of King Abduallah that donated 20 mil. to harvard to get obama in-he sure didn't get in on his grades. 
Also, obama was born muslim,if his father is who he says it is. I can't see your vids at the moment-but are they from Military? Mine are, and there are many more,finaly speeking out because of what the fraud obama is doing.


----------



## gibbsgirl

7thswan said:


> Blacks had slaves and muslims have slaves.


Exactly, slavery which is still happening today, too, has never been about two specific races playing the roles of victim and villian. It's not even unheard of for people of the same ethnicity to enslave one another.


----------



## 7thswan

gibbsgirl said:


> Exactly, slavery which is still happening today, too, has never been about two specific races playing the roles of victim and villian. It's not even unheard of for people of the same ethnicity to enslave one another.


But hey, if the left can point a finger at a white person-extra points in the perpetuial vicitmhood dept. of back patting themselves.


----------



## gibbsgirl

My only problem with pointing fingers at a particular political party is I feel when I do I'm being dupped into playing game they want. As the years have passed, I see less and less that separates them because their actions and the results are far more similar. Only their speeches and talking points seem different. But results speak louder than words. The only real separation of groups I see are the haves and the haven't got much of a chances. Our political parties feel like two halves of the same face to me at this point.


----------



## 7thswan

gibbsgirl said:


> My only problem with pointing fingers at a particular political party is I feel when I do I'm being dupped into playing game they want. As the years have passed, I see less and less that separates them because their actions and the results are far more similar. Only their speeches and talking points seem different. But results speak louder than words. The only real separation of groups I see are the haves and the haven't got much of a chances. Our political parties feel like two halves of the same face to me at this point.


sure, the ol, when one points a finger there is 4 pointing back at themself. We are so devided and it isn't just in halfs anymore, we are shredded like being put thru a woodchipper.


----------



## Jolly

wiscto said:


> Oh the hypocrisy of "liberals" and "conservatives," it just never ends. As usual all you have are statements like this one. Not one of you has come out to debate the facts. I refuted everything, absolutely everything you all thing that flag stands for, and you have nothing to say in response. I destroyed the notion that the South actually believed in state rights, and none of you care to actually debate me using real facts. Maybe if you just keep repeating yourself, someone out there will consider that an objective argument....
> 
> Don't worry, I'll bump my response to the only person in your ranks who actually tried to refute me with evidence.


Some folks are a legend in their own minds...


----------



## gibbsgirl

Jolly said:


> Some folks are a legend in their own minds...


Yeah jolly, reminds me about that Brad Paisley song about the guy on the computer.....


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Some folks are a legend in their own minds...


I absolutely and totally agree with you on this one, but I doubt we're thinking about the same person. ound:


----------



## wiscto

Jolly said:


> Some folks are a legend in their own minds...


There you go again. Personal attacks rather than debate. You lost.


----------



## Shine

_*MYTH*_ - *The Confederate Battle Flag represents racism today.* 
_*FACT*_ - *The Confederate Battle Flag today finds itself in the center of much controversy and hoopla going on in several states. The cry to take this flag down is unjustified. It is very important to keep in mind that the Confederate Battle Flag was simply just that. A battle flag. It was never even a National flag, so how could it have flown over a slave nation or represented slavery or racism? This myth is continued by lack of education and ignorance. Those that villify the Confederate Battle Flag are very confused about history and have jumped upon a bandwagon with loose wheels.* 








_*
MYTH*_ - *The United States Flag represented freedom.* 
_*FACT*_ - *No chance. The US flag flew over a slave nation for over 85 years! The North tolerated slavery and acknowledged it as a Division Of Labor. The North made a vast fortune on slavery and it's commodities. It wasn't until the South decided to leave the Union that the North objected. The North knew it could not survive without the Southern money. That is the true definition of hypocrisy.*




_*MYTH*_ - *The Confederate Flags are an authorized symbol of Aryan, KKK and hate groups.* 
_*FACT*_ - *Quite the contrary. These dispicable organizations such as the KKK and Aryans have taken a hallowed piece of history, and have plagued good Southern folks and the memories of fine Confederate Soldiers that fought under the flag with their perverse agenda. IN NO WAY does the Confederate Flag represent hate or violence. Heritage groups such as the SCV battle daily the damage done to a proud nation by these hate groups. The SCV denounces all hate groups, and pridefully boast HERITAGE - NOT HATE. * 










*http://www.rulen.com/myths/

A different view... 

