Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 6
Confederate flags spotted outside the US
Topic Started: Jul 11 2015, 12:20 PM (3,382 Views)
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Down in Florida my fellow Connecticutian Jeb Bush, when he was governor removed some Confederate battle flag from somewhere and a bunch of Sons of the Confederate Veterans put up the largest Confederate battle flag in the world at the corner of I-4 and I-75. Of late (the last year or so it has been replaced by another flag--with the X in the corner and then white with a ending in red.

http://www.tampascv.org/cmp.html



Edited by TomK, Jul 12 2015, 04:16 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
This is my favorite Confederate flag, the Confederate Surrender Flag:

Posted Image


I'm guessing you Southerners are not finding that joke very funny. :D

Edited by TomK, Jul 12 2015, 08:56 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Here Sock, educate yourself:

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


You're funny, Sock. You're a typical ignorant yankee, and the real reason you attacked me is because you know, as I know, that I am a big dog, and you are just a little lapdog who has to stay on the porch.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
TomK
Jul 12 2015, 04:21 AM
This is my favorite Confederate flag, the Confederate Surrender Flag:

Posted Image


I'm guessing you Southerners are not finding that joke very funny. :D

Actually, Tom, I think that one is known as The Stainless Banner.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Rice
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Jul 11 2015, 10:59 PM
So in other words, screw our great grandfathers and all they suffered for, just move on and talk about things as if the Civil War didn't happen, the men who fought and died in that war don't matter, eliminate the flag that rallied them to battle in defense of their land, and talk about something else..

No thanks. :)

No, the Civil War did happen. And the South fought for the preservation and propagation of one of the worst evils in the history of guilty man. THAT is what many Southerners are trying to pretend didn't happen.

The right side won.

(And if you're quoting from the Huffington Post, then you've already lost the argument. :P )
Civilisation, I vaguely realized then - and subsequent observation has confirmed the view - could not progress that way. It must have a greater guiding principle to survive. To treat it as a carcase off which each man tears as much as he can for himself, is to stand convicted a brute, fit for nothing better than a jungle existence, which is a death-struggle, leading nowhither. I did not believe that was the human destiny, for Man individually was sane and reasonable, only collectively a fool.

I hope the gunner of that Hun two-seater shot him clean, bullet to heart, and that his plane, on fire, fell like a meteor through the sky he loved. Since he had to end, I hope he ended so. But, oh, the waste! The loss!

- Cecil Lewis
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
lol


Read the last link I put up. It will shed new light on the real reasons for the Civil war, and the actual part the slavery issue played in it.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Rice
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Jul 12 2015, 05:53 AM
lol


Read the last link I put up. It will shed new light on the real reasons for the Civil war, and the actual part the slavery issue played in it.
Larry, I did read the article. That's why I thought it wasn't a good idea for you to use it in your argument. But that's what you get for referencing HuffPo!

Here are quotes from the article:

Quote:
 
We endure today strange twists of history like Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell proclaiming April "Confederate History Month" without ever mentioning slavery. When questioned about this curious oversight, McDonnell lamely explained that "there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia." Really? If slavery was not among the most "significant" issues for Virginia, exactly what other state right was more important? This is the downside of the argument I try to make here; it is open to abuse by this kind of intellectual trash.


Quote:
 
Ah, yes, we also have the Confederate flag. What exactly about the war's history would lead one to fly a Confederate flag over a state capitol building, or paste one on a F150 bumper or wear one on a T-shirt? Does the flag indicate pride about the effort to protect slavery? Or attempting to secede from the Union? For starting a war in which two percent of the population died? For losing the war? These are odd banners to carry around for nearly 150 years. Perhaps the pride comes from the fact that the South stood up to a greater power, at least checking or slowing the pace of an expanding federalism. But even that does not pass the smell test; by starting but then losing the war the South created the exact opposite effect, solidifying federal power like never before.


Quote:
 
Let's be clear that the South sought to destroy the United States, not only through war but just in the act of secession. Once the principle of seceding is established the glue holding the Union together would soon dissolve. Proof of that is in the fact that during the war the Confederacy began to dissolve through the secession of Southern states from the Confederacy! South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union, also threatened later to secede from the Confederacy, as did Georgia later in the war.


