Hillary Objects to the Confederate Flag

[Adidas410s]

ORANGEBURG, S.C. - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that South Carolina should remove the Confederate flag from its Statehouse grounds, in part because the nation should unite under one banner while at war.

"I think about how many South Carolinians have served in our military and who are serving today under our flag and I believe that we should have one flag that we all pay honor to, as I know that most people in South Carolina do every single day," Clinton told The Associated Press in an interview.

"I personally would like to see it removed from the Statehouse grounds," the New York senator said during her first trip to the early voting state since announcing her White House bid.

Other Democratic hopefuls, including Sens. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, have said the flag should come down. The banner, which once flew over the Statehouse dome and now flies nearby, is the subject of an ongoing NAACP boycott.

Clinton is one of several Democrats to draw huge crowds during campaign stops in the state, but she said during the interview that her party will have a tough time winning in GOP-heavy South Carolina

"I think it's going to be hard for any Democrat to carry the state," she said. "The Republican Party is very strong here."

Earlier in the day, Clinton spoke to more than 1,500 people gathered at Allen University, a historically black college in Columbia.

The senator picked up key endorsements last week from two black state senators who helped deliver black voters to former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards in 2004. One of those politicians, state Sen. Darrell Jackson, whose media company also picked up a $10,000 consulting contract from Clinton's campaign, introduced her to the Allen University crowd.

During the AP interview, Clinton said her campaign struck no deal with Jackson. "Senator Jackson has worked in Clinton campaigns going back to 1992," she said.

[Highschoolfan78]

Originally posted by Adidas410s
ORANGEBURG, S.C. - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that South Carolina should remove the Confederate flag from its Statehouse grounds, in part because the nation should unite under one banner while at war.

"I think about how many South Carolinians have served in our military and who are serving today under our flag and I believe that we should have one flag that we all pay honor to, as I know that most people in South Carolina do every single day," Clinton told The Associated Press in an interview.

"I personally would like to see it removed from the Statehouse grounds," the New York senator said during her first trip to the early voting state since announcing her White House bid.

Other Democratic hopefuls, including Sens. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, have said the flag should come down. The banner, which once flew over the Statehouse dome and now flies nearby, is the subject of an ongoing NAACP boycott.

Clinton is one of several Democrats to draw huge crowds during campaign stops in the state, but she said during the interview that her party will have a tough time winning in GOP-heavy South Carolina

"I think it's going to be hard for any Democrat to carry the state," she said. "The Republican Party is very strong here."

Earlier in the day, Clinton spoke to more than 1,500 people gathered at Allen University, a historically black college in Columbia.

The senator picked up key endorsements last week from two black state senators who helped deliver black voters to former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards in 2004. One of those politicians, state Sen. Darrell Jackson, whose media company also picked up a $10,000 consulting contract from Clinton's campaign, introduced her to the Allen University crowd.

During the AP interview, Clinton said her campaign struck no deal with Jackson. "Senator Jackson has worked in Clinton campaigns going back to 1992," she said.


Another reason for me not to vote for her. I don't wanna get into my definition of what the flag means and start fire.. so i'll burn out my opinion to prevent political forest fires.. smokey would be proud.... I could have done better not reading this haha.

[carter08]

The Confederate flag is the flag of a SEPERATE NATION

And thats all I have to say about that one

[Phil C]

I am one of the best quarterbacks to come out of the state of Louisiana. I verbaled to UT but at the last minute switched to LSU. I am at LSU waiting for my change to play. Who am I?

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by Phil C
I am one of the best quarterbacks to come out of the state of Louisiana. I verbaled to UT but at the last minute switched to LSU. I am at LSU waiting for my change to play. Who am I?

Is that just a mistake or a classic example of thread piracy??

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Phil C
I am one of the best quarterbacks to come out of the state of Louisiana. I verbaled to UT but at the last minute switched to LSU. I am at LSU waiting for my change to play. Who am I?

Ryan Perriloux?

[Adidas410s]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
Is that just a mistake or a classic example of thread piracy??

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Pudlugger]

This article is wrong, Hillary gave Darrel Jackson a $200,000 contract two weeks before he endorsed her not $10,000 as the article states. Pay to play is typical and the press gives Herself a pass of course.

The Confederate flag stood for more than slavery. The Civil war was fought for state's rights, and it was a rebellion against the hegemonic actions of the Northern states. Unfortunately, the main issue that brought this conflict to a hot war was slavery. Had the Confederacy abandoned slavery in 1862, realizing that technological advances in agriculture and economic forces would have soon led to its demise anyway, they could have seized the high moral ground and perhaps won the war. Instead they were marginalized and the North was able to recruit solders over the morality of abolition. The flag flies over the SC capital to pay tribute to the 600,000 young men who fought and died in this tragic war.

Clinton is exploiting race as usual. The real difference between Herself and the good folks of SC is that they reject her socialist and moral relativity agenda.

[ASUFrisbeeStud]

Originally posted by carter08
The Confederate flag is the flag of a SEPERATE NATION

And thats all I have to say about that one

A Seperate Nation we were once a part of. You can't deny history.

[carter08]

Originally posted by ASUFrisbeeStud
A Seperate Nation we were once a part of. You can't deny history.

France, Spain, England, Mexico, the Netherlands

All these at one time controlled part of the current United States

Shall we wave thier flags too

[ASUFrisbeeStud]

Originally posted by carter08
France, Spain, England, Mexico, the Netherlands

All these at one time controlled part of the current United States

Shall we wave thier flags too

It's a little different than that.

[carter08]

Originally posted by ASUFrisbeeStud
It's a little different than that.

Yes, it is.

The Confederacy was the only one of those to revolt against the United States

[buff4life]

Originally posted by Adidas410s
ORANGEBURG, S.C. - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that South Carolina should remove the Confederate flag from its Statehouse grounds, in part because the nation should unite under one banner while at war.

"I think about how many South Carolinians have served in our military and who are serving today under our flag and I believe that we should have one flag that we all pay honor to, as I know that most people in South Carolina do every single day," Clinton told The Associated Press in an interview.

"I personally would like to see it removed from the Statehouse grounds," the New York senator said during her first trip to the early voting state since announcing her White House bid.

Other Democratic hopefuls, including Sens. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, have said the flag should come down. The banner, which once flew over the Statehouse dome and now flies nearby, is the subject of an ongoing NAACP boycott.

Clinton is one of several Democrats to draw huge crowds during campaign stops in the state, but she said during the interview that her party will have a tough time winning in GOP-heavy South Carolina

"I think it's going to be hard for any Democrat to carry the state," she said. "The Republican Party is very strong here."

Earlier in the day, Clinton spoke to more than 1,500 people gathered at Allen University, a historically black college in Columbia.

The senator picked up key endorsements last week from two black state senators who helped deliver black voters to former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards in 2004. One of those politicians, state Sen. Darrell Jackson, whose media company also picked up a $10,000 consulting contract from Clinton's campaign, introduced her to the Allen University crowd.

During the AP interview, Clinton said her campaign struck no deal with Jackson. "Senator Jackson has worked in Clinton campaigns going back to 1992," she said.

if she supports that thought...she should support the amendment to make it illegal to burn the flag....same concept

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
This article is wrong, Hillary gave Darrel Jackson a $200,000 contract two weeks before he endorsed her not $10,000 as the article states. Pay to play is typical and the press gives Herself a pass of course.

The Confederate flag stood for more than slavery. The Civil war was fought for state's rights, and it was a rebellion against the hegemonic actions of the Northern states. Unfortunately, the main issue that brought this conflict to a hot war was slavery. Had the Confederacy abandoned slavery in 1862, realizing that technological advances in agriculture and economic forces would have soon led to its demise anyway, they could have seized the high moral ground and perhaps won the war. Instead they were marginalized and the North was able to recruit solders over the morality of abolition. The flag flies over the SC capital to pay tribute to the 600,000 young men who fought and died in this tragic war.

Clinton is exploiting race as usual. The real difference between Herself and the good folks of SC is that they reject her socialist and moral relativity agenda.

Once again, you need to brush up on your history. It had very little to do with slavery, as when Lincoln took office, he wanted to propose a Constitutional amendment to allow slavery in hopes of keeping the Union in tact. There was much more at play than you can ever imagine, but yet you spit out crap, crap, and more crap. It is kind of disappointing to see that from a man of your intelligence. I will agree with you about why the flag should fly, but that's not why the flag is flying. It is flying over protest against the NAACP. If you don't agree with a person's political stance, that's all well and good, but there are people who agree with you and people who don't, just try to refrain from slandering the beliefs of others with your misinterpretations of the matters at hand.

[ASUFrisbeeStud]

Originally posted by carter08
Yes, it is.

The Confederacy was the only one of those to revolt against the United States

I believe there have been a few wars with a few of those mentioned.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by buff4life
if she supports that thought...she should support the amendment to make it illegal to burn the flag....same concept

You're right, she should, but both examples are demonstrations of freedom of speech. Protection under the First Amendment extends further than just words, and both are bold examples of utilizing our inherent rights and freedoms. I can agree with her reasoning behind it, but at the same time it's not as though she's threatening a Constitutional amendment to put a cap on the rights of citizens to appease the ideals of some.

[ASUFrisbeeStud]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Once again, you need to brush up on your history. It had very little to do with slavery, as when Lincoln took office, he wanted to propose a Constitutional amendment to allow slavery in hopes of keeping the Union in tact. There was much more at play than you can ever imagine, but yet you spit out crap, crap, and more crap. It is kind of disappointing to see that from a man of your intelligence. I will agree with you about why the flag should fly, but that's not why the flag is flying. It is flying over protest against the NAACP. If you don't agree with a person's political stance, that's all well and good, but there are people who agree with you and people who don't, just try to refrain from slandering the beliefs of others with your misinterpretations of the matters at hand.

I think you've read Howard Zinns book on the history of the United States. Well done.

[carter08]

Originally posted by ASUFrisbeeStud
I believe there have been a few wars with a few of those mentioned.

yes, there have

But none of them were trying to leave the United States. They were trying to keep it or take it

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by ASUFrisbeeStud
I think you've read Howard Zinns book on the history of the United States. Well done.

Actually, I haven't....Should I?

[ASUFrisbeeStud]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Actually, I haven't....Should I?

Definitly.

Here is the book I'm talking about (http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-Present/dp/0060838655/sr=8-1/qid=1171930299/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0011157-6984969?ie=UTF8&s=books)

It's a pretty awesome account of how history can be slanted, it just looks at things from a different perspective.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by ASUFrisbeeStud
Definitly.

Here is the book I'm talking about (http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-Present/dp/0060838655/sr=8-1/qid=1171930299/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0011157-6984969?ie=UTF8&s=books)

It's a pretty awesome account of how history can be slanted, it just looks at things from a different perspective.

Well, I don't have time for that now, but maybe this summer I'll pick it up sometime...Seems very interesting to me, as I am an avid student of history.

[ASUFrisbeeStud]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Well, I don't have time for that now, but maybe this summer I'll pick it up sometime...Seems very interesting to me, as I am an avid student of history.


I had a real progressive history professor a few years ago and we had to read it for class. He taught it from a different angle than most professors, he didn't care about dates and stuff like that as much as people and concepts and social revolution. He was a pretty cool guy.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Once again, you need to brush up on your history. It had very little to do with slavery, as when Lincoln took office, he wanted to propose a Constitutional amendment to allow slavery in hopes of keeping the Union in tact. There was much more at play than you can ever imagine, but yet you spit out crap, crap, and more crap. It is kind of disappointing to see that from a man of your intelligence. I will agree with you about why the flag should fly, but that's not why the flag is flying. It is flying over protest against the NAACP. If you don't agree with a person's political stance, that's all well and good, but there are people who agree with you and people who don't, just try to refrain from slandering the beliefs of others with your misinterpretations of the matters at hand.

BBDE you need to calm down a bit and reread my post. I clearly stated that there were other causes for the Civil War: state's rights; Northern dominance in the Federal Government (that's what I refer to as hegemonic influences); issues of culture such as agricultural concerns versus industrial concerns etc. When are you going to grow up enough to have an intelligent conversation with someone that you disagree with?

[sahen]

Originally posted by carter08
The Confederate flag is the flag of a SEPERATE NATION

And thats all I have to say about that one
i dont really want to get into this fight, cause it seems like enough is going on but the Texas Flag is a flag of a seperate nation as well....

[burnet44]

this is about billery
not the south

she is saying anything to get pub

a ton of people have come out against the SC flag
she does it and its "newsworthy"

she is no different than Britany
maybe Billery can shave her head
she cant get any butt uglier

If she wins
we are doomed
trust me

knowing our nn country
we will prob elect her and obama

that sound you hear are the rag heads cheering

between now and the election we will hear all kinds of crap

I wish it was over
like I wish Taks was

[sinton66]

Originally posted by carter08
The Confederate flag is the flag of a SEPERATE NATION

And thats all I have to say about that one

Actually, you are incorrect. It was never the official flag of the Confederate States of America, it was only a battle flag.

There is a common misperception that the Confederate battle flag (the "Southern Cross") was the national flag of the Confederacy. In reality, the flag we most associate with the Confederacy was strictly a battle flag—and not the only battle flag used. The Confederacy actually changed its national flag three times during the course of the war.
This is what is commonly referred to as the "Confederate Flag:
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/7479/conflag4ae2.gif

There were three official flags of the Confederate States of America:

The original version of the Confederate national flag, called the Stars and Bars, included seven stars representing the first seven states to secede from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. In its final form, the flag contained thirteen stars (adding the seceding states of Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee, as well as two states that attempted, but failed, to secede: Kentucky and Missouri). The flag's first official use was at the inauguration of Jefferson Davis on March 4, 1861. It was also used in combat, but its similarity to the Stars and Stripes caused confusion on the battlefield.
1).http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/276/conflag1vt3.gif

On May 1, 1863, a new national flag was adopted, commonly known as the "Stainless Banner" because of its white field. The "Southern Cross" battle flag appeared in the canton on a white field. The flag's first official use was as the covering of Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson's casket. It too served as a battlefield flag. While the new flag avoided the problem of its predecessor—its similarity to the Stars and Stripes of the Union—it introduced its own form of confusion: largely white, it was thought it might be mistaken for a white flag of surrender.
2).http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/4975/conflag2wl7.gif

The final version of the Confederate flag was adopted just a month before the end of the Civil War. A wide band of red was added to the right side of the Stainless Banner design to distinguish the flag from one of surrender.

3).http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/9149/conflag3mm0.gif

[Who-dun-it!!?]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
This article is wrong, Hillary gave Darrel Jackson a $200,000 contract two weeks before he endorsed her not $10,000 as the article states. Pay to play is typical and the press gives Herself a pass of course.