Personally, I have no dog in this fight... It matter not to me what they do with this flag. Just thought that the people that want to prove that it is a flag of hatred and hatred alone to be aware that there are other opinions...

- - more - - 

*
Abraham Lincoln said the following on September 18, 1858 in a speech in Charleston, Illinois:
"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [applause]: that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of *******, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." -- Reply by Abraham Lincoln to Stephen A. Douglas in the first joint debate, Ottowa, IL; 21 Aug 1858

​


----------



## Jolly

wiscto said:


> There you go again. Personal attacks rather than debate. You lost.


You actually think anybody wins an internet debate?

*BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!*

:hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:

Nobody "wins" this stuff. Nobody. Not no where, Not no how.

It is an amusing time-waster. It does not change the world. Most of the time, it doesn't even change anybody's mind.

Enjoy it for what it is.


----------



## Jolly

gibbsgirl said:


> Yeah jolly, reminds me about that Brad Paisley song about the guy on the computer.....


I kinda like that one myself. Alright guys, musical interlude!

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE6iAjEv9dQ[/ame]


----------



## kasilofhome

kasilofhome said:


> I'll start checking but I doubt I will find where symbols are legally required to have the same emotional meaning to all.


No luck yet.


----------



## Jolly

Ok, y'all can fire back up, again...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Ok, y'all can fire back up, again...


Baiting is not nice. :nono:


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Baiting is not nice. :nono:


If you can carve it on my tombstone - and you can - I doubt that's baiting.

That's just life.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> [/B]
> 
> Those horrible Union soldiers just came down because they wanted to vacation in the sunny south, right?


Nope, they marched south so they could control the southern states by force since they couldn't do so with diplomacy.


----------



## Evons hubby

wiscto said:


> As always, I would encourage you to elaborate.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I read the Constitution. I'm waiting for you to actually state which action the Federal Government took that you think was a violation of states rights. Because I only feel that I can point out the hypocrisy of the south's states rights argument regarding slavery and the Civil War so many times....
> 
> 
> 
> Again. The whole "states rights" thing cracks me up. The evidence is right here in your own link. The south was using the Federal Government to stop northern states from exercising their own right to refuse to recognize a human being as a slave. The South didn't even accept the idea of new states and territories governing themselves and deciding whether or not they should be free or slave... But that should have been their right, correct? States rights, ya'll. Right?
> 
> Here's more evidence from your own link, under the section 'TANEY AND THE TERRITORIES, the period of time that led directly up to the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So again, the south only believed in states rights as long as that state was in favor of the institution of slavery. They also appeared to, according to your own link (and objective historians), believe that the Federal Government could act against a state in defense of slavery...but not against slavery. They actually tried to argue that the self determination of the territories was an attack on the slave holding as a federally protected institution that existed beyond their territorial borders, rather than simply the practice of self government and self determination. So they were for federal powers when it suited them.
> 
> Same section....
> 
> Wisconsin says, "We're not going to recognize a human being in our state as a slave, and you can't indict one of our citizens for acting in accordance with our laws." The South says, "That's not how states rights works! Federal Government! Step in here and take care of that rogue state!" Federal Government says, "Sorry Wisconsin. No states rights for you."
> 
> I'll say it again. The Confederacy's claim that their states rights had been violated was hypocritical. They seceded over slavery after abusing the rights of states like Wisconsin, Iowa, and Ohio. Yet they claimed their secession was about states rights; well, they also went on and on about slavery....but yea they claimed the states rights high ground as well. They wouldn't even recognize the right of new states to determine whether or not they were going to be free or slave, and certainly didn't recognize the right of northern abolitionist states to write their own laws regarding slaves....
> 
> The Confederacy was all about states rights? I think not...
> 
> Edit: Edited a couple points for clarity.