Quote:
 
The South started and lost a war that nearly destroyed the United States. The cause was unjust, the economic justification unseemly. The actions were treasonous. There is no part of the Confederate cause of which to be proud. There is no moral high ground here. Southerners who claim a deep national pride celebrate their ancestors' efforts to dissolve the very union of states whose flag they now so proudly fly. They honor a campaign to destroy our country through dissolution but claim the mantle of patriot. A southern loyalist cannot be a patriot; the two ideals are mutually incompatible. As I have said before, you cannot simultaneously love the United States and love the idea of seceding from the United States.


Quote:
 
The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves. Neither cause should induce pride. As we celebrate this 150 year anniversary, the South should humbly honor the victory of the North and ask forgiveness for waging a bloody war against reason and decency.
Civilisation, I vaguely realized then - and subsequent observation has confirmed the view - could not progress that way. It must have a greater guiding principle to survive. To treat it as a carcase off which each man tears as much as he can for himself, is to stand convicted a brute, fit for nothing better than a jungle existence, which is a death-struggle, leading nowhither. I did not believe that was the human destiny, for Man individually was sane and reasonable, only collectively a fool.

I hope the gunner of that Hun two-seater shot him clean, bullet to heart, and that his plane, on fire, fell like a meteor through the sky he loved. Since he had to end, I hope he ended so. But, oh, the waste! The loss!

- Cecil Lewis
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Wrong article. Besides, you've cherry picked the parts that suit you and ignored the parts I wanted you to see.

This is the article I'm talking about:

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

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Nobody's Sock
Jul 12 2015, 01:39 AM

Valdez is so much more coherent than you.

Except when he gets drunk on Friday nights and comes around here slobbering.

Do you think jv is jf or kk? Or do you think it might be someone else?

Do you think he/she lives in the smart part of the country or the stupid part?
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Rice
HOLY CARP!!!
Sorry if I got the wrong link. Wasn't sure which one you were referring to.

Took me some time to read Griffith's article, which I was unaware of. He gets a lot of historical facts right, but of course he focuses on mouse tracks while ignoring the elephant in the room. And conclusions such as "the Confederacy permitted slavery, but it left the door open for the admission of free states and for the abolition of slavery at the state level" and "by 1864 key Confederate leaders were prepared to abolish slavery" are demonstrably false.

James Horton sums up it up nicely:

Quote:
 
Lincoln's issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 transformed the war into a holy crusade, but there was always disagreement among U.S. troops about outright abolition. Yet, increasingly after 1863, "pro-emancipation conviction did predominate among the leaders and fighting soldiers of the Union Army." Regardless of whether U.S. troops fought to limit or to abolish it, however, slavery was the issue that focused their fight, just as it did for the Confederacy. A half-century after serving the Confederate cause, John Singleton Mosby, legendary leader of Mosby's Rangers, offered no apologies for his southern loyalties. He was quite candid about his reason for fighting. "The South went to war on account of slavery," he said. "South Carolina went to war - as she said in her secession proclamation - because slavery w[oul]d not be secure under Lincoln." Then he added as if to dispel all doubt, "South Carolina ought to know what was the cause of her seceding."

Of course, Mosby was right. South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and the other states that seceded from the United States did know the reason for their action and they stated it clearly, time and time again. They named the preservation of slavery as foremost among their motivations. When such a wide variety of southerners - from private citizens, to top governmental officials, from low ranking enlisted men to Confederate military leaders at the highest levels, from local politicians to regional newspaper editors - all agree, what more evidence do we need?
Civilisation, I vaguely realized then - and subsequent observation has confirmed the view - could not progress that way. It must have a greater guiding principle to survive. To treat it as a carcase off which each man tears as much as he can for himself, is to stand convicted a brute, fit for nothing better than a jungle existence, which is a death-struggle, leading nowhither. I did not believe that was the human destiny, for Man individually was sane and reasonable, only collectively a fool.

I hope the gunner of that Hun two-seater shot him clean, bullet to heart, and that his plane, on fire, fell like a meteor through the sky he loved. Since he had to end, I hope he ended so. But, oh, the waste! The loss!