The Confederate flag stood for more than slavery. The Civil war was fought for state's rights, and it was a rebellion against the hegemonic actions of the Northern states. Unfortunately, the main issue that brought this conflict to a hot war was slavery. Had the Confederacy abandoned slavery in 1862, realizing that technological advances in agriculture and economic forces would have soon led to its demise anyway, they could have seized the high moral ground and perhaps won the war. Instead they were marginalized and the North was able to recruit solders over the morality of abolition. The flag flies over the SC capital to pay tribute to the 600,000 young men who fought and died in this tragic war.

Clinton is exploiting race as usual. The real difference between Herself and the good folks of SC is that they reject her socialist and moral relativity agenda.

I agree totally. My great Grandfather was a confederate soldier. He lived in those times and was never a slave owner, nor did he agree with the concept of slavery. I am proud of my great grandfather who did his duty for the time he lived as I have done my duty, and continue to do so today. I am ashamed of people like Hilary Clinton who use such a topic for political gain. How can we ridicule this symbol which is part of our great nation's history, when we allow other country's flags to fly and celebrate there national holidays right here in the U.S. If this flag needs to be brought down, fine, do it, But we should stop celebrating Mexico's Indipendance, and stop flying there flag here in the U.S. Frankly, I'm offended by another country's flag flying in the place of the flag of our great nation. Its just wrong to single out one symbol that offends some people, when we totally ignore another symbol that offends other people.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
BBDE you need to calm down a bit and reread my post. I clearly stated that there were other causes for the Civil War: state's rights; Northern dominance in the Federal Government (that's what I refer to as hegemonic influences); issues of culture such as agricultural concerns versus industrial concerns etc. When are you going to grow up enough to have an intelligent conversation with someone that you disagree with?

Probably around the same time you state factual evidence to support your assertions. It doesn't bother me that you disagree with me, what bothers me is some of the crap you pull out of thin air and try to pass of as being a fact.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by carter08
yes, there have

But none of them were trying to leave the United States. They were trying to keep it or take it

So, how do you feel about the Texas flag? It is a flag of a state that seceded from the Union (although it was the only state that had a legal right to do so). It still flies today, legally just as high as the US flag. By your criteria, you should hate the "Lone Star" flag as well.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by burnet44
this is about billery
not the south

she is saying anything to get pub

a ton of people have come out against the SC flag
she does it and its "newsworthy"

she is no different than Britany
maybe Billery can shave her head
she cant get any butt uglier

If she wins
we are doomed
trust me

knowing our nn country
we will prob elect her and obama

that sound you hear are the rag heads cheering

between now and the election we will hear all kinds of crap

I wish it was over
like I wish Taks was

Yeah, we'll criticize people who haven't been in office yet, but praise the people who are in office screwing up. Maybe we can elect a president who will invade Iran, that would probably make you happy huh?

[JR2004]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Yeah, we'll criticize people who haven't been in office yet, but praise the people who are in office screwing up. Maybe we can elect a president who will invade Iran, that would probably make you happy huh?

Take your own advice occasionally.

[sinton66]

The Civil War wasn't just about slavery, there were many causes and concerns. The southern states weren't the ONLY ones where slavery was legal either. George Washington owned slaves. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and is believed to have fathered illegitimate children with one of them. Many wealthy northerners owned slaves before and during the early parts of the war.

[sinton66]

Lets leave the politics out of this discussion folks. It's about her understanding of this flag only. Nothing else needs to be brought out.

[burnet44]

Billary is in orifice errrrr office
sorry that was monica
she is a Sen. FROM NY thank god

[sinton66]

Originally posted by burnet44
Billary is in orifice errrrr office
sorry that was monica
she is a Sen. FROM NY thank god

re-read the rule, please.


5). No political/religious topics.
Political topics involving American political parties and their current candidates for office (or those already elected) and religious topics are forbidden.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Probably around the same time you state factual evidence to support your assertions. It doesn't bother me that you disagree with me, what bothers me is some of the crap you pull out of thin air and try to pass of as being a fact.

I'm not sure which statements you are challenging as not factual. As for the $200000 payment just Google Darrell Jackson $200000 and read all about it. As for the various underlying causes of the Civil War I stand by my statements. As for Hillary Clinton being a Socialist , well it was she who said a few weeks ago that she was going to take all the excess profits from the big oil companies and "give it" to researchers of alternative energy sources. If that's not socialism you tell me what it is.

Enjoy your Kool Aid BBDE.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
I'm not sure which statements you are challenging as not factual. As for the $200000 payment just Google Darrell Jackson $200000 and read all about it. As for the various underlying causes of the Civil War I stand by my statements. As for Hillary Clinton being a Socialist , well it was she who said a few weeks ago that she was going to take all the excess profits from the big oil companies and "give it" to researchers of alternative energy sources. If that's not socialism you tell me what it is.

Enjoy your Kool Aid BBDE.

I wasn't disputing your first statement, I know nothing of it, but I don't doubt it's validity. I know that you wouldn't dare throw something like that out there without knowing what you are talking about. About the Civil War, I didn't necessarily agree with at first, and as far as Clinton being a Socialist, that is where I think you're out of line. You act like she's out to hurt Americans and present only one side of the argument. I will apologize though, I did jump out at you. I'm just stressed out about the next few days, so I apologize, I was out of line.

[Pudlugger]

Apology accepted.

Back in 1992 I was practicing medicine in California when Hillary was forming her National Health Plan. It was essentially nationalization of the entire health care industry representing 7% of the GDP. The overall effect of this effort was to push doctors in solo and small partnerships into big HMOs to protect themselves from the loss of their patients to contracting HMOs and mega groups that were formed in this transition to position for the Plan. Fortunately, Hillary Care never came to be, but it is still on the agenda if Sen. Clinton becomes president. You bet I will never forget what happened then, as it impacted me and my family. It was why I moved to Texas setting up a solo practice in a small rural town, to get away from the big HMOs and government controlled medicine. It worked for about 3 years until the blue suits arrived in Austin and brought it to Texas. I could write a book about all this but suffice it to say I know what is coming and it aint pretty.

Sorry to hear you are stressed out. Is it spring training now? Hope you do well and make the team to represent us here on the 'Low.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
Apology accepted.

Back in 1992 I was practicing medicine in California when Hillary was forming her National Health Plan. It was essentially nationalization of the entire health care industry representing 7% of the GDP. The overall effect of this effort was to push doctors in solo and small partnerships into big HMOs to protect themselves from the loss of their patients to contracting HMOs and mega groups that were formed in this transition to position for the Plan. Fortunately, Hillary Care never came to be, but it is still on the agenda if Sen. Clinton becomes president. You bet I will never forget what happened then, as it impacted me and my family. It was why I moved to Texas setting up a solo practice in a small rural town, to get away from the big HMOs and government controlled medicine. It worked for about 3 years until the blue suits arrived in Austin and brought it to Texas. I could write a book about all this but suffice it to say I know what is coming and it aint pretty.

So, do you think that every American should be given healthcare, or that everyone should be self-sufficient and in a lot of cases have to do without?

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
So, do you think that every American should be given healthcare, or that everyone should be self-sufficient and in a lot of cases have to do without?

Actually, I favor reforms that bring the healthcare consumer back into the paradigm. Right now with third party payors there is little or no incentive for patients to shop around for more economical healthcare and less for providers to hold down costs. By allowing health savings accounts with castastrophic major med back-up, consumer insurance purchasing co-ops (where folks unable to get much less costly group coverage i.e. people who work for themselves, retirees under 65 y/o, unemployed between jobs, etc.), and complete deductibility of insurance costs (or even tax credits for low income families) on taxes combined with real tort reform, competetion for the consumer dollar would bring costs down and limit unnecessary utilization and procedures.
Think about how the WalMart business model has revolutionized the retail sales industry. Similar results could be obtained in healthcare without sacrificing quality. Efficiency from competetive pricing, better utilization and reduced delivery costs(i.e. fewer unnecessary tests and procedures, lower liability insurance costs, less paperwork and office overhead etc.) is the key to cracking this nut.
In addition something serious needs to be done about illegal immigration. Our ERs are filling up with these folks who use them for their primary care, have babies without much prenatal care or arrive there by ambulance after auto accidents or gang related shootings etc. The costs are being displaced on paying patients i.e. you and me. The more the individual takes responsibility and control of his/her care the better and cheaper the care will be. When I was in practice I would rather be paid up front by a patient and get half than fill out all the insurance paperwork for 60%.

BTW it is a myth that folks who really need healthcare do without in this country. They get medicaid, or show up in the ER and get seen and walk away from the bill. It is the middle class who are getting hosed right now and the reforms I've outlined would go a long way to resolve the problem.

[Reds fan]

Extremely well stated Pud!
:clap: :clap: :clap:

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
The Confederate flag stood for more than slavery. The Civil war was fought for state's rights, and it was a rebellion against the hegemonic actions of the Northern states. OMG!!:rolleyes: Its about slavery plain and simple. any attempt to make it anything else is silly.:rolleyes:

[themsu97]

Slavery was an issue but it was not the issue... jefferson davis freed his slaves and thought that blacks should be equal... Lincoln saw blacks as inferior... but yet we hold Lincoln as the Great Emancipator... who did he Free? only the slaves in the confederacy... what about the slaves in Maryland, kentucky and Missouri? not set free, so slavery was not the issue... it came down to states controlling congress, the north had it and did not want to lose it... south wanted it and could not get it... actually, even most northerners felt that slavery was necessary since the leading export. 3-1 at most points, was cotton, and nobody wanted to mess that up...
what is interesting is that most people cry for seperation of church and state yet it was at a revival that the abolitionist movement started and it picked up steam with the Quakers, yet another religious group,... do not think or believe that history is everything you learn in school... remember that the Spanish introduced slavery and that it was once very popular in the North and then after the Civil War, the northern states passed laws forbidding freedmen from coming to live in the North...yet the southerners get the bad rap?

[themsu97]

on a different note, Hillary is a bigger idiot and liar than her husband... I hope she wins the nomination so the Republicans can win again...

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
OMG!!:rolleyes: Its about slavery plain and simple. any attempt to make it anything else is silly.:rolleyes:

An Afro-American sees a rebel flag and thinks of slavery and it's atrocities.

A northern caucasian American sees a rebel flag and thinks of rebellion against the Union and the freeing of slaves.

A southern caucasian American sees a rebel flag and thinks of the southern rebel image---a fighter for state's rights and independence and the pride of southern heritage and lifestyle. Most caucasian southerners that I have known do not think of the slavery issue when they see a rebel flag being waved.

[Jason1725]

Yes, it is.

The Confederacy was the only one of those to revolt against the United States

Revolt? How can you revolt against a voluntary Union created by the sovereign States?

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
An Afro-American sees a rebel flag and thinks of slavery and it's atrocities.

A northern caucasian American sees a rebel flag and thinks of rebellion against the Union and the freeing of slaves.

A southern caucasian American sees a rebel flag and thinks of the southern rebel image---a fighter for state's rights and independence and the pride of southern heritage and lifestyle. Most caucasian southerners that I have known do not think of the slavery issue when they see a rebel flag being waved. Im a southern texas born white american. I see it as Pure slavery issue and most do as well.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Im a southern texas born white american. I see it as Pure slavery issue and most do as well. You say most do....prove it. I don't and most people I know don't.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
You say most do....prove it. I don't and most people I know don't. blacks see it as such. many whites see it as such. why do you think they gring it down and fly it in only old heavy slavery strong holds. I will see if I can accomidate you though.;)

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
blacks see it as such. many whites see it as such. why do you think they gring it down and fly it in only old heavy slavery strong holds. I will see if I can accomidate you though.;) You may very well be right. I don't know. I just feel that it's a very vocal minority of people that find it offensive.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Im a southern texas born white american. I see it as Pure slavery issue and most do as well.

I do not. The revisionists will see it that way, when history is retold with emotion instead of fact this is what happens.

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
blacks see it as such. many whites see it as such. why do you think they gring it down and fly it in only old heavy slavery strong holds. I will see if I can accomidate you though.;)

BM, do you seriously think that the thousands of Southern Americans who attend NASCAR races and display the rebel flag are trying to promote slavery?

[JasperDog94]

I look at the Confederacy/slavery this way:

Have you ever known two guys that got into a fight over something stupid only to find out later on that there's been a bunch of stuff happening that led up to the fight? That's exactly what happened between the North and the South. Slavery was just the straw that broke the camels back. Yet that's all we hear about.

Slavery was the final issue, but it was far from the biggest or only issue.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
BM, do you seriously think that the thousands of Southern Americans who attend NASCAR races and display the rebel flag are trying to promote slavery? I seriously think those southern white americans are hanging on to the past ( civil war) . You can now try to make it a flag of what you want to make it for but the facts are that it was the flag of the confederacy that wanted to break away from the United states of America in order to protect thier right to own slaves. its that simple and you know it. thats what it stands for. this reminds me of the Neo Nazis trying to justify flying a nazi flag by saying it does not stand for hate but for white pride.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I look at the Confederacy/slavery this way:

Have you ever known two guys that got into a fight over something stupid only to find out later on that there's been a bunch of stuff happening that led up to the fight? That's exactly what happened between the North and the South. Slavery was just the straw that broke the camels back. Yet that's all we hear about.

Slavery was the final issue, but it was far from the biggest or only issue. some who actualy study history or major in it:rolleyes: see it differentlt

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
I seriously think thos southern white americans are hanging on to the past ( civil war) . You can now try to make it a flag of what you want to make it for but the facts are that it was the flag of the confederacy that wanted to break away from the United states of America in order to protect thier right to own slaves. its that simple and you know it. thats what it stands for. this reminds me of the Neo Nazis trying to justify flying a nazi flag by saying it does not stand for hate but for white pride.

I'm sorry BM, but I just can't make the "jumps" you are making, so I'll just accept your views as you have stated them. I don't know of anyone, anywhere, except a few radicals, who would advocate the display of the Nazi flag.

[Jason1725]

"Im a southern texas born white american. I see it as Pure slavery issue and most do as well."

Really? You should brush up on your history then. Take for example this proposed amendment to the Constitution passed by northern Congressmen. The southern delegates had already left Congress when this was passed. Lincoln even mentioned it in his inauguration address.

Here it is:

""ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."


What Lincoln said: "I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
I'm sorry BM, but I just can't make the "jumps" you are making, so I'll just accept your views as you have stated them. I don't know of anyone, anywhere, except a few radicals, who would advocate the display of the Nazi flag. People in germany in WWII didnt see it as a symbol of hate did they? but yet it is uniformly agreed that it is now but some try to justify its use and say it stands for something it does not. the confederate flag issue is like this. you dont see how that can be? :thinking:

[Jason1725]

"I seriously think those southern white americans are hanging on to the past ( civil war) . You can now try to make it a flag of what you want to make it for but the facts are that it was the flag of the confederacy that wanted to break away from the United states of America in order to protect thier right to own slaves. its that simple and you know it. thats what it stands for. this reminds me of the Neo Nazis trying to justify flying a nazi flag by saying it does not stand for hate but for white pride."