I see a problem here with Wisconsin or any other state having the right to not recognize a slave as a slave. State laws must conform to the limits placed upon them by the constitution. It was quite plainly spelled out in the constitution that any state had an obligation to assist and cooperate in the return of fugitive slave. Every state had agreed to this at the time and there had been no amendment to nullify that provision.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, they marched south so they could control the southern states by force since they couldn't do so with diplomacy.


And why did they do that? Couldn't have anything to do with firing on a federal ship and fort, could it?


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> And why did they do that? Couldn't have anything to do with firing on a federal ship and fort, could it?


I think that was called Succession.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> You actually think anybody wins an internet debate?
> 
> *BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!*
> 
> :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:
> 
> Nobody "wins" this stuff. Nobody. Not no where, Not no how.
> 
> It is an amusing time-waster. It does not change the world. Most of the time, it doesn't even change anybody's mind.
> 
> Enjoy it for what it is.


No, I agree that no one wins an internet argument, but there are most definitely losers.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> No, I agree that no one wins an internet argument, but there are most definitely losers.


Nope, not unless you take this stuff to heart.

Let me clue you in - this ain't real life. It doesn't get the hay baled or a row plowed.

It won't come stand at the graveside when you bury your mother, it won't give you the thrill of a first kiss, it won't bring the joy of watching your firstborn come into the world.

In short, it's a very truncated version of the real thing, no more felt than a moonbeam and no more substantial than a fog. You can't lose what doesn't exist.

If this is your life (collective your), you've got serious problems.


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> No, I agree that no one wins an internet argument, but there are most definitely losers.


Yup! The ones who refuse to answer questions and run away calling for the interweb police, are the biggest losers of all! Sore losers at that!! :happy2:


----------



## Jolly

JeffreyD said:


> Yup! The ones who refuse to answer questions and run away calling for the interweb police, are the biggest losers of all! Sore losers at that!! :happy2:


That's one thing about the old Usenet...it was the Wild, Wild West and there wasn't any police...made for an interesting place...


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> And why did they do that? Couldn't have anything to do with firing on a federal ship and fort, could it?


Yes, it absolutely was an important event. It was also heavily orchestrated by Lincoln and the north to trap Davis and the confederate military into being forced to defend the CSA from further invasion.

And, it also involved foreign (union) troops not evacuating, and sending more of their troops on the sovereign land of the CSA.


----------



## JeffreyD

Jolly said:


> That's one thing about the old Usenet...it was the Wild, Wild West and there wasn't any police...made for an interesting place...


Isn't that the truth! :shocked:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Great googly moogly. Someone really thinks highly of himself. Delusions of grandeur? Borderline? Hmm... 

The little "atta boy" does too!!


----------



## JeffreyD

Not sure what this has to do with the topic?

Great googly moogly. Someone really thinks highly of herself. Delusions of grandeur? Borderline? Hmm... 

Look .....in.....the......Mirror!


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> And why did they do that? Couldn't have anything to do with firing on a federal ship and fort, could it?


Where was that fort located. Seems like I recall it was in s.c. Which was part of the confederate states of America. Ask yourself what federal troops were doing occupying a fort in a foreign country.


----------



## gibbsgirl

If wr, or anyone else is interested this web-site has some things to say about why some people feel the confederate flag and history is so important to remember and honor.

Some people don't understand a lot of things from the perspective of confederate supporters. Schools don't even teach things (as far as I know) anymore that explain simple things like why some people don't like to use the words "Civil War" to describe it. The war was two separate nations that were fighting. We don't call the Revolutionary War a civil war.

http://www.plpow.com/WhyTheWarWasStarted.htm

This is the main page, it has some links in it that are interesting reading too.