- Cecil Lewis
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
In an effort to get the Southern states to come back, Lincoln, in his inaugural address, promised to make slavery a permanent part of the Constitution.

The South didn't come back.

This is all the proof one needs to understand that slavery was not the motivating factor, nor was it the reason for the Civil War.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Rice
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Jul 12 2015, 07:00 AM
In an effort to get the Southern states to come back, Lincoln, in his inaugural address, promised to make slavery a permanent part of the Constitution.

No. What he actually said was that he would not interfere with slavery where it existed in the South. The South did not believe him.
Civilisation, I vaguely realized then - and subsequent observation has confirmed the view - could not progress that way. It must have a greater guiding principle to survive. To treat it as a carcase off which each man tears as much as he can for himself, is to stand convicted a brute, fit for nothing better than a jungle existence, which is a death-struggle, leading nowhither. I did not believe that was the human destiny, for Man individually was sane and reasonable, only collectively a fool.

I hope the gunner of that Hun two-seater shot him clean, bullet to heart, and that his plane, on fire, fell like a meteor through the sky he loved. Since he had to end, I hope he ended so. But, oh, the waste! The loss!

- Cecil Lewis
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Red Rice
Jul 12 2015, 06:50 AM
Sorry if I got the wrong link. Wasn't sure which one you were referring to.

Took me some time to read Griffith's article, which I was unaware of. He gets a lot of historical facts right, but of course he focuses on mouse tracks while ignoring the elephant in the room. And conclusions such as "the Confederacy permitted slavery, but it left the door open for the admission of free states and for the abolition of slavery at the state level" and "by 1864 key Confederate leaders were prepared to abolish slavery" are demonstrably false.

James Horton sums up it up nicely:

Quote:
 
Lincoln's issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 transformed the war into a holy crusade, but there was always disagreement among U.S. troops about outright abolition. Yet, increasingly after 1863, "pro-emancipation conviction did predominate among the leaders and fighting soldiers of the Union Army." Regardless of whether U.S. troops fought to limit or to abolish it, however, slavery was the issue that focused their fight, just as it did for the Confederacy. A half-century after serving the Confederate cause, John Singleton Mosby, legendary leader of Mosby's Rangers, offered no apologies for his southern loyalties. He was quite candid about his reason for fighting. "The South went to war on account of slavery," he said. "South Carolina went to war - as she said in her secession proclamation - because slavery w[oul]d not be secure under Lincoln." Then he added as if to dispel all doubt, "South Carolina ought to know what was the cause of her seceding."

Of course, Mosby was right. South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and the other states that seceded from the United States did know the reason for their action and they stated it clearly, time and time again. They named the preservation of slavery as foremost among their motivations. When such a wide variety of southerners - from private citizens, to top governmental officials, from low ranking enlisted men to Confederate military leaders at the highest levels, from local politicians to regional newspaper editors - all agree, what more evidence do we need?
Yes, many of the new Confederate constitutions mentioned slavery quite prominently.

But let's not forget, Lincoln really didn't give a tinker's damn about the slaves and did not emancipate them until several years into the war. For much of the Civil War, slave ownership was perfectly legal in the Union.

And what was the underlying gripe of the South about slavery? Was it simply the assumption they thought blacks should be enslaved? If so, that would run contradictory to the free blacks who were slave holders, wouldn't it?

No, even past the slavery point was the fact that the Union wanted to take private property away, possibly without compensation. The Union wanted to dictate to the state what it could do within its own borders, in a power not enumerated within the Constitution.

Let's use an example of some other material possession...The east Coast is more densely populated and mass transit works much better in those areas than in areas of the scarcely populated South. For the good of the country and for premium air quality, the U.S. declares that cars will be no longer allowed in the hands of private citizens. Have a car? Tough luck. The country knows what is best for you.

Ah, the state says, but you don't. We regulate the cars within our borders and you can go pound sand. Nope, says the Union, you can't do that. Tough, says the state, but we no longer wish to be part of such a union, and we shall succeed.

And since any court decision matters not, the issue will be settled by force of arms. Not by who is right or who is wrong, but who wins.