So tell me what flag flew longer over the institution of slavery The Confederate flag or the United States flag? Which one NEVER flew on a slave ship?

[Txbroadcaster]

This issue has become as divided as religion, abortion, or what political party you are.

I can understand to an extent the feeling that the flag is the southern heritage, and it is history and should be remembered.

But Cant that be done in musems and at historial markers? Does it need to fly over government buildings? What does that accomplish?

IMO some southern governments do it just to still show their ability to rebel and to thumb it in the face of the government. They are not doing it to "preserve" history, but to show their stubborness.

[Gobbla2001]

Like I've always said, we should get rid of the American flag because it may remind some Native Americans of how their people were treated by settlers from Europe etc..., that is if you believe the confederate flag is that bad...

[JasperDog94]

Should the Texas flag be held to the same standard since there were slaves at one time in Texas?

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Should the Texas flag be held to the same standard since there were slaves at one time in Texas?

no, the texas flag is immune, it's too bad ass...

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Should the Texas flag be held to the same standard since there were slaves at one time in Texas?

but from what I know, no African-American etc... finds the flag to offensive... so no I guess not

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
Like I've always said, we should get rid of the American flag because it may remind some Native Americans of how their people were treated by settlers from Europe etc..., that is if you believe the confederate flag is that bad...

and by gawd I brought this question up last time one of these threads were going and no one would touch it with a 10 foot poll and blame it on Bin Laden... I think it's a legit question... WHAT IF some Native American group did come out and say "well the flag really offends me", what would the same people against the confed flag say?

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
and by gawd I brought this question up last time one of these threads were going and no one would touch it with a 10 foot poll and blame it on Bin Laden... I think it's a legit question... WHAT IF some Native American group did come out and say "well the flag really offends me", what would the same people against the confed flag say?

That is a good angle to approach it BUT the fact the US Flag is still the flag of an actual nation that is still around..The Confederate flag is a flag of a country that no longer is around and is back into the fold of another nation.

I will take another angle

How is people flying the conferderate flag any different than people that come to America, yet still proudly display their home nation's flag such as the Mexican flag? Yet alot of the same people fighting for the right to fly the rebel flag, are the same ones who get so angry when the Mexican flag is everywhere

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Im a southern texas born white american. I see it as Pure slavery issue and most do as well.

Well, you are right that most people see the War of Northern Aggression or The Civil War as only about slavery but the fact remains that there were many other important issues as well. That is not to lessen the immoral position of those supporting slavery, but it is important to recognise these other issues. As several others including myself have noted slavery was made the central theme because in so doing the Union could claim the high moral ground. This helped immensely in selling the war to folks who otherwise might not have been so willing to shoot their fellow Americans. BBDE made several good points regarding Lincoln's attitude toqward slavery. He did not so much as oppose slavery as he supported the preservation of the Union. Here is what Lincoln had to say about slavery and the Civil War:

"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; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

We forget that Lincoln was afterall a politician. Like President Bush today, he was under attack from all sides over what was a very unpopular war. Clearly he had to tip toe around the contraversy of slavery as it was not entirely a Southern issue as others on this thread have noted. The Northern states had slaves and in 1862 they had laws and beliefs that supported this dreadful institution. It was only when the Abolitionists framed the issue in moral and religous terms did the politicians including Lincoln get behind the movement. There are amazing parallels between the Abolitionist movement and the Pro-Life movement of our time. Peace be with you.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Should the Texas flag be held to the same standard since there were slaves at one time in Texas? Its funny how all of these states had flags BEFORE the civil war and then CHANGED after the civil war... Im sure it didnt have anything to do with slavery:rolleyes:

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
That is a good angle to approach it BUT the fact the US Flag is still the flag of an actual nation that is still around..The Confederate flag is a flag of a country that no longer is around and is back into the fold of another nation.

I will take another angle

How is people flying the conferderate flag any different than people that come to America, yet still proudly display their home nation's flag such as the Mexican flag? Yet alot of the same people fighting for the right to fly the rebel flag, are the same ones who get so angry when the Mexican flag is everywhere ...or the Texas flag...

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Its funny how all of these states had flags BEFORE the civil war and then CHANGED after the civil war... Im sure it didnt have anything to do with slavery:rolleyes:

Here's your answer.


Originally posted by Gobbla2001
but from what I know, no African-American etc... finds the flag (Texas flag) to offensive... so no I guess not

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
...or the Texas flag...

Has anyone complained that the Texas Flag is on our government buildings?

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster

How is people flying the conferderate flag any different than people that come to America, yet still proudly display their home nation's flag such as the Mexican flag? Yet alot of the same people fighting for the right to fly the rebel flag, are the same ones who get so angry when the Mexican flag is everywhere BINGO!! we have a winner!!

[JasperDog94]

My point is this:

You can carry this thing way too far. In trying to appease everybody you will please nobody.

If you think a flag i offensive, then you have the right to feel that way. Just don't tell me that I'm being intolerant or insensitive because I believe a different way.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Has anyone complained that the Texas Flag is on our government buildings? Not yet. Just give it time.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
That is a good angle to approach it BUT the fact the US Flag is still the flag of an actual nation that is still around..The Confederate flag is a flag of a country that no longer is around and is back into the fold of another nation.

I will take another angle

How is people flying the conferderate flag any different than people that come to America, yet still proudly display their home nation's flag such as the Mexican flag? Yet alot of the same people fighting for the right to fly the rebel flag, are the same ones who get so angry when the Mexican flag is everywhere

Good reply, good reply...

but I think that is too technical... this arguement is really not about a nation that still exists etc..., it is about a flag offending someone and that's pretty much it...

if the American flag offended Native Americans, wouldn't it be the same as the confederate flag offending African Americans?

I don't own a confederate flag, wouldn't put one on my vehicle or anything, just an honest question...

And with the Mexican flag flying, I think most angry with that is the way it has been flown recently, in a way to support illegal immigration...

[JasperDog94]

Is the Confederate flag being waved in lieu of the American flag or in conjunction with the American flag?

[88bobcats]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
I seriously think those southern white americans are hanging on to the past ( civil war) . You can now try to make it a flag of what you want to make it for but the facts are that it was the flag of the confederacy that wanted to break away from the United states of America in order to protect thier right to own slaves. its that simple and you know it. thats what it stands for. this reminds me of the Neo Nazis trying to justify flying a nazi flag by saying it does not stand for hate but for white pride.


Black_Magic, these statements of yours are even more foolish than the ones you made about the minimum wage. The people who don't want the government getting too involved in economics and finance are usually the same kind of people that don't want the federal government trying to dominate the sovereign states. If you think that the Civil War was only about slavery, then you are sadly misinformed. Case in point, Lincoln was motivated to free the southern slaves, not the northern slaves, in the Emancipation Proclamation because he was stripping the southern states of their property. He viewed the southern states as criminals because of their secession, and any authority dealing with criminals automatically removes from them their property.

Though I don't agree with everyone that wants to fly a rebel flag, I also strongly believe that I have no right (ZERO! NADA!) to deny them their freedom to fly it for whatever reason they choose.

What you're essentially arguing is that you and the eventually defeated Hillary Clinton presidential candidate who's from New York and not the Carolinas should be able to regulate the morals and/or ethics of others simply because you don't agree with them and are convinced that they are wrong. It was for these same kinds of reasons that the south seceded.

I am not a southern rebel, nor am I a northern unionist. I am an American, and I believe in the freedom of speech.

Shame on all those that try to tell others what they politically should and should not do.

[mustang04]

i hate posting if i havent read the WHOOOOOOLE thread...but i dont feel like catching up on 5-6 pages....only thing that makes me mad is ppl trying to play the 'race card' whenever they see someone w/ a confederate flag....the the confederate states were not trying to leave cuz of slaves....alot had to do with industrialization vs. plantation etc. etc there were MANY things that led to the Civil War....i just don't think someone can bash the Confederacy whenever the United States was pretty much commiting the same acts while revolting from england....groups of ppl are always going to have different views over EVERYTHING....but the Confederate Flag does not stand for racism

[Jason1725]

But Cant that be done in musems and at historial markers? Does it need to fly over government buildings? What does that accomplish?"

Buildings owned by the soveriegn states

[Gobbla2001]

but to trail off of your arguement, Terry, the current Texas flag was adopted while it was still a republic... if I am not mistaken, the only change is in the description of the flag and the official blue and red color identifications (Old Glory Red and Old Glory Blue, same colors as the American Flag)...

The national flag of Texas shall consist of a blue perpendicular stripe of the width of one third of the whole length of the flag, with a white star of five points in the centre thereof, and two horizontal stripes of equal breadth, the upper stripe white, the lower red, of the length of two thirds of the whole length of the flag."

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by 88bobcats
Black_Magic, these statements of yours are even more foolish than the ones you made about the minimum wage. The people who don't want the government getting too involved in economics and finance are usually the same kind of people that don't want the federal government trying to dominate the sovereign states. If you think that the Civil War was only about slavery, then you are sadly misinformed. Case in point, Lincoln was motivated to free the southern slaves, not the northern slaves, in the Emancipation Proclamation because he was stripping the southern states of their property. He viewed the southern states as criminals because of their secession, and any authority dealing with criminals automatically removes from them their property.

Though I don't agree with everyone that wants to fly a rebel flag, I also strongly believe that I have no right (ZERO! NADA!) to deny them their freedom to fly it for whatever reason they choose.

What you're essentially arguing is that you and the eventually defeated Hillary Clinton presidential candidate whose from New York and not the Carolinas should be able to regulate the morals and/or ethics of others simply because you don't agree with them and are convinced that they are wrong. It was for these same kinds of reasons that the south seceded.

I am not a southern rebel, nor am I a northern unionist. I am an American, and I believe in the freedom of speech.

Shame on all those that try to tell others what they politically should and should not do. 100% of this was oppinion:rolleyes: nobody said you should deni an individuals right to fly the flag. nazis fly thier flags and they should have the right to do it if they want. just dont piss on me and tell me its raining. I know what the civil war was about . I got a masters in history so I think I have a grasp.:rolleyes:

[Gobbla2001]

the only flag I fly is the Texas flag, btw...

I will not fly a confederate flag 'round these here parts, might get mistaken for one of them rednecks that lay three-foot deep ruts in Old Farmer Clinton's corn field...

and I so do not know if there is an Old Farmer Clinton around here...

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
100% of this was oppinion:rolleyes: nobody said you should deni an individuals right to fly the flag. nazis fly thier flags and they should have the right to do it if they want. just dont piss on me and tell me its raining. I know what the civil war was about . I got a masters in history so I think I have a grasp.:rolleyes: You have a masters in history and you think the civil war was about slavery and nothing else?

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
100% of this was oppinion:rolleyes: nobody said you should deni an individuals right to fly the flag. nazis fly thier flags and they should have the right to do it if they want. just dont piss on me and tell me its raining. I know what the civil war was about . I got a masters in history so I think I have a grasp.:rolleyes:

No offense..But if you have a masters in history and think the Civial war boiled down to JUST about the civil war, then IMO your wrong

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
I know what the civil war was about . I got a masters in history so I think I have a grasp.:rolleyes:

then he wants you to use it...

I have a car but if I don't drive it I aint gettin' no where...

[Bullaholic]

On the issue of the rebel flag flying over public buildings---I say let the people of each state speak with their vote on this issue. That is the only fair way to resolve such a contentious issue once and for all.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
then he wants you to use it...

I have a car but if I don't drive it I aint gettin' no where... you mean like teaching history??:clap:

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
On the issue of the rebel flag flying over public buildings---I say let the people of each state speak with their vote on this issue. That is the only fair way to resolve such a contentious issue once and for all.

I think that would be the best solution to the problem...

but that's a whole other arguement then haha

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
you mean like teaching history??:clap:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! :eek:

[Black_Magic]

to late.;) :p

[Blastoderm55]

Two flags should fly. Country and state. If a state would choose to adopt the Confederate Flag as its state flag, so be it.

[themsu97]

I want to know where you got your masters from because you obviously did not study anything... because everytime someone presented historical fact... you never replied...you only replied to someones opinion... I want a masters from where you got yours... liberal slant U...
you do not have to agree with it... just accept it... the mexican flag is different because it is from a different country... and the nazi flag is used by the majority as a flag of hate, the majority of people who fly the rebel flag that I have seen and known, are usually teenagers and they only think it is cool looking and have no idea or care what it represents... when I was in high school I used to have the Jamaican flag because I thought it looked cool...it is like, to me, displaying the flag of where you went to school... people are making a big deal over nothing... kind of like the NCAA making a big deal over team nicknames... why now is it a big deal

[mustang04]

blackie....you...have...an EDUCATION?!?!??!

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

i havent laughed that hard since the hogs ate my little brother:D

[Jason1725]

you mean like teaching history??

And that is the problem, the cycle continues of teaching the wrong history.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by mustang04


i havent laughed that hard since the hogs ate my little brother:D

***???

haha

[mustang04]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
***???

haha

haha...when i was a kid growing up on my grandad's ranch, he'd always say "I haven't had this much fun since the hogs ate my little brother" which always confused me haha....man...those were the good days:(

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by mustang04
blackie....you...have...an EDUCATION?!?!??!

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

i havent laughed that hard since the hogs ate my little brother:D Come on now. you know im a living legend at your school. bow and pay respects oh one of beastiality.;)

[Gobbla2001]

And I also believe that though this helps preserve southern history etc..., that the issue is being used by pro-flag folk as a way to stop government interference in issues such as this, which I find admirable... or something else not so plain-worded :p

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by mustang04
haha...when i was a kid growing up on my grandad's ranch, he'd always say "I haven't had this much fun since the hogs ate my little brother" which always confused me haha....man...those were the good days:(

I like it... I haven't laughed so hard since I ate the hogs that ate your little brother...

[88bobcats]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
100% of this was oppinion:rolleyes: nobody said you should deni an individuals right to fly the flag. nazis fly thier flags and they should have the right to do it if they want. just dont piss on me and tell me its raining. I know what the civil war was about . I got a masters in history so I think I have a grasp.:rolleyes:


You contradict yourself.

First you say that South Carolina shouldn't fly their state flag because it has a confederate flag embedded in it. Then you state, "...nobody said you should den[y] an individuals right to fly the flag."

On which side of the flag fence are you standing?

Secondly, I did not state that the Civil War was NOT about slavery. I stated that the Civil War was NOT ONLY about slavery, as you've suggested.

I too have a Masters Degree; but I didn't get it in the field of errant history. I have a complete grasp of the fact that you and Hillary Clinton have no right to tell South Carolina what flag they shouldn't fly.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by 88bobcats
You contradict yourself.

First you say that South Carolina shouldn't fly their state flag because it has a confederate flag embedded in it. Then you state, "...nobody said you should den[y] an individuals right to fly the flag."