----------



## wiscto

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I see a problem here with Wisconsin or any other state having the right to not recognize a slave as a slave. State laws must conform to the limits placed upon them by the constitution. It was quite plainly spelled out in the constitution that any state had an obligation to assist and cooperate in the return of fugitive slave. Every state had agreed to this at the time and there had been no amendment to nullify that provision.


Yes. Of course you do. Much like your Confederate ancestors, you don't really believe in state rights unless you agree with what the state is doing. Wisconsin gave blacks suffrage in 1849, 1 year after becoming a state. They decided that a human being could not be a slave, and therefore no human being within the state of Wisconsin could be considered a slave. Ultimately, the Confederate argument was pretty simple..._that a human being can be a slave. That a slave is a slave. That no STATE had the RIGHT to SELF GOVERN unless they agreed that slavery was an enforceable and lawful institution, and that a human being could be considered property; and that the power Federal Government should be championed over STATE RIGHTS._ That argument played out in the territories. It played out in states all across the north. It was ALL about slavery and the northern abolitionists trying to exercise their state rights to do what we all know should have been done. That's what the Confederacy seceded over. That's why we had a war. That's what people killed to protect the Confederate Flag over. That's why that flag will continue to be used as a symbol of hatred by people all over this country, regardless of what you personally believe, and that's why most everyone else can't stand it. 

Just to be clear. One more time. If anyone was defending state rights, it was the NORTH. If anyone was defending PERSONAL LIBERTY, it was the North. If anyone was right...it was the North. 

If you all want to believe that flag means something else, okay, I don't believe in passing flag laws so you won't see me voting to have it forcibly removed. But if you're going to bring it up, don't complain when I jump right into the debate and say exactly what is on my mind...passionately.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Where was that fort located. Seems like I recall it was in s.c. Which was part of the confederate states of America. Ask yourself what federal troops were doing occupying a fort in a foreign country.


It was still a federal installation, and seven states had already seceded from the union, yes? And you still wonder why federal troops were sent south? smh.


----------



## gapeach

This was my great grandfather and his father, Elihu Griffin.

*James Ambler GRIFFIN* - Unit Served in: 14 Apr 1861, Second Sergeant, Company H, Fourth Infantry, Regiment; November 1862 elected Second Lieutenant, Company B, Thirty Seventh Virginia Cavalry, becoming Commander in 1863 to end of war. (Birth: 25 May 1839, Pickens Co., SC - Death: 23 May 1826, Columbia, SC) Buried: Haygood Cemetery, Pickens County, SC

He was only 22 when he joined the Confederate Army. He was not married and he sure did not own any slaves. He had 4 brothers who were in the Army and one was killed in battle. 

His father was Elihu Griffin and he served in the Revolutionary war.








Elihu Griffin sold the town of Pickens, SC 94 acres for $270. The land where the Pickens County Courthouse now sits was part of that land.

He came to the United States from Wales though Jamestown, Virginia.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Great googly moogly. Someone really thinks highly of himself. Delusions of grandeur? Borderline? Hmm...
> 
> The little "atta boy" does too!!


Projecting?


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> It was still a federal installation, and seven states had already seceded from the union, yes? And you still wonder why federal states were sent south? smh.


Show me in the Constitution where becoming a state meant never withdrawing from the Union.

If a state could succeed, then the C.S.A was a sovereign nation, with all the rights and responsibilities therein. One of the most important responsibilities of any nation, is to protect the citizens from invading armies.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Show me in the Constitution where becoming a state meant never withdrawing from the Union.
> 
> If a state could succeed, then the C.S.A was a sovereign nation, with all the rights and responsibilities therein. One of the most important responsibilities of any nation, is to protect the citizens from invading armies.