Going back to the time of the original Constitutional Convention, if many of the delegates thought that statehood was a one-way street they could never get out of, I don't think the Constitution would have been ratified by several of the states, Northern or Southern.

Don't forget, the first successionist insurrection in the U.S. put down by force of arms, was not in 1861.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Now let's look at the parts you ignored:


Quote:
 
Most people aren’t aware that, even as president, Lincoln supported a proposed constitutional amendment that would have guaranteed slavery’s continuation forever. Lincoln mentioned his support for this amendment in his first inaugural address. In the years leading up to the Civil War, Lincoln acknowledged that slavery was protected by the Constitution. He also supported the Fugitive Slave Law. Therefore, some Southern statesmen didn’t believe Lincoln was going to threaten slavery’s existence. Yet, they supported secession anyway.


Quote:
 
Most Southern leaders who advocated secession in order to protect slavery did so because they believed that Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress would try to abolish slavery by unconstitutional means and that Southern slaveholders would not receive compensation for their slaves. Southern spokesmen felt this would be unfair, since Northern slaveholders had been able to receive compensation for their slaves when most Northern states had abolished slavery several decades earlier. They knew that emancipation without compensation would do great damage to the Southern economy.


Quote:
 
there were plenty of Southerners who opposed slavery and who were willing to see it abolished in a fair, gradual manner, as had been done in most Northern states. After all, 69-75 percent of Southern families did not own slaves. However, few Southerners believed the Republicans were interested in a fair, gradual emancipation program. The more extreme Republicans, who were known as “Radical Republicans,” certainly weren’t interested in such a program.


Quote:
 
Few people today understand why the South distrusted the Republican Party. Not only was the Republican Party a new party, it was also the first purely regional (or sectional) party in the country’s history. Moreover, Republican leaders frequently gave inflammatory anti-Southern speeches
(Similar to the bigoted rant posted recently by Nobody's Sock)

Quote:
 
The South’s long-standing opposition to the federal tariff was another factor that led to secession. The South’s concern over the tariff was nothing new. South Carolina and the federal government nearly went to war over the tariff in 1832-1833. In the session of Congress before Lincoln’s inauguration, the House of Representatives passed a huge increase in the tariff, over the loud objections of Southern congressmen. Naturally, this alarmed Southern statesmen at all levels, since the South was always hit hardest by the tariff. One only has to read the many speeches that Southern senators and representatives gave against the 1860-1861 tariff increase to see how seriously they took this issue. Moreover, in the congressional debates from the previous four decades, one can find dozens of Southern speeches against the tariff. Opposition to the tariff led some Southern leaders to talk of secession over thirty years before the Civil War occurred


Quote:
 
The South had valid complaints about the tariff. Charles Adams, an authority on the history of taxation, observes that the Southern states paid a disproportionately high share of the tariff:

The high tariff in the North compelled the Southern states to pay tribute to the North, either in taxes to fatten Republican coffers or in the inflated prices that had to be paid for Northern goods. Besides being unfair, this violated the uniformity command of the Constitution by having the South pay an undue proportion of the national revenue, which was expended more in the North than in the South: When some of the compromise tariffs of the 1830s and 1840s are analyzed, the total revenue was around $107.5 million, with the South paying about $90 million and the North $17.5 million.


Quote:
 
Jeffrey R. Hummel, a professor of economics and history, notes the negative impact of the tariff on the Southern states and concedes that Southern complaints about the tariff were justified:

Despite a steady decline in import duties, tariffs fell disproportionately on Southerners, reducing their income from cotton production by at least 10 percent just before the Civil War. . . .

At least with respect to the tariff’s adverse impact, Southerners were not only absolutely correct but displayed a sophisticated understanding of economics. . . . The tariff was inefficient; it not only redistributed wealth from farmers and planters to manufacturers and laborers but overall made the country poorer.


Quote:
 
A major point of contention between the North and the South was the issue of the size and power of the federal government as defined by the Constitution. Most Northern politicians supported a loose reading of the Constitution and wanted to expand the size and scope of the federal government, even if that meant giving the government powers that were not authorized by the Constitution. Most Southern statesmen supported a strict reading of the Constitution and believed the federal government should perform only those functions that were expressly delegated to it by the Constitution. From the earliest days of the republic, Southern and Northern leaders battled over this issue. Our textbooks rarely do justice to this important fact.