On which side of the flag fence are you standing?



you're kinda spinning his words around on him...

In his defense (remember this it doesn't happen often):

The state represents individuals with individual opinions... the state is not an individual...

[mustang04]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Come on now. you know im a living legend at your school. bow and pay respects oh one of beastiality.;)

haha....ssshhhhhhh:D

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by 88bobcats
You contradict yourself.

First you say that South Carolina shouldn't fly their state flag because it has a confederate flag embedded in it. Then you state, "...nobody said you should den[y] an individuals right to fly the flag."

On which side of the flag fence are you standing?

Secondly, I did not state that the Civil War was NOT about slavery. I stated that the Civil War was NOT ONLY about slavery, as you've suggested.

I too have a Masters Degree; but I didn't get it in the field of errant history. I have a complete grasp of the fact that you and Hillary Clinton have no right to tell South Carolina what flag they shouldn't fly.
1) Individual rights are different from state laws or government issues. for example you having the ten command posted in your business is different from the state or federal government according to the courts.
2) sure the south threw all kinds of problems or gripes at the argument but the linch pin was Slavery.
3) Clinton Can and does have the right to SAY what they SHOULD do just like I have the right and you have the right to SAY what SHOULD be done.

[88bobcats]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
you're kinda spinning his words around on him...

In his defense (remember this it doesn't happen often):

The state represents individuals with individual opinions... the state is not an individual...


That's a fair comment GOBBLA. The distinction between a state and an individual is important; but if a majority of the individuals of the state of South Carolina have not removed the flag, what right to outsiders have to tell them, as a state, to take it down?

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by 88bobcats
That's a fair comment GOBBLA. The distinction between a state and an individual is important; but if a majority of the individuals of the state of South Carolina have not removed the flag, what right to outsiders have to tell them, as a state, to take it down?

very true... a vote by the individuals of South Carolina should be the only way an issue like this should be solved... but then again, that'd be another arguement... that would create a D-Day for the Confederate flag, and pro-flaggers don't want her sittin' on the choppin' block...

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by 88bobcats
That's a fair comment GOBBLA. The distinction between a state and an individual is important; but if a majority of the individuals of the state of South Carolina have not removed the flag, what right to outsiders have to tell them, as a state, to take it down? none. none at all. but the states businesses can be boycoted though by the rest in protest now cant they.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
none. none at all. but the states businesses can be boycoted though by the rest in protest now cant they.

yup... it really shocked me to see the NCAA want to boycott South Carolina...

that's discrimination against one's beliefs in my honest opinion...

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001


that's discrimination against one's beliefs in my honest opinion...

worded that wrong...

it is discrimination against southerners who believe their flag represents their heritage or something...

[88bobcats]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
1) Individual rights are different from state laws or government issues. for example you having the ten command posted in your business is different from the state or federal government according to the courts.
2) sure the south threw all kinds of problems or gripes at the argument but the linch pin was Slavery.
3) Clinton Can and does have the right to SAY what they SHOULD do just like I have the right and you have the right to SAY what SHOULD be done.


Black_Magic, though I disagree with your simplistic conclusions about the Civil War being only about slavery, your third point is your best argument to date, and I am forced to concede that debate with only one revision:

Clinton does have the right to say what she thinks they should do, not what they should do.

It is the same freedom of speech that I am fervently defending, and you trapped me with my own argument. Kudos!

Hillary Clinton can say whatever she thinks so long as she doesn't make any attempt to try to bring political pressure on South Carolina to do anything. That type of effort would be a rights interference.

[88bobcats]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
none. none at all. but the states businesses can be boycoted though by the rest in protest now cant they.


Anyone can be boycotted for any reason.

If people boycott South Carolina, then S.C. might be forced to decide what's important for themselves: their economic viability or their right to fly a flag, etc. Either way, it's still S.C's. choice to choose what's best for themselves.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by 88bobcats
Anyone can be boycotted for any reason.

If people boycott South Carolina, then S.C. might be forced to decide what's important for themselves: their economic viability or their right to fly a flag, etc. Either way, it's still S.C's. choice to choose what's best for themselves. yep. thats right. you can just see how much it means to them

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
yep. thats right. you can just see how much it means to them

The citizens of the state of Mississippi voted in April, 2001 to retain the rebel flag as part of their state flag by a 66% to 34% margin. The citizens of South Carolina should be allowed to make their choice, also.

[AP Panther Fan]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
The citizens of the state of Mississippi voted in April, 2001 to retain the rebel flag as part of their state flag by a 66% to 34% margin. The citizens of South Carolina should be allowed to make their choice, also.

Agreed...here is what I found while doing some reading on the subject...I need to see what Alabama did...it was a huge issue there at one time....

Richard Barrett, who was threatened with arrest for flying the Confederate flag in Georgia and at the University of Mississippi, defended the flag against both Donahue, Reed and a hostile New-York-City audience. Barrett went on to win a federal lawsuit to restore the Confederate flag to Forest Hill High School in Jackson, Mississippi, after minorities tried to ban it. He, also, led the successful fight for the flag in Mississippi. On April 17, 2001, voters approved the flag by a 2-1 margin.

[Ingleside Fan]

The federal government needs to let the state make that decision. The federal government keeps trying to take the power away from the local government, this is getting away from the basic of our govermental system. For the People by the People. Most decision should be from the lowest authority needed to make this decision. Even though I believe that the confederate flag represents some of the worse years in our history. We have to continue to let all United States citizens to express thier freedoms. Mrs. Clinton has the right to voice her opinon but the supporters of flying the confederent flag also has that right. Limiting Federal powers will keep the power equal thourghout our entire country. Our fore fathers knew this over two hundred years ago.

[Black_Magic]

Look, the civil war was over slavery period. sure you can say states rights or property rights but you know thats BS. States rights concerning having slavery leagal in the state. Property rigths about the rights to own slaves.
How many "free" states ceceded and joined the confederacy? its not just happenstance that the states that ceceeded were alll the slave states. it was about slavery and the question of slavery in the new teritories to the west. To now say its not a simbol of slavery is like saying the Nazi flag is not a simbol of intoleration or hate or genocide.

[themsu97]

okay Magic... then answer this... year is 1832... South Carolina threatens to succeed and wants the rest of the south to go with it... why? Slaves, uuuhhh no... over Tariff of 1832 or as the south called it the tariff of abominations... more to it than the simple box you are putting it in...

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Look, the civil war was over slavery period. sure you can say states rights or property rights but you know thats BS. States rights concerning having slavery leagal in the state. Property rigths about the rights to own slaves.
How many "free" states ceceded and joined the confederacy? its not just happenstance that the states that ceceeded were alll the slave states. it was about slavery and the question of slavery in the new teritories to the west. To now say its not a simbol of slavery is like saying the Nazi flag is not a simbol of intoleration or hate or genocide. So is this statement correct or incorrect?


Originally posted by themsu97
.. but yet we hold Lincoln as the Great Emancipator... who did he Free? only the slaves in the confederacy... what about the slaves in Maryland, kentucky and Missouri? not set free, so slavery was not the issue...

[Black_Magic]

Ok, the civil war was not about slavery.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :nerd: :doh: the nazis were not about genocide either then.:rolleyes:
No this is what MSN encarta said aobut the Causes fo the Civil war.

Causes of the Civil War

Print this section
The chief and immediate cause of the war was slavery. Southern states, including the 11 states that formed the Confederacy, depended on slavery to support their economy. Southerners used slave labor to produce crops, especially cotton. Although slavery was illegal in the Northern states, only a small proportion of Northerners actively opposed it. The main debate between the North and the South on the eve of the war was whether slavery should be permitted in the Western territories recently acquired during the Mexican War (1846-1848), including New Mexico, part of California, and Utah. Opponents of slavery were concerned about its expansion, in part because they did not want to compete against slave labor.

:thinking:

[themsu97]

again oh master of the history...
how many states in the United States did Lincoln free with the Emancipation Proclamation... again, answer 0- what you are missing is that we are saying that slavery was one part of it not the whole thing like you are stating... a person who has any knowledge of history understands that...
but wait, you have a masters in what again?

[Black_Magic]

Heck dont take it from me then take it from a source on the internet ..

as seen on the popular web based encyclopedia Encarta....

Causes of the Civil War


The chief and immediate cause of the war was slavery. Southern states, including the 11 states that formed the Confederacy, depended on slavery to support their economy. Southerners used slave labor to produce crops, especially cotton. Although slavery was illegal in the Northern states, only a small proportion of Northerners actively opposed it. The main debate between the North and the South on the eve of the war was whether slavery should be permitted in the Western territories recently acquired during the Mexican War (1846-1848), including New Mexico, part of California, and Utah. Opponents of slavery were concerned about its expansion, in part because they did not want to compete against slave labor.

Maybe the encyclopedias are all wrong guys..

:rolleyes:

[AP Panther Fan]

In looking back at Alabama history (basically on the eve of the Civil War), I found the following rather interesting (especially the last line):

1860
1860 Federal Census:
State population=964,201.
White population=526,271
African-American population=437,770
Slave population=435,080
Free black population=2,690
Urban population=48,901
Rural population=915,300
Cotton production in bales=989,955
Corn production in bushels=33,226,282
Number of manufacturing establishments=1,459.

November: Abraham Lincoln, Republican candidate (although not on Alabama ballot), elected President of the U.S.

[Jason1725]

"Look, the civil war was over slavery period. sure you can say states rights or property rights but you know thats BS. States rights concerning having slavery leagal in the state. Property rigths about the rights to own slaves.
How many "free" states ceceded and joined the confederacy? its not just happenstance that the states that ceceeded were alll the slave states. it was about slavery and the question of slavery in the new teritories to the west. To now say its not a simbol of slavery is like saying the Nazi flag is not a simbol of intoleration or hate or genocide."

If slavery was the main reason then why would they leave a country where it was protected in the constitution and had just passed a proposed amendment to keep slavery forever? Because it wasn't. And I highly doubt you are any kind of teacher with that spelling.

:rolleyes:

[Highschoolfan78]

(Regarding the Texas flag next) If I'm not mistaken, when Sam Houston was thrown out of his governor position, Texas left the union. However they did not join the Confederacy imidiately. Therefore , for a short period of time Texas was alone as an independent country. Let's hang up the flags boys.

For the record, anti-slavery states in the north were not in support as most people think about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. It was not the essential motivation for the Union troops to defeat the Southern rebellion. Soldiers often took advantage of female slaves escaping to the north who accidently crossed paths. As others have pointed out, many Confederate citizens/soldiers did not own slaves and lived in poor conditions. However, many who did occupy slaves cared deeply about them(not stating they weren't wrong for slavery) I guess I am just trying to depict the mixed feelings among citizens in both the North and South. Social darwinism set in long before the Civil War, to where one ethnic/racial group felt superior to others. Research how the Irish were treated in this country after their massive immigrations. Although hollywood ruined the movie, Gangs of New York depicts a fine picture of how the Irish lived amongst these times.

[themsu97]

do not go throwing and presenting facts to the history major Magic... it only confuses him...

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Jason1725
"If slavery was the main reason then why would they leave a country where it was protected in the constitution and had just passed a proposed amendment to keep slavery forever? Because it wasn't. And I highly doubt you are any kind of teacher with that spelling.
:rolleyes:
I thought I would give this to YOU again to show you its not just me saying Slavery was the cause of the civil war..... Guess you believe what you want to believe. Kinda like Neo Nazis say the Nazi flag does not stand for hate but for white pride.

Acording to MSN Encarta:
Causes of the Civil War

The chief and immediate cause of the war was slavery. Southern states, including the 11 states that formed the Confederacy, depended on slavery to support their economy. Southerners used slave labor to produce crops, especially cotton. Although slavery was illegal in the Northern states, only a small proportion of Northerners actively opposed it. The main debate between the North and the South on the eve of the war was whether slavery should be permitted in the Western territories recently acquired during the Mexican War (1846-1848), including New Mexico, part of California, and Utah. Opponents of slavery were concerned about its expansion, in part because they did not want to compete against slave labor.

:rolleyes: SO try to make it what you want. History has it different.
:rolleyes:

Oh and I guess if we are getting personal then I doubt you graduated High school with your logic.:kiss:

[Jason1725]

"All that the South has ever desired is that the Union of fore fathers should be preserved."

Robert E. Lee

"We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for independence."

Jefferson Davis

"I am with the South in life or death, in victory or defeat. I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the Constitution and the fundamental principles of government. They no longer acknowledge that all government derives its validity from the consent of the governed. They are about to invade our peaceful homes, destroy our property, and murder our men and dishonor our women. We propose no invasion of the North, no attack on them, and only ask to be left alone."

Patrick Cleburne, Confederate General

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South."

London Times, November 7, 1861

"If the South had only wanted to protect slavery, all they had to do was go along with the original 13th Amendment, offered in early 1861 after several states had seceded, which would have protected slavery for all time in the states where it then existed. This was not inducement enough to bring South Carolina or any others back into the fold. The States of the Confederacy, even today, could block the passage of the 13th Amendment, and certainly could have then. This is why the slaveholders wanted to stay in the Union. Their "property" was protected by the Constitution."

Charlie Lott, historian

"The Union government liberates the enemy's slaves as it would the enemy's cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States."

London Spectator in reference to the Emancipation Proclamation

"Under Federal Legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal Revenue. Virginia, the two Carolina's, and Georgia, may be said to defray three fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of government expenditures. That expenditure flows in the opposite direction - it flows North, in one uniform, uninterrupted and perennial stream. This is why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does this."

Senator Thomas Hart Benton

"I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?"

Abraham Lincoln

"What then will become of my tariff?"

Abraham Lincoln to the a Virginia compromise delegation, March 1861

They (the South) know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interest . . . These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They (the North) are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are as mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it."

New Orleans Daily Crescent, January 21, 1861

"The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.

Karl Marx, 1861

"The assertion that the South fought for slavery is Yankee propaganda and a monstrous distortion."

Jefferson Davis

"If it (Declaration of Independence) justifies the secession from the British empire of 3,000,000 of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of 5,000,000 of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861. If we are mistaken on this point, why does not some one attempt to show wherein why?"

New York Tribune, December 17, 1860

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their Nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so."

Alex de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

(A legitimate union of states) "depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each state," and "when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their union is gone. Any state forced to remain in a union by military force can never be a coequal member of the American Union and can be viewed only as a subject province."

Daily Union, Bangor, Maine, November 13, 1860

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
I thought I would give this to YOU again to show you its not just me saying Slavery was the cause of the civil war..... Guess you believe what you want to believe. Kinda like Neo Nazis say the Nazi flag does not stand for hate but for whit pride.