The confederacy proclaimed it was a country, but no one else did. England and France, Spain might have too I can't remember, gave it "belligerent" status during the war. Perhaps if they had won they might have been a country... 

The confederacy made secession moot when it fired on a federal ship and a federal fort.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> The confederacy proclaimed it was a country, but no one else did. England and France, Spain might have too I can't remember, gave it "belligerent" status during the war. Perhaps if they had won they might have been a country...
> 
> The confederacy made secession moot when it fired on a federal ship and a federal fort.


How?

They were no longer a part of the Federation. It would have been the same thing if Fort Sumter would have been sitting in Mexico City. It's a foreign army and the citizens have every right to remove an invading army by force of arms.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Jolly said:


> Show me in the Constitution where becoming a state meant never withdrawing from the Union.
> 
> If a state could succeed, then the C.S.A was a sovereign nation, with all the rights and responsibilities therein. One of the most important responsibilities of any nation, is to protect the citizens from invading armies.


Here's an interesting read about the legality of secession, for those interested.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> How?
> 
> They were no longer a part of the Federation. It would have been the same thing if Fort Sumter would have been sitting in Mexico City. It's a foreign army and the citizens have every right to remove an invading army by force of arms.


The federal government still held that they were part of the United States. Therefore, when they fired on the ship and fort it was a violation of the Insurrection Act of 1807, the rest, as they say, is history.


----------



## HDRider

Irish Pixie said:


> No, I agree that no one wins an internet argument, but there are most definitely losers.


You are so cute.


----------



## Irish Pixie

ETA: Nope, it's beneath me.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> The confederacy proclaimed it was a country, but no one else did. England and France, Spain might have too I can't remember, gave it "belligerent" status during the war. Perhaps if they had won they might have been a country...
> 
> The confederacy made secession moot when it fired on a federal ship and a federal fort.


The Confederacy's status as a nation was not based on any other nation recognizing it, it was a self-determination of a people.

Also, international relations at the time were rather complicated (as they frequently are), so to say that the official diplomatic actions or lack of actions are representative of other nation's support or recognition of the CSA is kind of a narrow view. There were a lot of nation's following what was happening and basing their action on what they thought the consequences for them would be not only with the USA and CSA but in many other places. France was considering Mexico, Britain was considering Canada. Heck Prussia, Russia, the Pope and others were all pieces of the international puzzle.

Here's an interesting read.....

http://www.voltairenet.org/article169488.html


----------



## wiscto

HDRider said:


> You are so cute.


Well bless your heart.


----------



## wiscto

gibbsgirl said:


> The Confederacy's status as a nation was not based on any other nation recognizing it,* it was a self-determination of a people.*
> 
> Also, international relations at the time were rather complicated (as they frequently are), so to say that the official diplomatic actions or lack of actions are representative of other nation's support or recognition of the CSA is kind of a narrow view. There were a lot of nation's following what was happening and basing their action on what they thought the consequences for them would be not only with the USA and CSA but in many other places. France was considering Mexico, Britain was considering Canada. Heck Prussia, Russia, the Pope and others were all pieces of the international puzzle.
> 
> Here's an interesting read.....
> 
> http://www.voltairenet.org/article169488.html


To leave a nation it previously signed up for because that nation's central government was beginning to refuse to step all over the free will of abolitionist states and the free will of an enslaved people.

A DEVIL of a philosophical quagmire if there ever was one.


----------



## Old Vet

They should ban all flags not the battle flag but all of them. That is the way the left sees it. One step at a time.


----------



## wiscto

Old Vet said:


> They should ban all flags not the battle flag but all of them. That is the way the left sees it. One step at a time.


I must not be left then, because in my opinion we need the flag to keep the simple minds from wandering too far off the trail.


----------



## Old Vet

wiscto said:


> I must not be left then, because in my opinion we need the flag to keep the simple minds from wandering too far off the trail.


How long will it be when some body used the US flag as an excuse to kill? OH they already have.