Quote:
 
Virtually no history textbooks mention the fact that each Confederate state retained the right to abolish slavery within its borders, and that the Confederate Constitution permitted the admission of free states into the Confederacy.



Now that it has been established that the states didn't secede from the union over slavery, let's look at what actually started the war:

Quote:
 
The Union was never meant to be held together by force. The Southern states joined the Union voluntarily, and they should have been able to leave it voluntarily.


Quote:
 
The principle of peaceful separation was as American as apple pie. But Lincoln, relying on an utterly erroneous understanding of the founding of the Union, declared that secession was “treason,” “insurrection,” and “rebellion.” If Lincoln had been alive during the Revolutionary War and had used the same kind of reasoning that he used against Southern secession, he would have sided with the British.


Quote:
 
the South had no desire to overthrow the federal government. The South seceded in a peaceful, democratic manner, with the support of the overwhelming majority of Southern citizens. The Southern states used the same process to secede that the original thirteen states used to ratify the U.S. Constitution, i.e., by voting in special conventions comprised of delegates who were elected by the people.


Quote:
 
On the basis of the natural right to self-government alone, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the South had the right to leave the Union in peace.


Quote:
 
)What caused the war:) The war was fought because Lincoln refused to allow the South to go in peace. Other Republican leaders and certain Northern business interests played key roles in the decision to use force, but ultimately Lincoln was the one who had to make the decision, and he chose to launch an invasion. The fighting and dying started when federal armies invaded the South. That’s why most of the battles were fought in the Southern states. If Lincoln had not launched an invasion, there would have been no war.


Quote:
 
“Why,” one may ask, “did Confederates sometimes refer to themselves as ‘rebels’?” Actually, many Confederates resented that term (see, for example, Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1, pp. 282-284). Those Confederates who described themselves as “rebels” did so only in the sense that they were “rebelling” against being invaded and subjugated. Lincoln, on the other hand, labeled Confederates as “rebels” in order to reinforce his fraudulent claim that the South was trying to overthrow the federal government.

It should be pointed out that many Northern citizens opposed the war and believed the South should be allowed to leave in peace. Dozens of Northern newspapers expressed the view that the Southern states had the right to peacefully leave the Union and that it would be wrong to use force to compel them to stay. Even President James Buchanan told Congress in an official message shortly before Lincoln assumed office that the federal government had no right to use force against the seceded states.


Quote:
 
The standard textbook answer to this question is that the South obviously started the war because it “fired the first shot” by attacking Fort Sumter, which was located in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. Most textbooks don’t mention several facts that put the attack in proper perspective. For example, after the Fort Sumter incident, the Confederacy continued to express its desire for peaceful relations with the North. Not a single federal soldier was killed in the attack. The Confederates allowed the federal troops at the fort to return to the North in peace after they surrendered. South Carolina and then the Confederacy offered to pay compensation for the fort. Lincoln later admitted he deliberately provoked the attack so he could use it as justification for an invasion.


Quote:
 
In his inaugural speech, given weeks before the attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln threatened to invade the seceded states if they didn’t continue to pay federal “duties and imposts” (the tariff) and/or if they didn’t allow the federal government to occupy and maintain all federal installations within their borders. Imagine what the American colonists would have thought if the British had said to them, “We want peace. But, we’re going to invade you if you don’t keep paying our tariff and/or if you don’t allow us to occupy and maintain all British installations within your borders.” The colonists would have rightly regarded this as a virtual declaration of war. Of course, in effect, the British did say this to the colonies. This was the same position that Lincoln presented to the Confederate states weeks before the Fort Sumter attack. Furthermore, five months earlier, some Republicans in Congress publicly swore “by everything in the heavens above and the earth beneath” that they would convert the seceded states “into a wilderness”


Quote:
 
The Emancipation Proclamation

Everyone can agree that slavery needed to be abolished. However, the Emancipation Proclamation, signed on January 1, 1863, left over 400,000 slaves in bondage. Let’s take a moment to consider the purpose, nature, and legality of the Emancipation Proclamation.