Acording to MSN Encarta:
Causes of the Civil War

The chief and immediate cause of the war was slavery. Southern states, including the 11 states that formed the Confederacy, depended on slavery to support their economy. Southerners used slave labor to produce crops, especially cotton. Although slavery was illegal in the Northern states, only a small proportion of Northerners actively opposed it. The main debate between the North and the South on the eve of the war was whether slavery should be permitted in the Western territories recently acquired during the Mexican War (1846-1848), including New Mexico, part of California, and Utah. Opponents of slavery were concerned about its expansion, in part because they did not want to compete against slave labor.

:rolleyes: SO try to make it what you want History has it different.
:rolleyes:

Slavery was a symptom of the main problem. Southern States thought the Union was oversteping its bounds. Not only with slavery, but with tariffs back 15 years before the war.

Alot of Southeners felt the North was trying to slowly economically bleed the South into submission.

NO ONE has said Slavery was not a main issue, but it was NOT the ONLY issue..If it was then Lincoln would have abolished slavery througout the first day he was PResident. He himself said he DID NOT CARE about slavery, he cared about preserving the Union and was willing to ALLOW slavery in the old south. He just did not want new states to be slave states...Not because of a moral issue, but because the more slave states. the more of a voting bloc they would have on major issues

[themsu97]

again, use your own text to prove what an idiot you really are... it is like you are saying "I know you are but what am I" over and over... the issue the eve of the war... which would make slavery one of the last issues and the final issue... but not the issue... I can tell you that in the history books it still hardly mentions all the cruel and unjust things that were done to the Indians, because not all of what is printed is what is correct...
people still believe that Crocket was killed the day of the ALamo when most now know it was the day after...most people believe that the Constitution calls for a seperation of church and state when it is nowhere in the original document...:nerd:

[Black_Magic]

Its Ironic that the first quote you have is Robert E Lee. LOL.. AND Hitler was not a racist.. he was only proud of his white german back ground:rolleyes: You got to be kidding your actualy saying the Civil war was not about slavery.... Bet you have a confederate flag flying somewhere with your logic or denial.:clap:

[Black_Magic]

So your saying ENCARTA is wrong and you have it right... I got ya ..:rolleyes:

[themsu97]

let's see here, Robert E Lee... oh yeah, the answer Alex is this, who is the first person Lincoln asked to lead the union forces?

that is correct... Magic... I would think that a person with a masters in history would not need to use an encyclopedia to get evidence... we would know that they are fallible... only what some researchers want you to know... man... you are definitely a tool:clap:

[Black_Magic]

BTW I want you to know that history teachers teach that the cause of the civil war was the Slavery issue. Thats in the text books and tested on the TAAKS....;) how ever you want to see it is fine with me. kids are being taught the truth.;) :p ;) :eek:

[Bullaholic]

Here is a link to a site which has the context of an intelligent debate on this subject which was conducted by PBS in 2000 with represenatives from all points of view:



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june00/flag_5-29.html

[Blastoderm55]

I particularly enjoyed this tidbit on Jefferson Davis.

The South's chosen leader, Jefferson Davis, defined equality in terms of the equal rights of states,[16] and opposed the declaration that all men are created equal.[17]


Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War)

[Highschoolfan78]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Its Ironic that the first quote you have is Robert E Lee. LOL.. AND Hitler was not a racist.. he was only proud of his white german back ground:rolleyes: You got to be kidding your actualy saying the Civil war was not about slavery.... Bet you have a confederate flag flying somewhere with your logic or denial.:clap:


Your ignorance on the subject makes my head hurt. This arguement is at a stalemate. The only solution is to not vote Hiliary in office, to prevent these unending arguements. Only way they start up again is if Al gore wins and we start talking about the greenhouse effect.

[Keith7]

Following Abraham Lincoln's election as President in 1860 on a platform[1] that would end extension of slavery and endorsed protective tariffs, seven Southern states seceded from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America on February 4, 1861.

The south seceded from the union because of slavery.. wearing the flag means that you stand for their beliefs and everyone knows where they stood on slavery.. I'm guessing everyone would think it would be o.k. if a territory in Germany started flying a Nazi flag too right?

[Jason1725]

Its Ironic that the first quote you have is Robert E Lee. LOL.. AND Hitler was not a racist.. he was only proud of his white german back ground You got to be kidding your actualy saying the Civil war was not about slavery.... Bet you have a confederate flag flying somewhere with your logic or denial.

Yeah Lee never owned slaves; his wife did but sold them years before the war. However Grant owned slaves and didn't free them till AFTER the war. But I am sure you know that being the astute historian you are right? :rolleyes:

[themsu97]

al gore invented the civil war...no wait, he only invented things that were good like the internet...

see what you want to see and know what you want to know... I know enough to know that slavery was an issue but not the issue... Lincoln felt that africans were inferior... but hey, live in your own world... talking in circles must be fun for most of you... of course I do like the fact that it is mentioned that the movement to end slavery was a religious movement,... darned Bible thumping folks, or the conservative right... and isn't it interesting that the Republican party started as the Abolitionist party... kind of sweet don't you think

[Gobbla2001]

Robert E. Lee was against slavery... he led the South because he would not fight against his home state...

[Highschoolfan78]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
BTW I want you to know that history teachers teach that the cause of the civil war was the Slavery issue. Thats in the text books and tested on the TAAKS....;) how ever you want to see it is fine with me. kids are being taught the truth.;) :p ;) :eek:

TAKS blackmagic TAKS. Not only is it a tremendous loss to society that it is not taught from more than one angle, but it also confuses the students in the midst of their freshman year of college or whenever they take US history. It is a shame that our Legislature is shrinking the chance for students to not only learn factual, but an abundant amount of history. Their main focus is on science and math now as they recently increased a year of math for all high school students. If only the stress of the TAKS test was less and the little area it covers, history teachers would be able to possibly cover Desert Storm. Wouldn't that be a nice change? So many history classes teach from the book and only focus on the TAKS material rather than finishing their chronological time scale. I remember possibly getting to WWII once in one of my classes. The more history we extinguish in the classroom, the less well off society is as a whole. Our country, if it has not already started in your opinion, will lose a sense of pride.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Keith7


I'm guessing everyone would think it would be o.k. if a territory in Germany started flying a Nazi flag too right?

did I miss the part in class that mentioned the confederacy was burnin' slaves in camps?

The fact is, though slavery is very wrong (in my opinion and the majority of folks' opinions), they thought that was right back then, that was their way of life... it was legal... mass murders (esspecially those without any sort of trial) has always been illegal...

you wanna talk about apples or bananas? pick one...

[Keith7]

mmm I think you guys have your history alittle mixed up.. just read this article from wikipedia

Lee as a slave holder

As a member of the Virginia aristocracy, Lee lived in close contact with slavery before he joined the Army and held variously around a half-dozen slaves under his own name. When Lee's father-in-law, George Washington Parke Custis, died in October 1857, Lee (as executor of the will) came into control over some 63 slaves on the Arlington plantation. Although the will provided for the slaves to be emancipated "in such a manner as to my executors may seem most expedient and proper", providing a maximum of five years for the legal and logistical details of manumission, Lee found himself in need of funds to pay his father-in-law's debts and repair the properties he had inherited[2]. He decided to make money during the five years that the will had allowed him control of the slaves by working them on the plantation and hiring them out to neighboring plantations and to eastern Virginia.

Lee, with no experience as a large-scale slave-owner, tried to hire an overseer to handle the plantation in his absence, writing to his cousin "I wish to get an energetic honest farmer, who while he will be considerate & kind to the negroes, will be firm & make them do their duty"[3]. But Lee failed to find a man for the job, and had to take a two-year leave of absence from the army in order to run the plantation himself. He found the experience frustrating and difficult; some of the slaves were unhappy and demanded their freedom. Many of them had been given to understand that they were to be made free as soon as Custis died.[4] In May 1858, Lee wrote to his son Rooney that "I have had some trouble with some of the people. Reuben, Parks & Edward, in the beginning of the previous week, rebelled against my authority--refused to obey my orders, & said they were as free as I was, etc., etc.--I succeeded in capturing them & lodging them in jail. They resisted till overpowered & called upon the other people to rescue them"[5]. Less than two months after they were sent to the Alexandria jail, Lee decided to remove these three men and three female house slaves from Arlington, and sent them under lock and key to the slave-trader William Overton Winston in Richmond, who was instructed to keep them in jail until he could find "good & responsible" slaveholders to work them until the end of the five year period.[6]

In 1859, three of the Arlington slaves—Wesley Norris, his sister Mary, and a cousin of theirs—fled for the North, but were captured a few miles from the Pennsylvania border and forced to return to Arlington. On June 24, 1859, the New York Daily Tribune published two anonymous letters (dated June 19, 1859[7] and June 21, 1859[8]), each of which claimed to have heard that Lee had the Norrises whipped, and went so far as to claim that Lee himself had whipped the woman when the officer refused to. Lee wrote to his son Custis that "The N. Y. Tribune has attacked me for my treatment of your grandfather's slaves, but I shall not reply. He has left me an unpleasant legacy."[9] Biographers of Lee have differed over the credibility of the Tribune letters. Douglas S. Freeman, in his 1934 biography of Lee, described the letters to the Tribune as "Lee's first experience with the extravagance of irresponsible antislavery agitators" and asserted that "There is no evidence, direct or indirect, that Lee ever had them or any other Negroes flogged. The usage at Arlington and elsewhere in Virginia among people of Lee's station forbade such a thing." Michael Fellman, in The Making of Robert E. Lee (2000), found the claims that Lee had personally whipped Mary Norris "extremely unlikely," but not at all unlikely that Lee had had the slaves whipped: "corporal punishment (for which Lee substituted the euphemism 'firmness') was an intrinsic and necessary part of slave discipline. Although it was supposed to be applied only in a calm and rational manner, overtly physical domination of slaves, unchecked by law, was always brutal and potentially savage."[10]

Wesley Norris himself discussed the incident after the war, in an 1866 interview[11] printed in the National Anti-Slavery Standard. Norris stated that after they had been captured, and forced to return to Arlington, Lee told them that "he would teach us a lesson we would not soon forget." According to Norris, Lee then had the three of them tied to posts and whipped by the county constable, with fifty lashes for the men and twenty for Mary Norris (he made no claim that Lee had personally whipped Mary Norris). Norris claimed that Lee then had the overseer rub their lacerated backs with brine.

After their capture, Lee sent the Norrises to work on the railroad in Richmond, Virginia, and Alabama. Wesley Norris gained his freedom in January 1863 by slipping through the Confederate lines near Richmond to Union-controlled territory.[12] Lee freed all the other Custis slaves after the end of the five year period in the winter of 1862, filing the deed of manumission on December 29, 1862[13].

[edit] Lee's views on slavery

Since the end of the Civil War, it has often been suggested that Lee was in some sense opposed to slavery. In the period following the Civil War and Reconstruction, and after his death, Lee became a central figure in the Lost Cause interpretation of the war, and as succeeding generations came to look on slavery as a terrible immorality, the idea that Lee had always somehow opposed it helped maintain his stature as a symbol of Southern honor and national reconciliation.

Some of the evidence cited in favor of the claim that Lee opposed slavery are the manumission of Custis's slaves, as discussed above, and his support, towards the end of the war, for enrolling slaves in the Confederate States Army, with manumission offered as an eventual reward for good service. Lee gave his public support to this idea two weeks before Appomattox, too late for it to do any good for the Confederacy.

In December of 1864, Lee was shown a letter by Lousiana Senator Edward Sparrow, written by General St. John R. Liddell, which noted that Lee would be hard-pressed in the interior of Virginia by spring, and the need to consider Patrick Cleburne's plan to emanicipate the slaves and put all men in the army that were willing to join. Lee was said to have agreed on all points and desired to get Negro soldiers, saying that "he could make soldiers out of any human being that had arms and legs."[14]

Another source is Lee's 1856 letter to his wife[15], which can be interpreted in multiple ways:



… In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.

– Robert E. Lee, to Mary Anna Lee, December 27, 1856

Freeman's analysis[16] puts Lee's attitude toward slavery and abolition in historical context:


This [letter] was the prevailing view among most religious people of Lee's class in the border states. They believed that slavery existed because God willed it and they thought it would end when God so ruled. The time and the means were not theirs to decide, conscious though they were of the ill-effects of Negro slavery on both races. Lee shared these convictions of his neighbors without having come in contact with the worst evils of African bondage. He spent no considerable time in any state south of Virginia from the day he left Fort Pulaski in 1831 until he went to Texas in 1856. All his reflective years had been passed in the North or in the border states. He had never been among the blacks on a cotton or rice plantation. At Arlington the servants had been notoriously indolent, their master's master. Lee, in short, was only acquainted with slavery at its best and he judged it accordingly. At the same time, he was under no illusion regarding the aims of the Abolitionist or the effect of their agitation.

– Douglas S. Freeman, R. E. Lee, A Biography, p. 372



let me guess this is all Yankee propaganda right??

[Jason1725]

So tell me this Black Magic, was it southern whites who only owned slaves?

[BuffyMars]

Geez...I feel like I am in college all over again.

:hairpunk:

[Jason1725]

wikipedia


Lol! You're kidding right?

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
did I miss the part in class that mentioned the confederacy was burnin' slaves in camps?


ya i'm sure the slave life was real luxurious.. being whipped, nearly starving, having to work long hours with no pay, little to no medical attention, no freedom to do anything.. ya that is so much better

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Jason1725
wikipedia


Lol! You're kidding right?

nevermind instead lets trust what your great grandpa told u..

[Highschoolfan78]

Originally posted by Keith7
mmm I think you guys have your history alittle mixed up.. just read this article from wikipedia

Lee as a slave holder

As a member of the Virginia aristocracy, Lee lived in close contact with slavery before he joined the Army and held variously around a half-dozen slaves under his own name. When Lee's father-in-law, George Washington Parke Custis, died in October 1857, Lee (as executor of the will) came into control over some 63 slaves on the Arlington plantation. Although the will provided for the slaves to be emancipated "in such a manner as to my executors may seem most expedient and proper", providing a maximum of five years for the legal and logistical details of manumission, Lee found himself in need of funds to pay his father-in-law's debts and repair the properties he had inherited[2]. He decided to make money during the five years that the will had allowed him control of the slaves by working them on the plantation and hiring them out to neighboring plantations and to eastern Virginia.