----------



## wiscto

Old Vet said:


> How long will it be when some body used the US flag as an excuse to kill? OH they already have.


Well, I didn't say simple minds were easy to live with...


----------



## Old Vet

wiscto said:


> Well, I didn't say simple minds were easy to live with...


OK I guess you are OK with that? Only the Battle Flag should be gotten rid of and not soled. What reason would be a slavery.


----------



## wiscto

Old Vet said:


> OK I guess you are OK with that? Only the Battle Flag should be gotten rid of and not *soled*. *What reason would be a slavery*.


I was really just messing with you at this point. I love the Stars and Stripes. But what did you just say?


----------



## J.T.M.

:happy2: .....


----------



## Old Vet

wiscto said:


> I was really just messing with you at this point. I love the Stars and Stripes. But what did you just say?


 OH by the way the Stars and Stripes flew over a country that was the largest country to hold slaves. If you want to get rid of the Stars and Bars for being a one that flew over a slave state you should get rid of the Stars and Stripes. One is just as bad as the other one.


----------



## J.T.M.

I think we decided to keep the flag and get rid of Golds Gym shirts ...


----------



## Jolly

wiscto said:


> I was really just messing with you at this point. I love the Stars and Stripes. But what did you just say?


And proudly it waved over slavery for 85 years...


----------



## wiscto

Old Vet said:


> OH by the way the Stars and Stripes flew over a country that was the largest country to hold slaves. If you want to get rid of the Stars and Bars for being a one that flew over a slave state you should get rid of the Stars and Stripes. One is just as bad as the other one.


Yea but see... When we tried to fix that little problem under the Stars and Stripes, somebody made the Confederate Flag to perpetuate the problem instead.


----------



## wiscto

Jolly said:


> And proudly it waved over slavery for 85 years...


See above.


----------



## partndn

Totally off topic, but I think that dude is wearing a woman's watch on his right hand. Odd.


----------



## wiscto

J.T.M. said:


> I think we decided to keep the flag and get rid of Golds Gym shirts ...


WAT DEED YOO SAAYYY?!


----------



## wiscto

partndn said:


> Totally off topic, but I think that dude is wearing a woman's watch on his right hand. Odd.


Wow. Did not notice that.


----------



## Old Vet

wiscto said:


> Yea but see... When we tried to fix that little problem under the Stars and Stripes, somebody made the Confederate Flag to perpetuate the problem instead.


Oh I thought that the KKK and Skinheads that.


----------



## wiscto

Old Vet said:


> If you cant read don't blame me.


Mmmkay. I thought that the KKK and Skinheads that...


----------



## Jolly

And while we're having apoplexy about what constituted treason 150 years ago, how about modern day treason?

Check this column out:

http://www.floppingaces.net/2015/06...st-symbols-that-represent-treason-guest-post/


----------



## J.T.M.

I have a case of the giggles ... should I have another glass of wine or should I call it a night hmmmmmmmmmmm ~ hic up ~
PS :
Is " apoplexy " a real word ?


----------



## Old Vet

J.T.M. said:


> I have a case of the giggles ... should I have another glass of wine or should I call it a night hmmmmmmmmmmm ~ hic up ~
> PS :
> Is " apoplexy " a real word ?


I see your problem. That wine is made in Iowa for good wine you need to have Muakidine wine made in Arkansas.


----------



## J.T.M.

Old Vet said:


> I see your problem. That wine is made in Iowa for good wine you need to have Muakidine wine made in Arkansas.


so your saying you need my address and you trust me to send you the amount due ?
:idea:


----------



## Old Vet

J.T.M. said:


> so your saying you need my address and you trust me to send you the amount due ?
> :idea:


Sure it only costs $15.


----------



## J.T.M.

shhhhhhhhhh keep it on the downlow someones going around deleting post


----------



## Old Vet

J.T.M. said:


> shhhhhhhhhh keep it on the downlow someones going around deleting post


Its about time that I got deleted.