The proclamation was a war measure, as the document itself states. The Radical Republicans hoped the proclamation would produce a slave revolt in the South, even if this resulted in the deaths of thousands of women and children on plantations and farms. (Perhaps it’s an indication of how most slaves were treated that no such revolt ever occurred, even though many plantations and farms were being run by women and children at the time, since most of the men were engaged in the war effort.)

The proclamation did not free a single slave in any of the four Union slave states nor in any of the regions of the South that were then under Union control. The proclamation excluded the slaves in those areas. The proclamation only applied to slaves in the Confederate states, where Lincoln had no authority to enforce it. Slavery continued in the Northern slave states and in the South for the rest of the war and wasn’t abolished until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in late 1865.

The Emancipation Proclamation asserted freedom for slaves in those areas that were not under control of the federal government and left slavery untouched in areas where federal control was effective.


Quote:
 
African-American scholar Lerone Bennett documents that Lincoln only issued the proclamation under intense pressure from the Radical Republicans, who were threatening to cut off funds to the army if emancipation wasn’t made a war objective, and that Lincoln only began to seriously consider the Radicals’ demands after Union forces suffered several defeats (Bennett, Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream, Chicago: Johnson Publishing Company, 2000, pp. 23-24, 415-420, 498-504; see also Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, pp. 139, 148-149, 200-202). Bennett also shows that Lincoln sought to undermine the proclamation almost as soon as he issued it.


Quote:
 
If the Emancipation Proclamation had covered all slaves, if it had included compensation for slaveholders, and if it had contained guarantees against a slave revolt, it would have been on solid moral ground. It still would have been unconstitutional, but it would have been consistent, fair, and moral. However, the proclamation contained none of these things. It was intended as a war measure. It left Northern slaves in bondage. Its real purpose was to advance the effort to subjugate the South, even if that meant causing the deaths of thousands of women and children. The Radicals and other Republicans were using Southern slaves as pawns in their effort to conquer the South.


Now let's look at Lincoln's view of slaves:

Quote:
 
Lincoln himself held racist views. As a politician in Illinois, Lincoln voted to deny blacks the right to vote, and he supported the state’s oppressive “Black Code.” Lincoln used the N-word, even in public statements, and even as president. Lincoln referred to the Declaration of Independence as “the white man’s charter of freedom.” He also said he did not support allowing blacks to be citizens, explaining, “I am not in favor of negro citizenship” (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 3, edited by Roy Basler, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1952-1955, p. 179). In an 1858 speech, Lincoln left no doubt about his views on race:

I will say, then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way, the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the free negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry white people. I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which, I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality, and inasmuch as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man. (Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1832-1858, New York: The Library of America, 1989, edited by Don Fehrenbacher, p. 751)


Quote:
 
To understand something of the nature of that problem we must look at the position of the American Negro in the 1860s. . . . Throughout the nation there were 488,000 free Negroes. . . . Most free Negroes—258,000—lived in the South. . . .

“Free people of color” were welcome in few places. In the North they were almost universally segregated, excluded from public life, and their children barred from white public schools. In those areas where separate Negro schools were provided they were inadequately financed and instruction was poor. . . .


Quote:
 
Historian James McPherson:

The Indiana constitutional convention of 1851 adopted a provision forbidding black migration into the state. This supplemented the state's laws barring blacks already there from voting, serving on juries or in the militia, testifying against whites in court, marrying whites, or going to school with whites. Iowa and Illinois had similar laws on the books and banned black immigration by statute in 1851 and 1853 respectively. These measures reflected the racist sentiments of most whites in those states. (Ordeal By Fire, p. 80)

African-American scholars John Franklin and Alfred Moss:

There can be no doubt that many blacks were sorely mistreated in the North and West. Observers like Fanny Kemble and Frederick L. Olmsted mentioned incidents in their writings. Kemble said of Northern blacks, “They are not slaves indeed, but they are pariahs, debarred from every fellowship save with their own despised race. . . . All hands are extended to thrust them out, all fingers point at their dusky skin, all tongues . . . have learned to turn the very name of their race into an insult and a reproach.” Olmsted seems to have believed the Louisiana black who told him that they could associate with whites more freely in the South than in the North and that he preferred to live in the South because he was less likely to be insulted there. (From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000, p. 185)


I'll stop quoting at this point, because as you can see, in order to justify your argument that the Civil war was about slavery, you had to cherry pick a few bits here and there out of context and then ignore the bulk of the article - just as you have to ignore the bulk of history.