Lee, with no experience as a large-scale slave-owner, tried to hire an overseer to handle the plantation in his absence, writing to his cousin "I wish to get an energetic honest farmer, who while he will be considerate & kind to the negroes, will be firm & make them do their duty"[3]. But Lee failed to find a man for the job, and had to take a two-year leave of absence from the army in order to run the plantation himself. He found the experience frustrating and difficult; some of the slaves were unhappy and demanded their freedom. Many of them had been given to understand that they were to be made free as soon as Custis died.[4] In May 1858, Lee wrote to his son Rooney that "I have had some trouble with some of the people. Reuben, Parks & Edward, in the beginning of the previous week, rebelled against my authority--refused to obey my orders, & said they were as free as I was, etc., etc.--I succeeded in capturing them & lodging them in jail. They resisted till overpowered & called upon the other people to rescue them"[5]. Less than two months after they were sent to the Alexandria jail, Lee decided to remove these three men and three female house slaves from Arlington, and sent them under lock and key to the slave-trader William Overton Winston in Richmond, who was instructed to keep them in jail until he could find "good & responsible" slaveholders to work them until the end of the five year period.[6]

In 1859, three of the Arlington slaves—Wesley Norris, his sister Mary, and a cousin of theirs—fled for the North, but were captured a few miles from the Pennsylvania border and forced to return to Arlington. On June 24, 1859, the New York Daily Tribune published two anonymous letters (dated June 19, 1859[7] and June 21, 1859[8]), each of which claimed to have heard that Lee had the Norrises whipped, and went so far as to claim that Lee himself had whipped the woman when the officer refused to. Lee wrote to his son Custis that "The N. Y. Tribune has attacked me for my treatment of your grandfather's slaves, but I shall not reply. He has left me an unpleasant legacy."[9] Biographers of Lee have differed over the credibility of the Tribune letters. Douglas S. Freeman, in his 1934 biography of Lee, described the letters to the Tribune as "Lee's first experience with the extravagance of irresponsible antislavery agitators" and asserted that "There is no evidence, direct or indirect, that Lee ever had them or any other Negroes flogged. The usage at Arlington and elsewhere in Virginia among people of Lee's station forbade such a thing." Michael Fellman, in The Making of Robert E. Lee (2000), found the claims that Lee had personally whipped Mary Norris "extremely unlikely," but not at all unlikely that Lee had had the slaves whipped: "corporal punishment (for which Lee substituted the euphemism 'firmness') was an intrinsic and necessary part of slave discipline. Although it was supposed to be applied only in a calm and rational manner, overtly physical domination of slaves, unchecked by law, was always brutal and potentially savage."[10]

Wesley Norris himself discussed the incident after the war, in an 1866 interview[11] printed in the National Anti-Slavery Standard. Norris stated that after they had been captured, and forced to return to Arlington, Lee told them that "he would teach us a lesson we would not soon forget." According to Norris, Lee then had the three of them tied to posts and whipped by the county constable, with fifty lashes for the men and twenty for Mary Norris (he made no claim that Lee had personally whipped Mary Norris). Norris claimed that Lee then had the overseer rub their lacerated backs with brine.

After their capture, Lee sent the Norrises to work on the railroad in Richmond, Virginia, and Alabama. Wesley Norris gained his freedom in January 1863 by slipping through the Confederate lines near Richmond to Union-controlled territory.[12] Lee freed all the other Custis slaves after the end of the five year period in the winter of 1862, filing the deed of manumission on December 29, 1862[13].

[edit] Lee's views on slavery

Since the end of the Civil War, it has often been suggested that Lee was in some sense opposed to slavery. In the period following the Civil War and Reconstruction, and after his death, Lee became a central figure in the Lost Cause interpretation of the war, and as succeeding generations came to look on slavery as a terrible immorality, the idea that Lee had always somehow opposed it helped maintain his stature as a symbol of Southern honor and national reconciliation.

Some of the evidence cited in favor of the claim that Lee opposed slavery are the manumission of Custis's slaves, as discussed above, and his support, towards the end of the war, for enrolling slaves in the Confederate States Army, with manumission offered as an eventual reward for good service. Lee gave his public support to this idea two weeks before Appomattox, too late for it to do any good for the Confederacy.

In December of 1864, Lee was shown a letter by Lousiana Senator Edward Sparrow, written by General St. John R. Liddell, which noted that Lee would be hard-pressed in the interior of Virginia by spring, and the need to consider Patrick Cleburne's plan to emanicipate the slaves and put all men in the army that were willing to join. Lee was said to have agreed on all points and desired to get Negro soldiers, saying that "he could make soldiers out of any human being that had arms and legs."[14]

Another source is Lee's 1856 letter to his wife[15], which can be interpreted in multiple ways:


Freeman's analysis[16] puts Lee's attitude toward slavery and abolition in historical context:



let me guess this is all Yankee propaganda right??


wikipedia is not always reliable , but that is some good stuff.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Keith7
ya i'm sure the slave life was real luxurious.. being whipped, nearly starving, having to work long hours with no pay, little to no medical attention, no freedom to do anything.. ya that is so much better

it was legal, Keith, it was how these people were raised... it was not right, but they thought it was...

who in their right mind thinks trying to destroy a whole human race is right?

though you posted a great article about Lee, you've shown you're not much use without the copy and paste button...

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
it was not right, but they thought it was...



did the Nazi germany not believe the same thing?? Do u think the german soldiers and the people of germany didn't think what they were doing was for the good of their nation?


Originally posted by Gobbla2001


who in their right mind thinks trying to destroy a whole human race is right?

\

they weren't trying to destroy the whole human race, just the jewish people of the world..

i'm not defending the Nazis by anymeans, I know what they did was probably one of the worst tragedys this world has ever seen, but there are some comparisons.. And I don't see how someone could say it would be alright to fly a confederate flag here but it be wrong to fly a nazi flag in germany

[Jason1725]

nevermind instead lets trust what your great grandpa told u..

No that is why I educated myself, I read books on the subject

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Keith7




they weren't trying to destroy the whole human race, just the jewish people of the world..

i'm not defending the Nazis by anymeans, I know what they did was probably one of the worst tragedys this world has ever seen, but there are some comparisons.. And I don't see how someone could say it would be alright to fly a confederate flag here but it be wrong to fly a nazi flag in germany

number one, about the human race vs. jewish people - I think you understood my point

number two, yes there are comparisons... like both armies used guns, had generals etc...

as for Nazi Germany thinking it was right, I'm pretty sure most didn't... most were just following orders... going against Nazi Germany while living there was a death sentence...

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001

going against Nazi Germany while living there was a death sentence...


oh ya.. and it wasn't like that in the confederecy???

read this article
Great Hanging of Gainesville (http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/GG/jig1.html)

[Highschoolfan78]

It's called social darwinism. It's been around since mankind began. It is when one group feels superior to another in their own minds. They belittle the other group and make them believe they are less. The supieror think they are smarter, wiser, more civilized, religiously correct, and so on. India 's caste system, European expansion in the new world to convert those "Savages" to a civilized christian world. Even today in Mexico, those of the mountainous region feel they are superior to those of a town on the border per say(laredo nuevo). English rule over the scottish in the early 14th century. Their theory was to breed them out. From the Greeks, to Romans, to Native American clans, to the British empire, to slave owners in the U.S., to the elite vs. working class, for the rest of time it will continue. It's sad but true.

[Jason1725]

Who said this quote

A. Jefferson Davis
B. Robert E Lee
C Ulysses S. Grant
D Abraham Lincoln

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races 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."

[buff4ever]

good lord, slavery was a part of the war, but NOT "THE WAR".

How about ya'll just AREE TO DISAGREE?

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Keith7
oh ya.. and it wasn't like that in the confederecy???

read this article
Great Hanging of Gainesville (http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/GG/jig1.html)

1 area of 1 state...

I'm pretty sure it may have happened in a couple of other places to... but not even close to the effect in Nazi Germany... Hitler had some pretty high-up people in his parade wacked because he "thought" they "might" leave...

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by Jason1725
wikipedia


Lol! You're kidding right?

Good grief, this entire thread has consisted of you shooting down the sources of others, yet you cannot come up with any of your own. For the record, Wikipedia is probably one of the greatest wealths of information on the 'Net. If you bothered reading the material, you'd realize that there was no slant. Just history.

[mustang04]

GO CONFEDERACY!!!!!!

[Highschoolfan78]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
Good grief, this entire thread has consisted of you shooting down the sources of others, yet you cannot come up with any of your own. For the record, Wikipedia is probably one of the greatest wealths of information on the 'Net. If you bothered reading the material, you'd realize that there was no slant. Just history.

I agree that the article posted was very historical. However, I could go on to wikipedia and talk about the proper way to pick a nose, and someone would read the info and accidently touch their brain. Therefore i would not be a reliable source to pick a nose. Wikipedia allows all to type freely

[Jason1725]

Thats true, However it wasn't just the south. The north had slaves during the war, the Charakee owned slaves as well as freed slaves. This whole idea that it was only the south is not right. The North started it by bringing in slaves in the New England States. The slave ships that brought the slaves here were from several countries including the United States. The north is just as guilty as the south, who takes the blame. ALL OF THE BLAME, it should be shared.

[Gobbla2001]

I agree that Wiki is a good source...

And I'll Agree to Disagree on this one as well...

the fact remains, none of these folks who want the flag to fly have slaves... they're not going to either... they're not gunna keep their flag and start hanging African-Americans...

Go Texas!!!

[Jason1725]

Wow the only time I do that now I have done it all of the time. You are aware ANYONE can put something on there. I suggest reading articles or letters from that period. Speeches are a good source for information as well.

[mustang04]

pretty sure some of the slaves were even slaves over in africa sold to the europeans and then brought over here...notice i said SOME and not ALL

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Jason1725
Thats true, However it wasn't just the south. The north had slaves during the war, the Charakee owned slaves as well as freed slaves. This whole idea that it was only the south is not right. The North started it by bringing in slaves in the New England States. The slave ships that brought the slaves here were from several countries including the United States. The north is just as guilty as the south, who takes the blame. ALL OF THE BLAME, it should be shared.

wait a minute, any of those flags still the same or remotely the same?

get rid of 'em...

[Highschoolfan78]

so brings me to my next question:

Cuero vs. the Confederacy

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Highschoolfan78
so brings me to my next question:

Cuero vs. the Confederacy

Cuero... the Confederacy would forfeit because they no longer exist...

just my prediction :p

[Highschoolfan78]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
Cuero... the Confederacy would forfeit because they no longer exist...

just my prediction :p

Didn't the Civil War begin because a mad Gonzales fella (originally from Pennsylvania) shot at a Turkey next to the Guadalupe? It's called the Gobble rebellion . And yes it's on the TAKS

[Jason1725]

Good grief, this entire thread has consisted of you shooting down the sources of others, yet you cannot come up with any of your own. For the record, Wikipedia is probably one of the greatest wealths of information on the 'Net. If you bothered reading the material, you'd realize that there was no slant. Just history.

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

[Jason1725]

If the south's main reason was slavery they would have stayed in the union where it was protected. Thats what Maryland did.

[Fotbol]

I had the pleasure of being station in SC for the last two years of my military career, and I have to say I didn't like it, they still have a Slave market, that is now used as a flea market on weekends, but this is still the place where slaves were sold, and the Blacks there will snap picutres, in front of the place, and act like this was never a place where slaves were sold.

[Jason1725]

A false Wikipedia 'biography'
By John Seigenthaler
"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."
— Wikipedia

This is a highly personal story about Internet character assassination. It could be your story.

I have no idea whose sick mind conceived the false, malicious "biography" that appeared under my name for 132 days on Wikipedia, the popular, online, free encyclopedia whose authors are unknown and virtually untraceable. There was more:

"John Seigenthaler moved to the Soviet Union in 1971, and returned to the United States in 1984," Wikipedia said. "He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."

At age 78, I thought I was beyond surprise or hurt at anything negative said about me. I was wrong. One sentence in the biography was true. I was Robert Kennedy's administrative assistant in the early 1960s. I also was his pallbearer. It was mind-boggling when my son, John Seigenthaler, journalist with NBC News, phoned later to say he found the same scurrilous text on Reference.com and Answers.com.

I had heard for weeks from teachers, journalists and historians about "the wonderful world of Wikipedia," where millions of people worldwide visit daily for quick reference "facts," composed and posted by people with no special expertise or knowledge — and sometimes by people with malice.

At my request, executives of the three websites now have removed the false content about me. But they don't know, and can't find out, who wrote the toxic sentences.

Anonymous author

I phoned Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder and asked, "Do you ... have any way to know who wrote that?"

"No, we don't," he said. Representatives of the other two websites said their computers are programmed to copy data verbatim from Wikipedia, never checking whether it is false or factual.

Naturally, I want to unmask my "biographer." And, I am interested in letting many people know that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool.

But searching cyberspace for the identity of people who post spurious information can be frustrating. I found on Wikipedia the registered IP (Internet Protocol) number of my "biographer"- 65-81-97-208. I traced it to a customer of BellSouth Internet. That company advertises a phone number to report "Abuse Issues." An electronic voice said all complaints must be e-mailed. My two e-mails were answered by identical form letters, advising me that the company would conduct an investigation but might not tell me the results. It was signed "Abuse Team."

Wales, Wikipedia's founder, told me that BellSouth would not be helpful. "We have trouble with people posting abusive things over and over and over," he said. "We block their IP numbers, and they sneak in another way. So we contact the service providers, and they are not very responsive."

After three weeks, hearing nothing further about the Abuse Team investigation, I phoned BellSouth's Atlanta corporate headquarters, which led to conversations between my lawyer and BellSouth's counsel. My only remote chance of getting the name, I learned, was to file a "John or Jane Doe" lawsuit against my "biographer." Major communications Internet companies are bound by federal privacy laws that protect the identity of their customers, even those who defame online. Only if a lawsuit resulted in a court subpoena would BellSouth give up the name.

Little legal recourse

Federal law also protects online corporations — BellSouth, AOL, MCI Wikipedia, etc. — from libel lawsuits. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, specifically states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." That legalese means that, unlike print and broadcast companies, online service providers cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others.

Recent low-profile court decisions document that Congress effectively has barred defamation in cyberspace. Wikipedia's website acknowledges that it is not responsible for inaccurate information, but Wales, in a recent C-Span interview with Brian Lamb, insisted that his website is accountable and that his community of thousands of volunteer editors (he said he has only one paid employee) corrects mistakes within minutes.

My experience refutes that. My "biography" was posted May 26. On May 29, one of Wales' volunteers "edited" it only by correcting the misspelling of the word "early." For four months, Wikipedia depicted me as a suspected assassin before Wales erased it from his website's history Oct. 5. The falsehoods remained on Answers.com and Reference.com for three more weeks.

In the C-Span interview, Wales said Wikipedia has "millions" of daily global visitors and is one of the world's busiest websites. His volunteer community runs the Wikipedia operation, he said. He funds his website through a non-profit foundation and estimated a 2006 budget of "about a million dollars."

And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and protects them.

When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."

For me, that pillow is a metaphor for Wikipedia.