----------



## Evons hubby

wiscto said:


> I must not be left then, because in my opinion we need the flag to keep the simple minds from wandering too far off the trail.


Too late!


----------



## wiscto

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Too late!


Rush Limbaugh doesn't count.


----------



## wiscto

Old Vet said:


> I see your problem. That wine is made in Iowa for good wine you need to have Muakidine wine made in Arkansas.


I didn't even know Iowa made wine. I wouldn't trust it either.


----------



## Irish Pixie

partndn said:


> Totally off topic, but I think that dude is wearing a woman's watch on his right hand. Odd.


This animal killed 9 people and you wonder if he's wearing a women's watch?


----------



## Tricky Grama

no really said:


> IMHO the people of Charleston did not react in the way that TPTB would have preferred, no riots, no burning of property. Instead they came together in support and love.
> 
> So they created this flag furor. If you don't get the crisis you want create one.


Post of the week award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> This animal killed 9 people and you wonder if he's wearing a women's watch?


Bunches of folks are wondering a lot about that monster. Mostly 'how' & 'why', as the victims families are. So -even tho a lot of us didn't notice that-observant people did; and are still wondering how that 21 y/o got to be so evil.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

J.T.M. said:


> I think we decided to keep the flag and get rid of Golds Gym shirts ...


I think we should ban bad hair cuts.


----------



## kasilofhome

Irish Pixie said:


> This animal killed 9 people and you wonder if he's wearing a women's watch?


The family forgave and showed love.... not riot... looting ...and some want to shift the blame to a symbol.... how dumb is that... maybe it was the watch and not the flag.. maybe... he was crackers...


----------



## Lisa in WA

J.T.M. said:


> shhhhhhhhhh keep it on the downlow someones going around deleting post


Are you a "down low" kind of guy?


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> This animal killed 9 people and you wonder if he's wearing a women's watch?


Yes it's petty to be taking about a watch in a time like this. Let's talk about the flag instead.


----------



## MoonRiver

Irish Pixie said:


> The confederacy proclaimed it was a country, but no one else did. England and France, Spain might have too I can't remember, gave it "belligerent" status during the war. Perhaps if they had won they might have been a country...


What difference does it make?

4th grade Civics question: What do you call a territory with its own government?


----------



## Irish Pixie

MoonRiver said:


> What difference does it make?
> 
> 4th grade Civics question: What do you call a territory with its own government?


A moot point?


----------



## J.T.M.

~ blush ~


----------



## partndn

Irish Pixie said:


> This animal killed 9 people and you wonder if he's wearing a women's watch?


Not sure what your problem is, and do not care. Are you so proactively biased at some members you can't read any post without preformed opposing remark in mind?

I prefaced it with "totally off topic" and it should have been very easily understood that it was merely an observation, totally benign to any argument or opinion here. 

I have no idea why I noticed it. And I don't really wonder why he's wearing it. I don't care. I just noticed it, and it is a little odd. Nothing to conclude or imply. Couldn't be more simple or harmless, despite your implication.


----------



## MoonRiver

Irish Pixie said:


> A moot point?


And to think I almost gave you the 5th grade question!


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> The family forgave and showed love.... not riot... looting ...and some want to shift the blame to a symbol.... how dumb is that... maybe it was the watch and not the flag.. maybe... he was crackers...


I am pretty sure that this cracker acted on his own. :walk:


----------



## 7thswan

basketti said:


> Are you a "down low" kind of guy?


That's Obama.


----------



## Marshloft

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I think we should ban bad hair cuts.


 I concur, its been at least 6 months for me. Cause I to, abhor a bad haircut.


----------



## FireMaker

We are developing the Isis approach to history. Destroy it and we can forget it. Much of our history was putting down minorities. Destroying/removing examples of this will not make up for what we did as a country.never forget where we came from. Male changes to our future.


----------