Read the article again, and this time read it to learn what happened instead of looking for the parts that can be taken out of context to support your argument.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Red Rice
Jul 12 2015, 07:08 AM
Larry
Jul 12 2015, 07:00 AM
In an effort to get the Southern states to come back, Lincoln, in his inaugural address, promised to make slavery a permanent part of the Constitution.

No. What he actually said was that he would not interfere with slavery where it existed in the South. The South did not believe him.
Quote:
 
Most people aren’t aware that, even as president, Lincoln supported a proposed constitutional amendment that would have guaranteed slavery’s continuation forever. Lincoln mentioned his support for this amendment in his first inaugural address. In the years leading up to the Civil War, Lincoln acknowledged that slavery was protected by the Constitution. He also supported the Fugitive Slave Law. Therefore, some Southern statesmen didn’t believe Lincoln was going to threaten slavery’s existence. Yet, they supported secession anyway.


Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Now, the summation, which shows to any rational thinker that slavery was *not* the reason for the Civil War:

Quote:
 
Final Thoughts

Some people think it is unpatriotic or divisive to defend the Southern side of the Civil War. As a retired U.S. Army veteran and a flag-waving patriot, I reject that view. Confederate citizens were Americans too. They were citizens of the “Confederate States of America.” Their heroes included George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, George Mason, Davy Crockett, and Andrew Jackson. The official Confederate seal featured the image of George Washington on his horse. The Confederate president, Jefferson Davis, was a former U.S. Army officer, a genuine hero in the Mexican War, an outstanding U.S. secretary of war, and a highly respected member of the U.S. Senate. Dozens of other Confederate officials had likewise served faithfully in the U.S. government. One of the members of the Confederate Congress was former U.S. president John Tyler.

It is time for the demonization and smearing of the Confederacy to stop. Compared with other nations of its day, the Confederacy was one of the most democratic countries in the world. Even during the war, the Confederacy held elections and had a vibrant free press. In fact, on balance, the Confederacy was more democratic than some nations in our day. Confederate citizens enjoyed every right that we now enjoy, if not more. The Confederacy sought peace with the federal government and only fought because it was invaded. The Confederate Constitution was patterned after the U.S. Constitution and contained improvements that even some Northern commentators acknowledged were praiseworthy.

Yes, the Confederacy permitted slavery, but it left the door open for the admission of free states and for the abolition of slavery at the state level. Let’s keep in mind, too, that the American colonies permitted slavery for decades, that the United States permitted slavery for over half a century, that several Northern states made huge fortunes from the slave trade, and that many of our founding fathers were slaveholders, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Madison, John Rutledge, George Mason, and Benjamin Franklin. Let’s also keep in mind that most Confederate citizens did not own slaves, and that by 1864 key Confederate leaders were prepared to abolish slavery.

I agree with the sentiments that former Confederate army officer Robert Catlett Cave expressed in 1911:

Does the propriety of discussing the causes of the War Between the States belong exclusively to Northern writers and speakers? Did the South, when she laid down her arms, surrender the right to state in self-justification her reasons for taking them up? If not, I fail to see how it can be improper, when perpetuating the memory of the Confederate dead, at least to attempt to correct false and injurious representations of their aims and deeds and to hand down their achievements to posterity as worthy of honorable remembrance. (The Men in Gray, pp. 11-12)



The Civil War was NOT about slavery.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 
The war had its origin in the fractious issue of slavery, especially the expansion of slavery into the western territories


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

....

wikipedia ftw. :silly:
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly, change your Stainless Banner image--this thread is a pain to keep scrolling across!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catseye
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Geez. All I did was point out the mildly interesting factoid that other countries are displaying the Confederate flag. Now I feel like the guy who shot the Archduke Ferdinand.