John Seigenthaler, a retired journalist, founded The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University. He also is a former editorial page editor at USA TODAY.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Keith7
mmm I think you guys have your history alittle mixed up.. just read this article from wikipedia

Lee as a slave holder

As a member of the Virginia aristocracy, Lee lived in close contact with slavery before he joined the Army and held variously around a half-dozen slaves under his own name. When Lee's father-in-law, George Washington Parke Custis, died in October 1857, Lee (as executor of the will) came into control over some 63 slaves on the Arlington plantation. Although the will provided for the slaves to be emancipated "in such a manner as to my executors may seem most expedient and proper", providing a maximum of five years for the legal and logistical details of manumission, Lee found himself in need of funds to pay his father-in-law's debts and repair the properties he had inherited[2]. He decided to make money during the five years that the will had allowed him control of the slaves by working them on the plantation and hiring them out to neighboring plantations and to eastern Virginia.

Lee, with no experience as a large-scale slave-owner, tried to hire an overseer to handle the plantation in his absence, writing to his cousin "I wish to get an energetic honest farmer, who while he will be considerate & kind to the negroes, will be firm & make them do their duty"[3]. But Lee failed to find a man for the job, and had to take a two-year leave of absence from the army in order to run the plantation himself. He found the experience frustrating and difficult; some of the slaves were unhappy and demanded their freedom. Many of them had been given to understand that they were to be made free as soon as Custis died.[4] In May 1858, Lee wrote to his son Rooney that "I have had some trouble with some of the people. Reuben, Parks & Edward, in the beginning of the previous week, rebelled against my authority--refused to obey my orders, & said they were as free as I was, etc., etc.--I succeeded in capturing them & lodging them in jail. They resisted till overpowered & called upon the other people to rescue them"[5]. Less than two months after they were sent to the Alexandria jail, Lee decided to remove these three men and three female house slaves from Arlington, and sent them under lock and key to the slave-trader William Overton Winston in Richmond, who was instructed to keep them in jail until he could find "good & responsible" slaveholders to work them until the end of the five year period.[6]

In 1859, three of the Arlington slaves—Wesley Norris, his sister Mary, and a cousin of theirs—fled for the North, but were captured a few miles from the Pennsylvania border and forced to return to Arlington. On June 24, 1859, the New York Daily Tribune published two anonymous letters (dated June 19, 1859[7] and June 21, 1859[8]), each of which claimed to have heard that Lee had the Norrises whipped, and went so far as to claim that Lee himself had whipped the woman when the officer refused to. Lee wrote to his son Custis that "The N. Y. Tribune has attacked me for my treatment of your grandfather's slaves, but I shall not reply. He has left me an unpleasant legacy."[9] Biographers of Lee have differed over the credibility of the Tribune letters. Douglas S. Freeman, in his 1934 biography of Lee, described the letters to the Tribune as "Lee's first experience with the extravagance of irresponsible antislavery agitators" and asserted that "There is no evidence, direct or indirect, that Lee ever had them or any other Negroes flogged. The usage at Arlington and elsewhere in Virginia among people of Lee's station forbade such a thing." Michael Fellman, in The Making of Robert E. Lee (2000), found the claims that Lee had personally whipped Mary Norris "extremely unlikely," but not at all unlikely that Lee had had the slaves whipped: "corporal punishment (for which Lee substituted the euphemism 'firmness') was an intrinsic and necessary part of slave discipline. Although it was supposed to be applied only in a calm and rational manner, overtly physical domination of slaves, unchecked by law, was always brutal and potentially savage."[10]

Wesley Norris himself discussed the incident after the war, in an 1866 interview[11] printed in the National Anti-Slavery Standard. Norris stated that after they had been captured, and forced to return to Arlington, Lee told them that "he would teach us a lesson we would not soon forget." According to Norris, Lee then had the three of them tied to posts and whipped by the county constable, with fifty lashes for the men and twenty for Mary Norris (he made no claim that Lee had personally whipped Mary Norris). Norris claimed that Lee then had the overseer rub their lacerated backs with brine.

After their capture, Lee sent the Norrises to work on the railroad in Richmond, Virginia, and Alabama. Wesley Norris gained his freedom in January 1863 by slipping through the Confederate lines near Richmond to Union-controlled territory.[12] Lee freed all the other Custis slaves after the end of the five year period in the winter of 1862, filing the deed of manumission on December 29, 1862[13].

[edit] Lee's views on slavery

Since the end of the Civil War, it has often been suggested that Lee was in some sense opposed to slavery. In the period following the Civil War and Reconstruction, and after his death, Lee became a central figure in the Lost Cause interpretation of the war, and as succeeding generations came to look on slavery as a terrible immorality, the idea that Lee had always somehow opposed it helped maintain his stature as a symbol of Southern honor and national reconciliation.

Some of the evidence cited in favor of the claim that Lee opposed slavery are the manumission of Custis's slaves, as discussed above, and his support, towards the end of the war, for enrolling slaves in the Confederate States Army, with manumission offered as an eventual reward for good service. Lee gave his public support to this idea two weeks before Appomattox, too late for it to do any good for the Confederacy.

In December of 1864, Lee was shown a letter by Lousiana Senator Edward Sparrow, written by General St. John R. Liddell, which noted that Lee would be hard-pressed in the interior of Virginia by spring, and the need to consider Patrick Cleburne's plan to emanicipate the slaves and put all men in the army that were willing to join. Lee was said to have agreed on all points and desired to get Negro soldiers, saying that "he could make soldiers out of any human being that had arms and legs."[14]

Another source is Lee's 1856 letter to his wife[15], which can be interpreted in multiple ways:


Freeman's analysis[16] puts Lee's attitude toward slavery and abolition in historical context:



let me guess this is all Yankee propaganda right??

Wikipedia is not a credible source. Please do not quote from it if you want to be taken seriously. In most college courses you will loss credit if you do.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Has anyone complained that the Texas Flag is on our government buildings?

No, the question is why haven't they? Texas was a slave state. The Texas flag still flies. If one can identify the Southern Cross with slavery, why not the "Lone Star"? What exactly is the difference here? And, unlike the Southern Cross, Texas flag was the flag of an independant nation before it became a state.

[Keith7]

you guys remind me of those guys that go on Jerry Springer and claim that the holocaust never happened.. Robert E. Lee owned slaves, and he was a strong supporter of them not having the right to vote after he lost the war.. get your history straight the civil war was about slavery

[sinton66]

This I will tell you, if one restricts their research to one side of an issue, they will never realize the ultimate truth. There are ALWAYS at least two sides to every story, two sides to every issue, and two sides to every argument ever conceived by human beings. Without an unbiased and open inquisitive mind, one will inherit a distorted view of the real world. Those of you who TRULLY feel the Civil War was only about slavery need to research the southern views. It was a major issue for sure, but it is NOT as BLACK and WHITE as you might think.

[NDFootball]

Originally posted by Adidas410s
ORANGEBURG, S.C. - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that South Carolina should remove the Confederate flag from its Statehouse grounds, in part because the nation should unite under one banner while at war.

"I think about how many South Carolinians have served in our military and who are serving today under our flag and I believe that we should have one flag that we all pay honor to, as I know that most people in South Carolina do every single day," Clinton told The Associated Press in an interview.

"I personally would like to see it removed from the Statehouse grounds," the New York senator said during her first trip to the early voting state since announcing her White House bid.

Other Democratic hopefuls, including Sens. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, have said the flag should come down. The banner, which once flew over the Statehouse dome and now flies nearby, is the subject of an ongoing NAACP boycott.

Clinton is one of several Democrats to draw huge crowds during campaign stops in the state, but she said during the interview that her party will have a tough time winning in GOP-heavy South Carolina

"I think it's going to be hard for any Democrat to carry the state," she said. "The Republican Party is very strong here."

Earlier in the day, Clinton spoke to more than 1,500 people gathered at Allen University, a historically black college in Columbia.

The senator picked up key endorsements last week from two black state senators who helped deliver black voters to former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards in 2004. One of those politicians, state Sen. Darrell Jackson, whose media company also picked up a $10,000 consulting contract from Clinton's campaign, introduced her to the Allen University crowd.

During the AP interview, Clinton said her campaign struck no deal with Jackson. "Senator Jackson has worked in Clinton campaigns going back to 1992," she said.

OMG people its a flag seriously get over it

[NDFootball]

Originally posted by Adidas410s
The banner, which once flew over the Statehouse dome and now flies nearby, is the subject of an ongoing NAACP boycott.



What are you going to do boycott the state of South Carolina????


BRILLIANT:thumbsup:

[BTEXDAD]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
An Afro-American sees a rebel flag and thinks of slavery and it's atrocities.

A northern caucasian American sees a rebel flag and thinks of rebellion against the Union and the freeing of slaves.

A southern caucasian American sees a rebel flag and thinks of the southern rebel image---a fighter for state's rights and independence and the pride of southern heritage and lifestyle. Most caucasian southerners that I have known do not think of the slavery issue when they see a rebel flag being waved.

When I see the rebel flag I know a nascar event is about to get underway.

[espn1]

When I see any type of Confederate or Texas Flag, I know I'm among friends. Anybody that doesn't like the Confederacy probably won't like me. Hurrah for Dixie. Take back the South.
Confederacy (http://members.tripod.com/~txscv/) http://www.geocities.com/gsc_headquarters/TitleIconRobertLee.gif

[Keith7]

Originally posted by NDFootball
OMG people its a flag seriously get over it

ya a flag that stand for slavery

[Jason1725]

What flag flew over slavery from 1776 till 1860?

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Jason1725
What flag flew over slavery from 1776 till 1860?

what flag FAUGHT FOR slavery when the other opposed it.. I think is the real question

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Keith7
ya a flag that stand for slavery Maybe to you, but not to everyone.

[Reds fan]

One thing that I take from this neverending thread... it proves that parents must watch over and discuss with their kids what the schools are teaching. The one-sided revisionist history being force fed to students will only take down our future. If you ask a kid what Civil War was fought over, most will say slavery...that is the problem, it is the simple answer and schools do not want to go the extra mile and teach ANY of the many OTHER reasons the war transpired, mainly STATES RIGHTS.

I am glad my kids will be able to go into a discussion about this or any other huge historical event and be able to reason without ignorance!

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Reds fan
One thing that I take from this neverending thread... it proves that parents must watch over and discuss with their kids what the schools are teaching. The one-sided revisionist history being force fed to students will only take down our future. If you ask a kid what Civil War was fought over, most will say slavery...that is the problem, it is the simple answer and schools do not want to go the extra mile and teach ANY of the many OTHER reasons the war transpired, mainly STATES RIGHTS.

I am glad my kids will be able to go into a discussion about this or any other huge historical event and be able to reason without ignorance! It's pretty sad that we have to "re-teach" at home what should be taught at school.:(

[Jason1725]

It's almost impossible to teach what really happened, I am sure some of what has been said has confused some people. Take State Sovereignty for example. I am sure most don't even know what that is or even means. If you don't understand that you won’t understand what was happening back then. To me that is the key to everything. Please for your own sake read the Constitution, The Bill Of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, and The Articles of Confederation. Get an understanding of how the government is supposed to work. Then move on from there. You have to get rid of what you think you know, to quote Yoda "You must unlearn what you have learned."

[Pudlugger]

So true that PC has gone so far as to revise our children's history books. Now we have a generation of young people who have a very limited and biased understanding of the Civil War and the events that lead up to it. When I was in school we had formal debates over State's Rights and Federalism. The various economic and cultural issues that divided the North and South apart from slavery were taught. The North was heavily industrialized while the South was primarily agricultural. The North relied on manufacturing for the economy while the South relied on exports of cotton and imported manufactured goods. Tariffs that favored the North were draining the South of capital. There were strong cultural differences such as the Southern code of honor, a more agrarian society, and a more rigid class structure. Issues of sovereignty of the states were festering well before the start of the war. Too bad some folks just think it was all about slavery, a very shallow understanding of the history IMO.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Reds fan
The one-sided revisionist history being force fed to students will only take down our future.

dude i'm a history minor.. And I know about all the other "reasons" the south seceded, but in the end it was ultimately about slavery.. maybe if you guys wouldn't listen to the old wives tales that your great grandpa told you then maybe you guys can see that the main issue of the civil war was slavery.. its not in every history book, and every history article about the civil war for no reason.. this isn't yankee propraganda..

Again let me ask you.. Would you find it acceptable for a region of Germany to start flying the Nazi Flag again?? I'm guessing you would say NO, and I would agree with you.. And the reason you would say no is because

1. you don't believe in what it stands for
2. it is extremely inconsiderate to certain race that was persecuted by the people who stood for that flag..
3. your views arn't tainted on the subject by your stubborn "southern pride"


Trust me confederate flags make african americans extremely uncomfortable, and if people can't understand that.. then yes you guys are like skinheads that go on Jerry Springer who come on and claim the halocaust never happened and it was made up by jewish people..

I'm not saying don't be proud of your ancestors and your heritage, I'm just saying there are better ways to do so, without offending a large portion of america

and thats all I have to say about this subject

[Jason1725]

I will trust the history I have read from soiders letters, speeches and official documents of that period than you and your revisionist history.

[mustang68]

Political correctness may very well be the down fall of this great land.
When we can no longer compliment someone/anyone by saying they are articulate, we as a nation are in trouble.
When we allow revisionist history taught by flaming liberals, we as a nation are in trouble.
I have not seen anyone, in this thread, deny that slavery was an issue during the War between the States, only that it was not the only issue.
As a fifth generation Texan having never owned or displayed a Confereate flag, to me it does not represent the condoning of slavery, or the desire for it, slavery, to return. It does represent a part of my heritage and my family suffering for the right of a state to make its own decisions. While growing up the Confederate flag never represented slavery but a pride and respect for my heritage.
The South failed to ceceed from the Union, and I am very glad they did. I am still proud of my heritage which includes the Confererate Flag

[Jason1725]

nevermind

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Oh yeah, well...I object to Hillary.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

When the 13 colonies were still a part of England, Professor Alexander Tyler, a Scottish Historian, wrote about the fall of the Athenian republic over 2000 years earlier. He said:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will always votes for the candidats promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.

The day after TAKS, this is the in-class writing assignment, maybe we can all learn lessons from Professor Tyler.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Jason1725
It's almost impossible to teach what really happened, I am sure some of what has been said has confused some people. Take State Sovereignty for example. I am sure most don't even know what that is or even means. If you don't understand that you won’t understand what was happening back then. To me that is the key to everything. Please for your own sake read the Constitution, The Bill Of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, and The Articles of Confederation. Get an understanding of how the government is supposed to work. Then move on from there. You have to get rid of what you think you know, to quote Yoda "You must unlearn what you have learned." Historians all agree the largest cause of the War was the Issue of slavery primarily in the lands to the west. its funny you actualy want others to belive otherwise. The confederate flag represents the states that seceded from the union because of the question of slavery and future of slavery. States rights concerning Slavery in thier state. Property rights concerning owning SLAVES as Property. funny how people want to use the issue of States right and property rights but ignore what the specific things they believed should be owned or the right to decide..... You cant rewrite history no matter how bad you try.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Barbaro.