:huh:
"How awful a knowledge of the truth can be." -- Sophocles, Oedipus Rex
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
The reasons for the formation of the Confederacy still exist to this day, and slavery was no more a part of the problem then than it is now.

The problem is northern arrogance. Always was, always will be.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Catseye
Jul 12 2015, 10:10 AM
Geez. All I did was point out the mildly interesting factoid that other countries are displaying the Confederate flag. Now I feel like the guy who shot the Archduke Ferdinand.
Next week we'll be discussing Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, and finally answering the age-old question, 'what the f*ck's all that about, then?'
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Jul 12 2015, 11:24 AM
Next week we'll be discussing Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, and finally answering the age-old question, 'what the f*ck's all that about, then?'
What's it all about, Alfie?
Is it just for the moment we live?
What's it all about when you sort it out, Alfie?
Are we meant to take more than we give
or are we meant to be kind?
And if only fools are kind, Alfie,
then I guess it is wise to be cruel.
And if life belongs only to the strong, Alfie,
what will you lend on an old golden rule?
As sure as I believe there's a heaven above, Alfie,
I know there's something much more,
something even non-believers can believe in.
I believe in love, Alfie.
Without true love we just exist, Alfie.
Until you find the love you've missed you're nothing, Alfie.
When you walk let your heart lead the way
and you'll find love any day, Alfie, Alfie.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
TomK
Jul 12 2015, 08:57 AM
Jolly, change your Stainless Banner image--this thread is a pain to keep scrolling across!
Get a real browser, yah wanker...
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly
Jul 12 2015, 02:48 PM
TomK
Jul 12 2015, 08:57 AM
Jolly, change your Stainless Banner image--this thread is a pain to keep scrolling across!
Get a real browser, yah wanker...
JUST LIKE the civil war. We ask you Southerners PLEASE knock it off with slavery--but NOOOOOO, you have to have the Mandingo thing going on (no doubt it was your southern women--"wanting a lot more than the Southern gentleman could offer" behind it all ;)) that kept slavery alive.

I forget where I was going with this. Anyway, we won the war. :)

Troy and Sons Bourbon seems to be the cause on my side of this argument. :D









Edited by TomK, Jul 12 2015, 03:02 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
I might be too late to chime in here, but I think there's a whole lot of dumb inherent in this particular discussion. In no particular order:

  • I know people up in Boston—this is a specific example—who can talk circles around you when it comes to Rev War trivia, but quite literally do not know how to pronounce the name "Antietam." Part of the problem with discussing the Civil War and slavery is that a great many Americans are woefully ignorant about their own history. I hate to pull this card but it's true: if you're not from around here, it might be hard to understand what the big deal is all about.

  • Was the Civil War about states' rights or slavery? Two things: (1) look at the origin of slavery in America. Did the Virginia Company shift from a labor force consisting of indentured servants to slaves because they woke up one day and decided they hate the black man, or to save on costs? A big part of it was economics; the hate came later. (For proof, look up Lafayette's relationship with George Washington and their discussion on slavery; we had a real shot at freeing the slaves in the late 1700s.) (2) Look up John C. Frémont and the Missouri Emancipation. Those of you who think Lincoln was a benevolent sage who rallied against slavery because it was bad need a history lesson. It was a hell of a lot more complicated than that, for the North and the South.

  • What does the flag mean? When a couple of jackasses flew theirs at my high school graduation, there's not a single person in the audience or on the football field who didn't understand that the flag meant redneck pride. And you know what, there's nothing wrong with that. If you like NASCAR, huntin' & fishin' and country music, good chance you have the stars and bars somewhere in your home. So what? It only gets complicated because the assholes who dressed up like Casper and terrorized black communities last century also used the flag. If white supremacists start listening to and playing in public Van Halen songs, does that mean we should outlaw Van Halen? If they use tea & crumpets as a rallying symbol, do we start shutting down Teavana shops nationwide? How alarmist is that?


Personally, I think the flag is silly at times. Also, yes, seeing it on the back window of a pickup does tell you some things about the driver, but race doesn't really factor into that if you see it displayed with any regularity.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 6