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by Spaceman_Spiff
When the 13 colonies were still a part of England, Professor Alexander Tyler, a Scottish Historian, wrote about the fall of the Athenian republic over 2000 years earlier. He said:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will always votes for the candidats promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.

The day after TAKS, this is the in-class writing assignment, maybe we can all learn lessons from Professor Tyler.

Sadly, we're growing more and more into the apathy stage.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

I'm with ya Blast...next two steps don't look like so much fun.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Keith7
dude i'm a history minor.. And I know about all the other "reasons" the south seceded, but in the end it was ultimately about slavery.. maybe if you guys wouldn't listen to the old wives tales that your great grandpa told you then maybe you guys can see that the main issue of the civil war was slavery.. its not in every history book, and every history article about the civil war for no reason.. this isn't yankee propraganda..

Again let me ask you.. Would you find it acceptable for a region of Germany to start flying the Nazi Flag again?? I'm guessing you would say NO, and I would agree with you.. And the reason you would say no is because

1. you don't believe in what it stands for
2. it is extremely inconsiderate to certain race that was persecuted by the people who stood for that flag..
3. your views arn't tainted on the subject by your stubborn "southern pride"


Trust me confederate flags make african americans extremely uncomfortable, and if people can't understand that.. then yes you guys are like skinheads that go on Jerry Springer who come on and claim the halocaust never happened and it was made up by jewish people..

I'm not saying don't be proud of your ancestors and your heritage, I'm just saying there are better ways to do so, without offending a large portion of america

and thats all I have to say about this subject

I'm no skinhead and I can recognize a BUTTHEAD when I see one Keith7.:D

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by Keith7
dude i'm a history minor.. And I know about all the other "reasons" the south seceded, but in the end it was ultimately about slavery.. maybe if you guys wouldn't listen to the old wives tales that your great grandpa told you then maybe you guys can see that the main issue of the civil war was slavery.. its not in every history book, and every history article about the civil war for no reason.. this isn't yankee propraganda..

Again let me ask you.. Would you find it acceptable for a region of Germany to start flying the Nazi Flag again?? I'm guessing you would say NO, and I would agree with you.. And the reason you would say no is because

1. you don't believe in what it stands for
2. it is extremely inconsiderate to certain race that was persecuted by the people who stood for that flag..
3. your views arn't tainted on the subject by your stubborn "southern pride"


Trust me confederate flags make african americans extremely uncomfortable, and if people can't understand that.. then yes you guys are like skinheads that go on Jerry Springer who come on and claim the halocaust never happened and it was made up by jewish people..

I'm not saying don't be proud of your ancestors and your heritage, I'm just saying there are better ways to do so, without offending a large portion of america

and thats all I have to say about this subject

Dude- my great grandpa was from Germany, my grandpa from California, now you know something about my heritage. History minor aside, your closemindedness is not your fault, it reflects the educational problems this country has with one sided assessments of history and the path that could lead us to.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Historians all agree... There you go again. I'm sure not "all" would agree.

[Jason1725]

I am not trying to rewrite history the north has already cornered that market. If the lone issue was slavery, why didn’t the southern states come back and ratify the original 13th amendment? It would have made slavery legal forever in the slave holding states. All the seceding states had to do was come back to congress and ratify that amendment. They did not, Kentucky and Maryland both chose to stay in the union where slavery was protected.

[JasperDog94]

IMO you cannot compare people thinking it's right to own slaves with people thinking it's right to exterminate an entire class of people.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Keith7
Trust me confederate flags make african americans extremely uncomfortable, and if people can't understand that.. then yes you guys are like skinheads that go on Jerry Springer who come on and claim the halocaust never happened and it was made up by jewish people.. So if there is a symbol that offends people we should just remove rather than to educate them about it?

[Jason1725]

Originally posted by Keith7
Trust me confederate flags make african americans extremely uncomfortable,

If that's the case how do you explain the black southern activists like H.K. Edgerton??

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
There you go again. I'm sure not "all" would agree. Maybe not all. Some Neo nazi southern redneck may have a history degree and decide to attempt to snow people into thinking that Slavery was some side issue that just had very little effect onn the reasons the south seceded..:rolleyes:

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Maybe not all. Some Neo nazi southern redneck may have a history degree and decide to attempt to snow people into thinking that Slavery was some side issue that just had very little effect onn the reasons the south seceded..:rolleyes: Then answer me this question: If it was all about slavery, why didn't the states ratify the 13th amendment and make slavery legal?

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Jason1725
Originally posted by Keith7
Trust me confederate flags make african americans extremely uncomfortable,

If that's the case how do you explain the black southern activists like H.K. Edgerton?? OMG!! you dont get it do you.. You really cant see why black folks feel offended when the symbol of the confederacy is flown?? You slept during the civil war portion of US history didnt you. Go back to college and take a US history class. they teach the primary reason the civil war started was over SLAVERY.... SLAVERY..... you cant change history in order to make something you love ok or socialy acceptable. I say BOYCOT THE CRAP OUT OF BUSINESSES from the states that fly the flag on government property. hit them where it hurts so business owners will see its in thier best intrests to just take it down from Government buildings and property.

[Jason1725]

I did take history and was taught something else. Of course I was at a private school which is not funded by the monster federal government we have now. I say it is you who needs to read history. Answer my question, I doubt you even know who H.K. Edgerton is or about people like him. See up until 1961 the 100 year anniversery of the Confederate States of America. You could not even find a Confederate flag. They simply were not around, that explains why from 1866 to the 1960's hate groups like the Klan flew the AMERICAN flag. Didn't know that did you, didn't think so.

[pirate4state]

Aren't you guys tired? :rolleyes: I'm exhausted just reading all of this...................:hairpunk:

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by pirate4state
Aren't you guys tired? :rolleyes: I'm exhausted just reading all of this...................:hairpunk:

Uh Oh, looks like one of the "refs" is trying to call an official's timeout. :D

[Jason1725]

No because history is slanted and was written by the victors. I am not going to be ashamed of where I come from. None of my ancestors owned slave, however some were slaves themselves. That’s right there were white slaves. :eek:

Does that mean I get reparations?

[themsu97]

what is funny is when you ask Keith and Magic a question they do not answer...thus proving thier arguement is not well thought out and is only what they have seen, not learned or understood... btw... remember that the only reason why Maryland did not secede is that Lincoln imposed martial law and had the state congressmen arrested so that the vote to secede would not win...
this arguement fellas, is like arguing with a brick wall... I too am German and that is part of my heritage as is being Indian, I am not offended by the name... too many left wingists think they need to take up our cause...
what about this... what about the number of slaves that fought on the side of the confederacy? it did happen... and yes, I know that some were forced...
what about the thousands of plantation owners that left their entire fortunes in the hands of their slaves...
I do not think that anyone hear disagrees that slavery was immoral, that is was a black eye on the face of US history... but it was not the reason for the Civil War...

[Jason1725]

remember that the only reason why Maryland did not secede is that Lincoln imposed martial law and had the state congressmen arrested so that the vote to secede would not win...

That’s true Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended Habeas Corpus, he even threatened to throw the Chief Justice of The Supreme Court in jail because he spoke out against the war.

[BTEXDAD]

Originally posted by pirate4state
Aren't you guys tired? :rolleyes: I'm exhausted just reading all of this...................:hairpunk:

I need to take up speed reading. For awhile they were typing and posting faster than i could read.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by themsu97
... btw... remember that the only reason why Maryland did not secede is that Lincoln imposed martial law and had the state congressmen arrested so that the vote to secede would not win...
this arguement fellas, is like arguing with a brick wall... I too am German and that is part of my heritage as is being Indian, I am not offended by the name... too many left wingists think they need to take up our cause...
what about this... what about the number of slaves that fought on the side of the confederacy? it did happen... and yes, I know that some were forced...
what about the thousands of plantation owners that left their entire fortunes in the hands of their slaves...
I do not think that anyone hear disagrees that slavery was immoral, that is was a black eye on the face of US history... but it was not the reason for the Civil War...


Originally posted by Jason1725
That’s true Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended Habeas Corpus, he even threatened to throw the Chief Justice of The Supreme Court in jail because he spoke out against the war.

I can't imagine why these facts are conveniently left out of student textbooks. Could it be that they don't fit the agenda?:thinking: :thinking:

[Jason1725]

Ex Parte MERRYMAN

Read it here http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/suspension.htm

[Jason1725]

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it" (U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 9).

Now what made it unconstitutional was Lincoln did it while Congress in recess. It is a power only Congress has, however the States being sovereign have the right to dissolve the union they created. Now Congress just recently suspended Habeas Corpus again however we are not in a rebellion or being invaded.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[DaHop72]

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1299/pullinghairsd4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[big daddy russ]

Slavery WAS NOT a central issue until almost a year into the war. That is not up for debate. It's historical fact. The North, losing support and morale, had to institute a cause that it could rally around in order to continue the war. That's the absolute truth.

The Emancipation Proclamation was the start of slavery as a central issue in the war. The first real battle was in July of 1861 (Battle of Bull Run), but Lincoln didn't declare war on the South until January of 1862. The Proclamation was enacted in January of 1863.

I'm a Political Science minor and have studied all the causes of the Civil War. The thing we have to understand about the underlying causes was that the United States wasn't the USA that we know today. It was actually quite different, in that someone identified more with their state than their country.

When asked to fight for the north, Robert E. Lee (who was for doing away with slavery) said that he could not fight against his own nation.

He wasn't talking about the US or the Confederate States of America, he was talking about Virginia.

Little known fact: Lincoln was completely opposed to war. It was only after the Confederacy broke off that he thrust the US into war, and he waited until almost all the states had seceded before finally declaring war.

Sure, he was against slavery, but he had different ideas than Congress about how to end it. Lincoln was actually extremely unpopular, with both the public and with Congress, before the war.

Why?

Because he was from Indiana, he was seen to Southerners as a Yankee. As I said earlier, people identified with their state more than their country, and southerners despised Yanks. Even though he was born in Kentucky and his parents were Virginian, all Southerners knew was that he was raised in Indiana, spent time in Illinois, and was a Republican. Southerners were fierce Dems.

Background story: The parties underwent a major switch in the 1980's and 90's, which is why Texas is a Republican state nowadays. Up until 1998, we were a blue state. Reagan was the first major political figure to slide over to the Republicans from the Democrats, but it wasn't until the mid- to late-90's that the "Solid South" (the term for the Southern states from Texas to Virginia that typically vote the same) switched over. The Republicans were the ones who, in the mid- and late-1800's, taxed the South hard in order to bring money to the North. The North was in recession, but we'll get into that later. The Republicans were also opposed to slavery and ravaged the South during Reconstruction and we held that grudge for over a century.

Now Lincoln didn't necessarily believe everything the Republicans did, but he knew it was his best chance at getting elected. As the issue of slavery once again became a hot topic in the 1850's, the Dems underwent a split between Northern and Southern Dems. Because the South had far fewer voters, they had no chance of winning the Presidency unless they had the support of the North.

Now the Northern Dems had a great candidate in Stephen Douglas, but the split in the Dems along with the addition of a third party helped Lincoln win a plurality of votes.

Fast forward to Lincoln's first year in office. He wasn't popular with the South because he was a Yank AND a Republican, and he was quickly losing popularity with his own party because he didn't want to abolish slavery. Believe it or not, Lincoln's idea was to let slavery die out naturally.

It was actually a great idea, as more and more Southerners were beginning to dislike the idea of slavery and weed it out. Had it died out naturally, the thinking is that racial tensions would've been eased much more quickly than they were.

Now let's back up and see what Congress was doing all this time. In Henry Clay, Congress had its "superstar." Clay was from Virginia, giving him clout in the South, but worked well with the North.

Just about every big, dysfunctional family has that one kid who can make everyone listen. The family may hate each other and argue every day, but one kid has a great sense of humor, gets along with everyone, and makes dinner a pleasant experience.

That was Clay.

The original reason the South even thought about seceding had nothing to do with Slavery and everything to do with unfair taxes. The "Tariff of Abominations," passed in 1828, was a stronger version of the Tariff of 1816 that taxed imports from Europe. The United States was still struggling from its early financial mess, but the North had started out doing well as it came to the forefront of the Industrial Revolution.

At first, the North was doing alright (not great, but much better than extremely poor South) and everyone up there was happy. But in the 1810's and 1820's, the North began going through a recession. As this recession was going on, European goods, using natural resources exported from the Southern States, started becoming more and more popular in North America and all over the world.

With the European increase in production, they started importing more goods from the South, giving the Southern economy a kickstart it so badly needed.

The Tariff of 1816 put a tax on European imports. This bothered the South, but not to the point of war. But that Tariff was strengthened several times (I want to say two or three times) until the "Tariff of Abominations" finally put an outlandishly heavy tax on European goods, to the strong objections of the South. That was the first time the thought of secession crossed their mind.

You see, the South's economy wasn't of any concern to the Northern Congressmen, and they were willing to do whatever it took, including sabotaging the South, to bring money to their home states. (That's pork barrel politics for you)

Back to the Tariff of Abominations, John C. Calhoun enacted Nullification in his native South Carolina, an old law saying that any state has the right to nix a federal law if it doesn't believe it benefits the state. States had much more power back then than they do now, so laws like these were common.

Eventually, Congress backed off, but still had problems with the South. From the slave/free state issue to unfair taxes, they fought over everything. Fortunately, through all this, Henry Clay was there to moderate everything and find a compromise. As a matter of fact, that's why he's known as "The Great Compromiser." The Missouri Compromise, the Nullification Crisis (talked about above), the Compromise of 1850. They were all his doing.

When he died in 1852, everything started coming apart. The North started taxing the South heavily again, the South demanded more slave states, and on and on.

After seeing that the North wasn't interested at all in their economic needs and seeing a Northern Republican elected to office (that would be Lincoln), South Carolina decided they'd had enough. They took off, followed by everyone else.

Those are the reasons for the Civil War. So don't tell me that it was a slavery issue.

On that note, answer me this: If the framers of the US Constitution had gone ahead and done away with slavery (the most touchy subject up for debate, even back then) initially, would the Civil War ever have started?

It's my opinion that slavery, the pink elephant that was always in the room, wasn't a direct cause of the Civil War, but was the initial reason (dating back to the late-1700's) that the North and South didn't get along and led to many of these spats. And because nobody ever really addressed it, the monster finally found a place to rear its head when everything else started spiraling out of control.

Back to flag issue, it's a tough one. For me, I never saw it as a symbol of hate, but I can't speak for all the backwoods people from the Deep South. It's still very bad in LA, MS, and AL for sure (I have family from all three states, I've seen it firsthand), and I've heard stories about the Carolinas.

Personally, I think we should take the advice of Lincoln. We should let this monster, which is already well on its way to its grave, die on its own instead of flaring up passions all over again. But then again, I'm not always right about this stuff.

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
Complete absolute pwnage, yet again

That's the ballgame folks. :clap: