PDA

View Full Version : While We're Doing The Flags, Here Are Some Other Confederate Things We Should Get Rid



Captain Obvious
07-09-2015, 10:54 AM
Much like ISIS, progressives aim to just destroy the artifacts of the infidels.

Chock full of "racist" and "traitor" and all the newly-found progressive memes.

You have to scroll through the article for the stuff.

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3047854/while-were-doing-the-flags-here-are-some-other-confederate-things-we-should-get-rid-of?cid=ps101coexist


In the wake of the shootings in Charleston, an amazing national groundswell of support has built for removing the Confederate flags that have flown from state capitals throughout the South. Businesses like Amazon, eBay, and Walmart (http://www.fastcompany.com/3047785/fast-feed/ebay-bans-confederate-flag-sales) have banned the selling of flags and flag-related material. The country's largest flag maker has said it will stop making the flag entirely (http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-major-u-flag-maker-stop-making-confederate-184108179%E2%80%94finance.html). And guerrilla protestors around the country are starting to deface the statues honoring Confederate generals and politicians (http://www.fastcoexist.com/3047775/protestors-are-painting-over-confederate-statues-with-the-words-black-lives-matter).

But the reach of the Confederacy—and the almost-insane tone-deafness of organizations and politicians who celebrate its history—goes well beyond the flag and hides in other insidious ways throughout the region. Here are just a few examples:

Kappa Sigma (http://kappasigma.org/) is a fraternity founded at the University of Virginia in 1869 (note, after the South had lost the Civil War). Today, it boasts more than 18,000 collegiate members and many more alumni, including North Carolina Senator Richard Burr (http://kappasigma.org/prominent-alumni/). It also boasts one—and only one—honorary member: Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, racist, and traitor to America.

Cigar
07-09-2015, 11:00 AM
https://cwcrossroads.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/confederate-flag-you-lost-get-over-it.jpg?w=572&h=363

Ravens Fan
07-09-2015, 11:03 AM
Yup, because erasing history is going to end racism. As long as people can't see those reminders, they will forget that they hate each other. Lol

Archer0915
07-09-2015, 11:35 AM
https://cwcrossroads.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/confederate-flag-you-lost-get-over-it.jpg?w=572&h=363

Nobody here lost anything, those people are dead. Sadly people still blame whites for the acts of blacks selling other blacks into slavery! You know the continent that still practices slavery? Do, also note, that until a black man went to court over it slaves were not permanent property!



When Anthony Johnson was released from servitude, he was legally recognized as a "free Negro." He developed a successful farm. In 1651 he owned 250 acres, and the services of four white and one black indentured servants. In 1653, John Casor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Casor), a black indentured servant whose contract Johnson appeared to have bought in the early 1640s, approached Captain Goldsmith, claiming his indenture had expired seven years earlier and that he was being held illegally by Johnson. A neighbor, Robert Parker, intervened and persuaded Johnson to free Casor.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/Court_Ruling_on_Anthony_Johnson_and_His_Servant.pn g/220px-Court_Ruling_on_Anthony_Johnson_and_His_Servant.pn g (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Court_Ruling_on_Anthony_Johnson_and_His_Serva nt.png)

Handwritten court ruling.
March 8, 1655


Parker offered Casor work, and he signed a term of indenture to the planter. Johnson sued Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654 for the return of Casor. The court initially found in favor of Parker, but Johnson appealed. In 1655, the court reversed its ruling.[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)#cite_note-Walker-10)Finding that Anthony Johnson still "owned" John Casor, the court ordered that he be returned with the court dues paid by Robert Parker.[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)#cite_note-Sweet2005-11)
This was the first instance of a judicial determination in the Thirteen Colonies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Colonies) holding that a person who had committed no crime could be held in servitude for life.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)#cite_note-Project-12)[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)#cite_note-Danver-13)[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)#cite_note-Kozlowski-14)[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)#cite_note-Conway-15)[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)#cite_note-Toppin-16)
Though Casor was the first person declared a slave in a civil case, there were both black and white indentured servants sentenced to lifetime servitude before him. Many historians describe indentured servant John Punch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Punch_(slave)) as the first documented slave in America, as he was sentenced to life in servitude as punishment for escaping in 1640.[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)#cite_note-17)[18] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)#cite_note-18) The Punch case was significant because it established the disparity between his sentence as a negro and that of the two European indentured servants who escaped with him (one described as Dutch and one as a Scotchman). It is the first documented case in Virginia of an African sentenced to lifetime servitude. It is considered one of the first legal cases to make a racial distinction between black and white indentured servants.[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)#cite_note-LLC-19)[20] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)#cite_note-20)

So suck it @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294)! Blacks sold the blacks into slavery and a black man made it a permanent thing. Note he had more white than black slaves.

Educate yourself.

Slavery was not a practice I approve of but the fact is, you want to hate whites for it. Blame your own ancestors, they still do it.

Cigar
07-09-2015, 11:37 AM
https://cwcrossroads.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/confederate-flag-you-lost-get-over-it.jpg?w=572&h=363

Archer0915
07-09-2015, 11:42 AM
https://cwcrossroads.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/confederate-flag-you-lost-get-over-it.jpg?w=572&h=363

For me? I got no skin in it! My family came from Yankee farmers in PA and Native Americans. I can also discuss reality.

del
07-09-2015, 02:50 PM
fucking progressives

lol

Cigar
07-09-2015, 02:52 PM
For me? I got no skin in it! My family came from Yankee farmers in PA and Native Americans. I can also discuss reality.

It's good the your Family was allowed to have a Farm ... that Flag wasn't into that, the Flay was in forcing Slaves to work your Family Farm

Archer0915
07-09-2015, 03:41 PM
It's good the your Family was allowed to have a Farm ... that Flag wasn't into that, the Flay was in forcing Slaves to work your Family Farm

http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/03/black_slave_owners_did_they_exist.html

Really?

These guys were, to put it bluntly, opportunists par excellence: As Noah Andre Trudeau (https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316853445/ref=as_li_ss_til?tag=root04c-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=0316853445&adid=1FTZYSM1FG8CKMAN44FE&) and James G. Hollandsworth Jr. (https://www.amazon.com/dp/0807123366/ref=as_li_ss_til?tag=root04c-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=0807123366&adid=1F9PJ65MQNNWTY6ACS6B&) explain, once the war broke out, some of these same black men formed 14 companies of a militia composed of 440 men and were organized by the governor in May 1861 into “the Native Guards, Louisiana,” swearing to fight to defend the Confederacy. Although given no combat role, the Guards—reaching a peak of 1,000 volunteers—became the first Civil War unit to appoint black officers.


From the late 1700’s records show that there were free blacks living in South Carolina (Schweninger, 1990, 20). By 1860, there were thousands of “free persons of color” living in the state, and hundreds of them owned black slaves. Why did blacks own slaves? How and when did this practice begin?

http://www.teachingushistory.org/lessons/BlackSlaveOwnersinCharleston.html


This is one of the largest plantations in the United States built by and for free blacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_people_of_color). The land was granted to Louis Metoyer, who had the "Big House" built beginning about 1832. He was a son of Marie Therese Coincoin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Therese_Metoyer), a former slave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave) who became a wealthy businesswoman in the area, and Claude Thomas Pierre Métoyer. The house was completed in 1833 after Louis' death by his son Jean Baptiste Louis Metoyer. The Metoyers were free people of color (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_people_of_color) for four generations before the American Civil War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War).

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

My family were either poor sharecroppers (Slaves) or Natives (treated as animals by the Yankees). You on the other hand are dead wrong as usual. None of my ancestors were slave owners but odds are pretty good that some of your were.

It is time you and those like you accept reality, look in the mirror and see the race that causes your problems.

Cigar
07-09-2015, 03:45 PM
http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/03/black_slave_owners_did_they_exist.html

Really?




http://www.teachingushistory.org/lessons/BlackSlaveOwnersinCharleston.html



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

My family were either poor sharecroppers (Slaves) or Natives (treated as animals by the Yankees). You on the other hand are dead wrong as usual. None of my ancestors were slave owners but odds are pretty good that some of your were.

It is time you and those like you accept reality, look in the mirror and see the race that causes your problems.

Dude, you need help in your reading ... once again. :laugh: Try reading it again.


http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Cigar http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1170235#post1170235)


It's good that your Family was allowed to have a Farm ... that Flag wasn't into that, the Flag was into forcing Slaves to work your Family Farm.

McCool
07-09-2015, 03:51 PM
I'll tell you right now that I'm sick and tired of this flag, too! Talk about the symbol of international hate, greed, and bigotry!

11966

Archer0915
07-09-2015, 04:07 PM
Dude, you need help in your reading ... once again. :laugh: Try reading it again.

Actually, Dude you are still dead wrong. You could be free and black with slave workers (I showed you that) or free and black with a plantation. Whites could be the same way.

magicmike
07-09-2015, 04:59 PM
Yup, because erasing history is going to end racism. As long as people can't see those reminders, they will forget that they hate each other. Lol

It may not erase history but it might dull the pain of what happened.


The Confederate Flag, along with statues of traiters, has no place on government property.

Ravens Fan
07-09-2015, 05:06 PM
It may not erase history but it might dull the pain of what happened.


The Confederate Flag, along with statues of traiters, has no place on government property.

They absolutely have a place on Government property. I can agree with taking the flags down from state houses and courthouses, but that is it. The rest are a part of American history, like it or not. If we forget where we came from, we will never know where we are going.

And the soldiers of the Confederate Army were far from traitors. They were just as American as you or I, if not more... they put their money where their mouths were.

del
07-09-2015, 05:30 PM
They absolutely have a place on Government property. I can agree with taking the flags down from state houses and courthouses, but that is it. The rest are a part of American history, like it or not. If we forget where we came from, we will never know where we are going.

And the soldiers of the Confederate Army were far from traitors. They were just as American as you or I, if not more... they put their money where their mouths were.

so are hitler, stalin and tojo

Archer0915
07-09-2015, 05:35 PM
so are hitler, stalin and tojo

They are not Americans.

del
07-09-2015, 05:36 PM
They are not Americans.

neither were the confederates

Archer0915
07-09-2015, 05:42 PM
neither were the confederates

Actually they were just as much American as Yankees. There is no convincing you of this but if you care to discuss it...

Many (most, all?) officers were generally west point graduates. Many of the enlisted were just people defending their homes and were just as ignorant as people are today. All they knew is that the north was the enemy and the north was infringing on them.

PolWatch
07-09-2015, 05:46 PM
Actually they were just as much American as Yankees. There is no convincing you of this but if you care to discuss it...

Many (most, all?) officers were generally west point graduates. Many of the enlisted were just people defending their homes and were just as ignorant as people are today. All they knew is that the north was the enemy and the north was infringing on them.

If they were Americans, why did Lee and others have to reapply for citizenship after the surrender?

PolWatch
07-09-2015, 05:47 PM
FYI:
On October 2, 1865, the same day that Lee was inaugurated as president of Washington College in Lexington, Virginia, he signed his Amnesty Oath, thereby complying fully with the provision of Johnson's proclamation. But Lee was not pardoned, nor was his citizenship restored. And the fact that he had submitted an amnesty oath at all was soon lost to history.
More than a hundred years later, in 1970, an archivist at the National Archives discovered Lee's Amnesty Oath among State Department records (reported in Prologue, Winter 1970). Apparently Secretary of State William H. Seward had given Lee's application to a friend as a souvenir, and the State Department had pigeonholed the oath.
In 1975, Lee's full rights of citizenship were posthumously restored by a joint congressional resolution effective June 13, 1865
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2005/spring/piece-lee.html

magicmike
07-09-2015, 05:49 PM
They absolutely have a place on Government property. I can agree with taking the flags down from state houses and courthouses, but that is it. The rest are a part of American history, like it or not. If we forget where we came from, we will never know where we are going.

And the soldiers of the Confederate Army were far from traitors. They were just as American as you or I, if not more... they put their money where their mouths were.

Shall we erect statues of Hitler in our state capitals to remind us of WW2? He is equally as much a reminder of the past as Lee and Jefferson Davis. Those are the traitors.

magicmike
07-09-2015, 05:50 PM
When you secede, you give up your rights of citizenship.

Ravens Fan
07-09-2015, 07:13 PM
Shall we erect statues of Hitler in our state capitals to remind us of WW2? He is equally as much a reminder of the past as Lee and Jefferson Davis. Those are the traitors.

Hitler is not a fair comparison at all. He was not an American. WW2 was not fought on American soil between brothers and neighbors.

Captain Obvious
07-09-2015, 07:14 PM
Hitler is not a fair comparison at all. He was not an American. WW2 was not fought on American soil between brothers and neighbors.

Bludgeon them with logic.

Ravens Fan
07-09-2015, 07:16 PM
When you secede, you give up your rights of citizenship.

I disagree, as did many in that time period.


http://vaudc.org/confed_vets.html


Southern vets were respected throughout the land to a large degree because they led the charge for unity. On its face, this may seem ironic. But anyone who has been to war understands the emotions at work in coming to terms with a foe who was an admirable adversary.

"Soldiers served as key agents in reconciliation because they had developed respect for one another in war...Veterans of both blue and gray displayed greater regard for the feelings of the other side than the non-combatants of either section," concluded Foster.

The former enemies had appeared together first at Bunker Hill in 1875. Then in 1881, Union vets decorated the graves of Southerners during Mardi Gras in New Orleans. Some 24 major Blue-Gray reunions were held between 1881 and 1887.

Sensing the time was right, Century Magazine published a three-year series on the [War Between the States] lasting from 1884-87. The "Century War Series" was a sensational success, North and South. It was quickly collected and published as a book.

Rebs and Yanks began meeting at Gettysburg as early as 1882. The 50th anniversary of Gettysburg in 1913 drew 8,000 Confederate and 44,000 Union vets. Dedication of the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park in September 1895 saw 40,000 veterans from six different vet groups converge.

That same year, Chicago dedicated a monument to Confederate veterans and so did New York two years later. President William McKinley, a seasoned Union vet, while speaking in Atlanta in 1898, declared care of Confederate graves to be a national obligation.

As far back as 1887, United Confederate Veterans (UCV) Commander John B. Gordon had longed "to see one more war, that we might march under the stars and stripes, shoulder to shoulder, against a common foe." That opportunity came in 1898 with the war against Spain. When it did, whole UCV camps as well as many individuals volunteered to fight.

Proclaimed the UCV Historical Committee: "These dead, at least, belong to us all. The last hateful memory that could divide our country is buried with them. About their graves kneels a new nation."

The very same men who had fought for their states so many years ago were the first to reconcile their region to the new nationalism sweeping the land. No group of veterans could claim a greater contribution to their country.

I apologize to the Mods for such a long quote, but it was necessary.

Ravens Fan
07-09-2015, 07:25 PM
When you secede, you give up your rights of citizenship.

You should probably give this a read too. It goes into what the law says about the subject.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/04/14/confederate-soldiers-are-american-veterans-by-act-of-congress/

BB-35
07-09-2015, 07:51 PM
https://cwcrossroads.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/confederate-flag-you-lost-get-over-it.jpg?w=572&h=363
750,000 dead on both sides.

So tell me,Who 'won' again?

BB-35
07-09-2015, 07:57 PM
Actually, Dude you are still dead wrong. You could be free and black with slave workers (I showed you that) or free and black with a plantation. Whites could be the same way.
My family was up in NY and PA then,they were dirt poor farmers who had no slaves,but made up for it by having a lot of young'uns's

BB-35
07-09-2015, 07:59 PM
It may not erase history but it might dull the pain of what happened.


The Confederate Flag, along with statues of traiters, has no place on government property.
there are no statues of traitors...

BB-35
07-09-2015, 08:01 PM
neither were the confederates
Forget what the 'A' in CSA stood for,jackwagon?

Mister D
07-09-2015, 08:05 PM
Yup, because erasing history is going to end racism. As long as people can't see those reminders, they will forget that they hate each other. Lol

I really am starting to think that these controversies are fed by a white power structure that believes (with abundant evidence, apparently) that blacks are stupid enough to believe this "victory" has any real meaning. They remain at the bottom of the social pyramid in every respect and are out competed even by poor Hispanics who bring nothing to this country save the clothes on their backs.

OTOH, attacks like this I also believe are aimed at European America generally. It won't stop with the Confederate flag. How long will it be before it's an outrage to have a school attended by blacks named after a racist who owned slaves like Washington, Jefferson et al?

BB-35
07-09-2015, 08:08 PM
If they were Americans, why did Lee and others have to reapply for citizenship after the surrender?
Lee never had his citizenship restored while he was alive....he just signed an oath of amnesty

Mister D
07-09-2015, 08:13 PM
neither were the confederates

Right. It's not like it's called the Civil War or something.


You can't make this shit up...

del
07-09-2015, 08:55 PM
Forget what the 'A' in CSA stood for,jackwagon?

nope, it stood for asshole and it still does

del
07-09-2015, 08:56 PM
Right. It's not like it's called the Civil War or something.


You can't make this shit up...

you're doing fine.

Archer0915
07-09-2015, 08:58 PM
@OP: http://www.examiner.com/article/memphis-city-council-unanimously-votes-to-dig-up-confederate-general-wife

BB-35
07-10-2015, 12:58 AM
nope, it stood for asshole and it still does
Obtuse bastage,aintcha?

Cthulhu
07-10-2015, 02:27 AM
I think I'm gonna save my pennies and buy a a Confederate flag sometime.

Sent from my evil, digital homunculus.

donttread
07-10-2015, 05:38 AM
Much like ISIS, progressives aim to just destroy the artifacts of the infidels.

Chock full of "racist" and "traitor" and all the newly-found progressive memes.

You have to scroll through the article for the stuff.

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3047854/while-were-doing-the-flags-here-are-some-other-confederate-things-we-should-get-rid-of?cid=ps101coexist

Good grief! History is history. How many flags out there, including the Stars and Stripes ( just stripes now days) didn't represent oppression to some at some point.?

magicmike
07-10-2015, 10:41 AM
Hitler is not a fair comparison at all. He was not an American. WW2 was not fought on American soil between brothers and neighbors.

Using your twisted reasoning, Lee wasn't an American either.

Tahuyaman
07-10-2015, 10:46 AM
Shall we erect statues of Hitler in our state capitals to remind us of WW2? He is equally as much a reminder of the past as Lee and Jefferson Davis. Those are the traitors.


You just may be the most ignorant person here. That's an accomplishment. You have some solid competition, but you may be at the top of that steaming pile.


Posting in bad faith. Please don't insult other members.

magicmike
07-10-2015, 10:49 AM
I disagree, as did many in that time period.


http://vaudc.org/confed_vets.html



I apologize to the Mods for such a long quote, but it was necessary.

Not only was it too long, it was unnecessary. You're talking about the troops, not their commanders. While all surrendered their citizenship, it was only restored to the troops, not the commanders, after the war.

http://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/after_slavery_educator/unit_one_documents/document_two
The following classes of persons are excepted from the benefits of this Proclamation:
1st. All who are or shall have been pretended civil or diplomatic officers, or otherwise domestic or foreign agents, of the pretended confederate government;

2d. All who left judicial stations under the United States to aid the rebellion;

3d. All who shall have been military or naval officers of said pretended confederate government above the rank of colonel in the army or lieutenant in the navy;

4th. All who left seats in the Congress of the United States to aid the rebellion;

5th. All who resigned or tendered resignations of their commissions in the army or navy of the United States to evade duty in resisting the rebellion;
6th. All who have engaged in any way in treating otherwise lawfully as prisoners of war persons found in the United States service, as officers, soldiers, seamen, or in other capacities;

7th. All persons who have been, or are, absentees from the United States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion;

8th. All military and naval officers in the rebel service, who were educated by the government in the Military Academy at West Point or the United States Naval Academy;

9th. All persons who held the pretended offices of governors of states in insurrection against the United States;

10th. All persons who left their homes within the jurisdiction and protection of the United States, and passed beyond the federal military lines into pretended confederate states for the purpose of aiding the rebellion;

11th. All persons who have been engaged in the destruction of the commerce of the United States upon the high seas, and all persons who have made raids into the United States from Canada, or been engaged in destroying the commerce of the United States upon the lakes and rivers that separate the British Provinces from the United States;
12th. All persons who, at the time when they seek to obtain the benefits hereof by taking the oath herein prescribed, are in military, naval, or civil confinement, or custody, or under the bonds of civil, military, or naval authorities, or agents of the United States as prisoners of war, or persons detained for offences of any kind, either before or after conviction;

13th. All persons who have voluntarily participated in said rebellion, and the estimated value of whose taxable property is over twenty thousand dollars;


14th. All persons who have taken the oath of amnesty as prescribed in the President's Proclamation of December 8th, A. D. 1863, or an oath of allegiance to the government of the United States since the date of said Proclamation, and who have not thenceforward kept and maintained the same inviolate. Provided, That special application may be made to the President for pardon by any person belonging to the excepted classes; and such clemency will be liberally extended as may be consistent with the facts of the case and the peace and dignity of the United States...

As far as Lee? Not while he was Aline.

http://burnpit.legion.org/2011/08/president-ford-restores-robert-e-lees-citizenship-after-100-years

On May 29, 1865 President Andrew Johnson – who succeeded the assassinated Abraham Lincoln – issued a Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon to those former Confederates who participated in the "late Rebellion." This document was a general pardon, but did contain fourteen classes of persons who were barred from the general pardon. These persons, including Lee, were required to make a special application directly to the President.


None received full recognition as veterans until years later, when the status was given them as a conciliatory measure.

So, yes, they all have up their citizenship.

Mods: Sorry that was so long. It was necessary to prove RF wrong, once again.

Lol, his track record of wrongness is approaching Bobs numbers.

Cigar
07-10-2015, 10:55 AM
Black SC Rep. Gives House GOPers A History Lesson On Confederate Flaghttp://a1.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_365,w_652/xyz8hdrwgzymmoeolyl5.jpg

While railing against a House amendment to preserve the display of the Confederate battle flag, Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) on Thursday chose to use an anecdote about Gen. Robert E. Lee to convince conservatives to stand down.

The congressman displayed the flag next to him as he condemned a surprise move by House GOPers led by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) to defeat amendments that would ristrict the display of the symbol on federal grounds such as national parks.


"The Confederacy had three flags. This was never one of them," Clyburn said. "This is a flag, the Confederate battle flag of the army of Northern Virginia, Robert E. Lee's army."


"And when Robert E. Lee surrendered he asked all of his followers to furl this flag. Stow it away, he said. Put it in your attics," Clyburn continued. "He refused to be buried in his Confederate uniform. His family refused to allow anyone dressed in the confederate uniform to attend his funeral."


"Why? Because Robert E. Lee said he considered this emblem to be a symbol of treason. Yet, Calvert puts up an amendment that we're going to vote on this afternoon to ask us to allow this flag to be sold and displayed in our national parks."


He urged his colleagues to defeat the amendment.

magicmike
07-10-2015, 10:59 AM
Oh, snap!

Cigar
07-10-2015, 11:04 AM
Oh, snap!

I bet the The Heritage Experts Experts didn't know that ... :laugh:

It must really sting knowing it to took a Black Man to Educate them on their Heritage :biglaugh:

magicmike
07-10-2015, 11:06 AM
I bet the The Heritage Experts Experts didn't know that ... :laugh:

It must really sting knowing it to took a Black Man to Educate them on their Heritage :biglaugh:

Why? Obama educated them all the time!

Bob
07-10-2015, 11:12 AM
Mods: Sorry that was so long. It was necessary to prove RF wrong, once again.

Lol, his track record of wrongness is approaching @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013)s numbers.

Funny that i know nothing of my so called wrong numbers.

Who says your numbers are correct? magicmike .... YOU?

nic34
07-10-2015, 11:14 AM
You just may be the most ignorant person here. That's an accomplishment. You have some solid competition, but you may be at the top of that steaming pile.

And this post just topped them all in irrelevancy....

magicmike
07-10-2015, 11:20 AM
And this post just topped them all in irrelevancy....

Nearly every one of his posts are bad faith and insulting. I've reported them but nothing's ever done.

Ravens Fan
07-10-2015, 11:30 AM
Not only was it too long, it was unnecessary. You're talking about the troops, not their commanders. While all surrendered their citizenship, it was only restored to the troops, not the commanders, after the war.

http://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/after_slavery_educator/unit_one_documents/document_two
The following classes of persons are excepted from the benefits of this Proclamation:
1st. All who are or shall have been pretended civil or diplomatic officers, or otherwise domestic or foreign agents, of the pretended confederate government;

2d. All who left judicial stations under the United States to aid the rebellion;

3d. All who shall have been military or naval officers of said pretended confederate government above the rank of colonel in the army or lieutenant in the navy;

4th. All who left seats in the Congress of the United States to aid the rebellion;

5th. All who resigned or tendered resignations of their commissions in the army or navy of the United States to evade duty in resisting the rebellion;
6th. All who have engaged in any way in treating otherwise lawfully as prisoners of war persons found in the United States service, as officers, soldiers, seamen, or in other capacities;

7th. All persons who have been, or are, absentees from the United States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion;

8th. All military and naval officers in the rebel service, who were educated by the government in the Military Academy at West Point or the United States Naval Academy;

9th. All persons who held the pretended offices of governors of states in insurrection against the United States;

10th. All persons who left their homes within the jurisdiction and protection of the United States, and passed beyond the federal military lines into pretended confederate states for the purpose of aiding the rebellion;

11th. All persons who have been engaged in the destruction of the commerce of the United States upon the high seas, and all persons who have made raids into the United States from Canada, or been engaged in destroying the commerce of the United States upon the lakes and rivers that separate the British Provinces from the United States;
12th. All persons who, at the time when they seek to obtain the benefits hereof by taking the oath herein prescribed, are in military, naval, or civil confinement, or custody, or under the bonds of civil, military, or naval authorities, or agents of the United States as prisoners of war, or persons detained for offences of any kind, either before or after conviction;

13th. All persons who have voluntarily participated in said rebellion, and the estimated value of whose taxable property is over twenty thousand dollars;


14th. All persons who have taken the oath of amnesty as prescribed in the President's Proclamation of December 8th, A. D. 1863, or an oath of allegiance to the government of the United States since the date of said Proclamation, and who have not thenceforward kept and maintained the same inviolate. Provided, That special application may be made to the President for pardon by any person belonging to the excepted classes; and such clemency will be liberally extended as may be consistent with the facts of the case and the peace and dignity of the United States...

As far as Lee? Not while he was Aline.

http://burnpit.legion.org/2011/08/president-ford-restores-robert-e-lees-citizenship-after-100-years

On May 29, 1865 President Andrew Johnson – who succeeded the assassinated Abraham Lincoln – issued a Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon to those former Confederates who participated in the "late Rebellion." This document was a general pardon, but did contain fourteen classes of persons who were barred from the general pardon. These persons, including Lee, were required to make a special application directly to the President.


None received full recognition as veterans until years later, when the status was given them as a conciliatory measure.

So, yes, they all have up their citizenship.

Mods: Sorry that was so long. It was necessary to prove RF wrong, once again.

Lol, his track record of wrongness is approaching @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013)s numbers.

Ok, yes the original pardon that was issued to stop the war only applied to the soldiers. The exempted classes had to request pardon directly from the President. Lee did that, but his request never made it to the President. He was since officially pardoned.

http://burnpit.legion.org/2011/08/president-ford-restores-robert-e-lees-citizenship-after-100-years

Jefferson Davis has also been pardoned

http://news.yahoo.com/pardon-jefferson-davis-14th-amendment-163609181.html

And if that's not enough, President Andrew Jackson went ahead and just extended the pardon to the entire Confederacy

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72360

Your argument that they gave up their citizenship means nothing. They are Americans.

Mister D
07-10-2015, 11:51 AM
Ok, yes the original pardon that was issued to stop the war only applied to the soldiers. The exempted classes had to request pardon directly from the President. Lee did that, but his request never made it to the President. He was since officially pardoned.

http://burnpit.legion.org/2011/08/president-ford-restores-robert-e-lees-citizenship-after-100-years

Jefferson Davis has also been pardoned

http://news.yahoo.com/pardon-jefferson-davis-14th-amendment-163609181.html

And if that's not enough, President Andrew Jackson went ahead and just extended the pardon to the entire Confederacy

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72360

Your argument that they gave up their citizenship means nothing. They are Americans.

It's truly bizarre. What were they if not Americans?

Tahuyaman
07-10-2015, 12:25 PM
Black SC Rep. Gives House GOPers A History Lesson On Confederate Flag

http://a1.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_365,w_652/xyz8hdrwgzymmoeolyl5.jpg

While railing against a House amendment to preserve the display of the Confederate battle flag, Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) on Thursday chose to use an anecdote about Gen. Robert E. Lee to convince conservatives to stand down.

The congressman displayed the flag next to him as he condemned a surprise move by House GOPers led by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) to defeat amendments that would ristrict the display of the symbol on federal grounds such as national parks.


"The Confederacy had three flags. This was never one of them," Clyburn said. "This is a flag, the Confederate battle flag of the army of Northern Virginia, Robert E. Lee's army."


"And when Robert E. Lee surrendered he asked all of his followers to furl this flag. Stow it away, he said. Put it in your attics," Clyburn continued. "He refused to be buried in his Confederate uniform. His family refused to allow anyone dressed in the confederate uniform to attend his funeral."


"Why? Because Robert E. Lee said he consideredm this emblem to be a symbol of treason. Yet, Calvert puts up an amendment that we're going to vote on this afternoon to ask us to allow this flag to be sold and displayed in our national parks."


He urged his colleagues to defeat the amendment.

Its quite appropriate for a Democrat to lecture Republicans on this issue. After all, the confederacy is owned by the Democrat party.

Tahuyaman
07-10-2015, 12:26 PM
And this post just topped them all in irrelevancy....


Not really.

Tahuyaman
07-10-2015, 12:29 PM
Nearly every one of his posts are bad faith and insulting. I've reported them but nothing's ever done.


Thats because calling attention to facts is not considered bad faith posting.

Yes, sometimes I throw out the insult directed at a select few, but most often I am providing facts. The more you claim facts are a violation of some code, the more credibility you lose with those who are collecting your complaints.

Tahuyaman
07-10-2015, 12:40 PM
Here's more facts. A Democrat governor fought for the display of that flag and A Republucan just took it down. But today's Democrats conveniently forgot that.

Safety
07-10-2015, 12:41 PM
Its quite appropriate for a Democrat to lecture Republicans on this issue. After all, the confederacy is owned by the Democrat party.

Interesting, there are many supporters of the confederacy here, I don't think they are democrats....

Bob
07-10-2015, 12:44 PM
Its quite appropriate for a Democrat to lecture Republicans on this issue. After all, the confederacy is owned by the Democrat party.

The more they blast the Confederates, the more they blast themselves.

Tahuyaman
07-10-2015, 12:45 PM
The hypocrisy of Democrats goes back more than a decade at least

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/205416/dems-need-houseclean-deroy-murdock

Bob
07-10-2015, 12:47 PM
Interesting, there are many supporters of the confederacy here, I don't think they are democrats....

Democrats make a living out of trashing republicans.

My defense is pro Confederacy. And had they seceded over cotton, the same cause remains. They could secede over water or tobacco and it still is the same thing to me.

To you, it is over slaves.

When it is pointed out to you that Democrats owned the slaves, you fight back.

Tahuyaman
07-10-2015, 12:48 PM
Interesting, there are many supporters of the confederacy here, I don't think they are democrats....

Democrat governors are the ones who have fought to celebrate the confederacy. To include governor Bill Clinton.

Safety
07-10-2015, 12:51 PM
Democrats make a living out of trashing republicans.

My defense is pro Confederacy. And had they seceded over cotton, the same cause remains. They could secede over water or tobacco and it still is the same thing to me.

To you, it is over slaves.

When it is pointed out to you that Democrats owned the slaves, you fight back.

Based on your post history, it does not surprise me you are pro-confederacy.


They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man, Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man...

-Alexander H. Stephens V.P of the Confederacy

Ball has been served back to you.

Safety
07-10-2015, 12:53 PM
Democrat governors are the ones who have fought to celebrate the confederacy. To include governor Bill Clinton.

There have been discussions upon discussions about what transpired in 1964, but yet here you are. See the response I posted to Bob below.

Bob
07-10-2015, 12:56 PM
The hypocrisy of Democrats goes back more than a decade at least

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/205416/dems-need-houseclean-deroy-murdock

I knew most of that. I suspect no Democrat will read it. If I am wrong, what Democrat will blast Democrats?

This Clinton stuff was not all that long ago.

Tahuyaman
07-10-2015, 01:00 PM
There have been discussions upon discussions about what transpired in 1964, but yet here you are. See the response I posted to Bob below.


There is a long history of racist Democrat governors in the southern states. Ross Barnett to Fritz Hollings and even Bill Clinton.

Safety
07-10-2015, 01:02 PM
There is a long history of racist Democrat governors in the southern states. Ross Barnett to Fritz Hollings and even Bill Clinton.

You should look up the term "dixiecrat".

Tahuyaman
07-10-2015, 01:02 PM
I knew most of that. I suspect no Democrat will read it. If I am wrong, what Democrat will blast Democrats?

This Clinton stuff was not all that long ago.


George Wallace, Ross Barnett, Fritz Hollings, Bill Clinton. All confederate supporting racist Democrats. One can point out dozens of others.

They even have Democrat Parti icons like Robert Byrd on record as late as the early 1970s bragging about his former big shot status in the KKK and saying it was needed then more than ever.

Many Democrats are quite proud of being a blatant racist.

Ivan88
07-10-2015, 01:03 PM
There is a long history of racist Democrat governors in the southern states. Ross Barnett to Fritz Hollings and even Bill Clinton.There is a long history in the US of most politicians being wrongly prejudiced against people with the wrong skin color, not enough wealth and desire for freedom, not slavish enough.

Tahuyaman
07-10-2015, 01:06 PM
You should look up the term "dixiecrat".


One should study about about all the racist Southern Democrats throughout our history. Every era of our history is represented by these people.

Tahuyaman
07-10-2015, 01:08 PM
There is a long history in the US of most politicians being wrongly prejudiced against people with the wrong skin color, not enough wealth and desire for freedom, not slavish enough.


And Democrats are far and away the most represented.

Safety
07-10-2015, 01:12 PM
One should study about about all the racist Southern Democrats throughout our history. Every era of our history is represented by these people.

I agree, then they will realize that the name designation like Democrat is just a place holder, social conservative ideology is where the racism is constant.

Bob
07-10-2015, 01:13 PM
Based on your post history, it does not surprise me you are pro-confederacy.

Ball has been served back to you.

I realize you intend to act juvenile, I totally get that. (the claim I am a lousy poster on this issue)

I have been clear on the confederacy for years now.

First I compare it to the revolution.

We do not call General Washington later president, a traitor. We do not spend day upon day beating the man up. We don't beat up Jefferson nor these others who openly owned slaves. (12 in all)

http://hauensteincenter.org/slaveholding/


Following is the number of slaves each of the 12 slaveholding presidents owned. (CAPS indicate the president owned slaves while serving as the chief executive):[/URL][1]


- GEORGE WASHINGTON (between 250-350 slaves)
- THOMAS JEFFERSON (about 200)
- JAMES MADISON (more than 100)
- JAMES MONROE (about 75)
- ANDREW JACKSON (fewer than 200)
- Martin Van Buren (one)
- William Henry Harrison (eleven)
- JOHN TYLER (about 70)
- JAMES POLK (about 25)
- ZACHARY TAYLOR (fewer than 150)
- Andrew Johnson (probably eight)
- Ulysses S. Grant (probably five)

It’s a commonplace that Abraham Lincoln never trafficked in slaves, much less owned them – indeed, he “freed the slaves.” But here’s the shocker: Although the slave trade had been abolished in the District of Columbia in 1850, slaves inhabited the capital for another 15 years – till the end of the Civil War. Dwell on that thought: Lincoln fought the Civil War in a slave city – the Great Emancipator inhabited a White House staffed by slaves.


I defend the right of the 33 percent of the revolutionaries that waged war against England.

I simply defend the Confederates for a lot of the same reasons.

Your quote sounds as if it was said by Abraham Lincoln in case you don't know.




They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man, Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man...

-Alexander H. Stephens V.P of the Confederacy


First, I don't attach sainthood to the founders. They set up a Government that backed slavery. How else could George Washington had so many slaves and been elected if the founders hated slavery?

When Lincoln was elected, he said much the same as Alexander Stephens said.

[url]http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation (http://www.gvsu.edu/hauenstein/?id=2F05A35A-DBC8-BCD4-9E7BF43B71815521&CFID=8374388&CFTOKEN=68600531#_ftn1))


1. Lincoln wasn’t an abolitionist.
Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong, but there was one big problem: It was sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution. The nation’s founding fathers, who also struggled with how to address slavery, did not explicitly write the word “slavery” in the Constitution, but they did include key clauses protecting the institution, including a fugitive slave clause and the three-fifths clause, which allowed Southern states to count slaves for the purposes of representation in the federal government. In a three-hour speech in Peoria, Illinois, in the fall of 1854, Lincoln presented more clearly than ever his moral, legal and economic opposition to slavery—and then admitted he didn’t know exactly what should be done about it within the current political system.
Abolitionists, by contrast, knew exactly what should be done about it: Slavery should be immediately abolished, and freed slaves should be incorporated as equal members of society. They didn’t care about working within the existing political system, or under the Constitution, which they saw as unjustly protecting slavery and slave owners. Leading abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison called the Constitution “a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell,” and went so far as to burn a copy at a Massachusetts rally in 1854. Though Lincoln saw himself as working alongside the abolitionists on behalf of a common anti-slavery cause, he did not count himself among them. Only with emancipation, and with his support of the eventual 13th Amendment, would Lincoln finally win over the most committed abolitionists.
2. Lincoln didn’t believe blacks should have the same rights as whites.
Though Lincoln argued that the founding fathers’ phrase “All men are created equal” applied to blacks and whites alike, this did not mean he thought they should have the same social and political rights. His views became clear during an 1858 series of debates with his opponent in the Illinois race for U.S. Senate, Stephen Douglas, who had accused him of supporting “negro equality.” In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “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,” he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. What he did believe was that, like all men, blacks had the right to improve their condition in society and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. In this way they were equal to white men, and for this reason slavery was inherently unjust.
Like his views on emancipation, Lincoln’s position on social and political equality for African-Americans would evolve over the course of his presidency. In the last speech of his life, delivered on April 11, 1865, he argued for limited black suffrage, saying that any black man who had served the Union during the Civil War should have the right to vote.
3. Lincoln thought colonization could resolve the issue of slavery.
For much of his career, Lincoln believed that colonization—or the idea that a majority of the African-American population should leave the United States and settle in Africa or Central America—was the best way to confront the problem of slavery. His two great political heroes, Henry Clay and Thomas Jefferson, had both favored colonization; both were slave owners who took issue with aspects of slavery but saw no way that blacks and whites could live together peaceably. Lincoln first publicly advocated for colonization in 1852, and in 1854 said that his first instinct would be “to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia” (the African state founded by the American Colonization Society in 1821).
Nearly a decade later, even as he edited the draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in August of 1862, Lincoln hosted a delegation of freed slaves at the White House in the hopes of getting their support on a plan for colonization in Central America. Given the “differences” between the two races and the hostile attitudes of whites towards blacks, Lincoln argued, it would be “better for us both, therefore, to be separated.” Lincoln’s support of colonization provoked great anger among black leaders and abolitionists, who argued that African-Americans were as much natives of the country as whites, and thus deserved the same rights. After he issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln never again publicly mentioned colonization, and a mention of it in an earlier draft was deleted by the time the final proclamation was issued in January 1863.
4. Emancipation was a military policy.
As much as he hated the institution of slavery, Lincoln didn’t see the Civil War as a struggle to free the nation’s 4 million slaves from bondage. Emancipation, when it came, would have to be gradual, and the important thing to do was to prevent the Southern rebellion from severing the Union permanently in two. But as the Civil War entered its second summer in 1862, thousands of slaves had fled Southern plantations to Union lines, and the federal government didn’t have a clear policy on how to deal with them. Emancipation, Lincoln saw, would further undermine the Confederacy while providing the Union with a new source of manpower to crush the rebellion.
In July 1862 the president presented his draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet. Secretary of State William Seward urged him to wait until things were going better for the Union on the field of battle, or emancipation might look like the last gasp of a nation on the brink of defeat. Lincoln agreed and returned to edit the draft over the summer. On September 17 the bloody Battle of Antietam gave Lincoln the opportunity he needed. He issued the preliminary proclamation to his cabinet on September 22, and it was published the following day. As a cheering crowd gathered at the White House, Lincoln addressed them from a balcony: “I can only trust in God I have made no mistake … It is now for the country and the world to pass judgment on it.”
5. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t actually free all of the slaves.
Since Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a military measure, it didn’t apply to border slave states like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, all of which had remained loyal to the Union. Lincoln also exempted selected areas of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control in hopes of gaining the loyalty of whites in those states. In practice, then, the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t immediately free a single slave, as the only places it applied were places where the federal government had no control—the Southern states currently fighting against the Union.
Despite its limitations, Lincoln’s proclamation marked a crucial turning point in the evolution of Lincoln’s views of slavery, as well as a turning point in the Civil War itself. By war’s end, some 200,000 black men would serve in the Union Army and Navy, striking a mortal blow against the institution of slavery and paving the way for its eventual abolition by the 13th Amendment.

Bob
07-10-2015, 01:18 PM
George Wallace, Ross Barnett, Fritz Hollings, Bill Clinton. All confederate supporting racist Democrats. One can point out dozens of others.

They even have Democrat Parti icons like Robert Byrd on record as late as the early 1970s bragging about his former big shot status in the KKK and saying it was needed then more than ever.

Many Democrats are quite proud of being a blatant racist.

What Democrats remind me of are those convicts that once let out of prison keep saying they are innocent and it was the system that was wrong. They were innocent in jail and to this day claim they still are innocent.

They take the 1965 civil rights law and pretend it was them doing it. That is only due to LBJ signing it. I don't find a word by Johnson claiming he respected blacks. I find just the opposite in fact. That claim he would have them voting Democrat for 200 years was pure ugly.

Bob
07-10-2015, 01:20 PM
I agree, then they will realize that the name designation like Democrat is just a place holder, social conservative ideology is where the racism is constant.

Racism has never been a feature of conservatives.

Safety
07-10-2015, 01:21 PM
I realize you intend to act juvenile, I totally get that. (the claim I am a lousy poster on this issue)

I have been clear on the confederacy for years now.

First I compare it to the revolution.

We do not call General Washington later president, a traitor. We do not spend day upon day beating the man up. We don't beat up Jefferson nor these others who openly owned slaves. (12 in all)

http://hauensteincenter.org/slaveholding/



I defend the right of the 33 percent of the revolutionaries that waged war against England.

I simply defend the Confederates for a lot of the same reasons.

Your quote sounds as if it was said by Abraham Lincoln in case you don't know.





First, I don't attach sainthood to the founders. They set up a Government that backed slavery. How else could George Washington had so many slaves and been elected if the founders hated slavery?

When Lincoln was elected, he said much the same as Alexander Stephens said.

http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation)

Well, he was from Kentucky.

But nevertheless, if your defense of the confederacy is based upon trying to link what Abe said to Alexander Stephens, you have failed....false equivalency.

Safety
07-10-2015, 01:21 PM
Racism has never been a feature of conservatives.

:rofl:
:biglaugh:

donttread
07-10-2015, 01:29 PM
Face it almost everyone has some degree of racism , including minorities . However as a nation we simply are not that racist. I mean sure it plays well to the MSM hype , but think about this. We elected a half black president who set spending and debt records in his first term! /Then we re-elected him

Safety
07-10-2015, 01:32 PM
Face it almost everyone has some degree of racism , including minorities . However as a nation we simply are not that racist. I mean sure it plays well to the MSM hype , but think about this. We elected a half black president who set spending and debt records in his first term! /Then we re-elected him

No one has said racism does not exist in other races, the discussion is about the confederate flag and what caused the confederacy to exist in the first place. Part of the issue is the fact that some that still hang on to the true meaning of the confederacy are upset because the country does not think the same as they do anymore.

Bob
07-10-2015, 01:33 PM
Well, he was from Kentucky.

But nevertheless, if your defense of the confederacy is based upon trying to link what Abe said to Alexander Stephens, you have failed....false equivalency.

No, I pointed out to you that your use of Stephens was a bad point.

It resembles what Abe himself said to people.

I will do my best to sum up my support for both the

American Revolution ... and

The seceding of states thusly

Both groups had the right to a government of their choosing
Both groups announced in public what they did
A difference is the South put it up to the vote. They let the public make the decision.
Washington never put it up for the vote.

I value democratic process just that much.

Abe was wrong to invade.

I see he wanted a lot more power, but as the King found out, power costs human lives.

Then finally in summary of course

The war against the South was not worth the losing of over 630,000 lives.

Were it about slavery, it makes it not better but worse.

We fought with Japan, Germany and Italy and never came close to losing that many lives.

If you can't understand human lives are the more valuable cause, the more valuable goal than bondage, I can't reach you. But I did do my best to lay it out.

My post is my very simplified explanation. The full explanation could consume a 500 page long book.

http://www.amazon.com/South-Right-James-Ronald-Kennedy/dp/1565540247/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1436553019&sr=1-1&keywords=the+south+was+right

This review was written by a Yankee!!!.... (http://www.amazon.com/review/R29TBUGLT23465/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1565540247&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books)
By Todd Bovair (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A176IA89VGH46M/ref=cm_cr_dp_pdp) on November 30, 2005
Born and bred in upstate NY. I am also civil war buff. This book is extremely important, for the fact of the matter is that MOST of the history that is taught today is WRONG. Not wrong in the general outcomes/ what happened sort of way, but wrong in explaining the TRUE motivations of the involved parties, as well as glossing over less-than savory events and dirty little secrets. The American Civil War is one of the most misunderstood events in our nation's history, and most of the misunderstanding is from Americans themselves! What we are taught about the Civil War here in the U.S. does not accurately explain what really happened (and don't even get me started on how we turn normal men into unstained 'heroes'). This book gets 5 stars for its fresh approach (how many more volumes of standard Civil War history can we stomach? There are already tens of thousands!) and because it raises questions on what you thought you "knew" about the Civil War.
Let me make it clear that this book does not defend or make a case for slavery. The authors concede right off the bat that slavery was disgusting. What the authors DO defend is the motivations of the vast majority of Southerners (and it isn't to uphold slavery), and what the authors attack is the North's (and more specifically, Lincoln's) motivations (and it isn't to free their fellow man). While I don't agree with about half of their observations, I ABSOLUTELY concur with their conclusions about Lincoln. Yes, he was a great man, but he was NOT the man we have been taught to believe he was. If nothing else, reading this book will give you a fresh take on an event that we still feel the repercussions from almost 150 years later. This book is a must read for anyone interested in The American Civil War. Read it for yourself and then decide whose version of history sounds correct.

Safety
07-10-2015, 01:37 PM
No, I pointed out to you that your use of Stephens was a bad point.

It resembles what Abe himself said to people.

I will do my best to sum up my support for both the

American Revolution ... and

The seceding of states thusly

Both groups had the right to a government of their choosing
Both groups announced in public what they did
A difference is the South put it up to the vote. They let the public make the decision.
Washington never put it up for the vote.

I value democratic process just that much.

Abe was wrong to invade.

I see he wanted a lot more power, but as the King found out, power costs human lives.

Then finally in summary of course

The war against the South was not worth the losing of over 630,000 lives.

Were it about slavery, it makes it not better but worse.

We fought with Japan, Germany and Italy and never came close to losing that many lives.

If you can't understand human lives are the more valuable cause, the more valuable goal than bondage, I can't reach you. But I did do my best to lay it out.

My post is my very simplified explanation. The full explanation could consume a 500 page long book.

http://www.amazon.com/South-Right-James-Ronald-Kennedy/dp/1565540247/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1436553019&sr=1-1&keywords=the+south+was+right

This review was written by a Yankee!!!.... (http://www.amazon.com/review/R29TBUGLT23465/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1565540247&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books)
By Todd Bovair (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A176IA89VGH46M/ref=cm_cr_dp_pdp) on November 30, 2005
Born and bred in upstate NY. I am also civil war buff. This book is extremely important, for the fact of the matter is that MOST of the history that is taught today is WRONG. Not wrong in the general outcomes/ what happened sort of way, but wrong in explaining the TRUE motivations of the involved parties, as well as glossing over less-than savory events and dirty little secrets. The American Civil War is one of the most misunderstood events in our nation's history, and most of the misunderstanding is from Americans themselves! What we are taught about the Civil War here in the U.S. does not accurately explain what really happened (and don't even get me started on how we turn normal men into unstained 'heroes'). This book gets 5 stars for its fresh approach (how many more volumes of standard Civil War history can we stomach? There are already tens of thousands!) and because it raises questions on what you thought you "knew" about the Civil War.
Let me make it clear that this book does not defend or make a case for slavery. The authors concede right off the bat that slavery was disgusting. What the authors DO defend is the motivations of the vast majority of Southerners (and it isn't to uphold slavery), and what the authors attack is the North's (and more specifically, Lincoln's) motivations (and it isn't to free their fellow man). While I don't agree with about half of their observations, I ABSOLUTELY concur with their conclusions about Lincoln. Yes, he was a great man, but he was NOT the man we have been taught to believe he was. If nothing else, reading this book will give you a fresh take on an event that we still feel the repercussions from almost 150 years later. This book is a must read for anyone interested in The American Civil War. Read it for yourself and then decide whose version of history sounds correct.


Apples to Oranges again, Bob.

You're trying to find an equivalency to Lincoln from Stephens. One does not exist, Stephens was trying to form a new government, Lincoln was trying to save the union. He was not going to appear to be so radical that he lost the support of the people on the fence. Sorry, but that dog don't hunt.

Bob
07-10-2015, 01:37 PM
No one has said racism does not exist in other races, the discussion is about the confederate flag and what caused the confederacy to exist in the first place. Part of the issue is the fact that some that still hang on to the true meaning of the confederacy are upset because the country does not think the same as they do anymore.

I put both the revolutionary war and the civil war into the same category of wars.

Bob
07-10-2015, 01:39 PM
Apples to Oranges again, Bob.

You're trying to find an equivalency to Lincoln from Stephens. One does not exist, Stephens was trying to form a new government, Lincoln was trying to save the union. He was not going to appear to be so radical that he lost the support of the people on the fence. Sorry, but that dog don't hunt.

It was your decision to bring up Stephens.

As I say, the war Washington fought and the war Davis fought were pretty much the same to me.

Think about it. Washington also fought to preserve slavery.

Bob
07-10-2015, 01:44 PM
http://hauensteincenter.org/slaveholding/


A number of presidents benefited electorally from “the peculiar institution,” especially the four earliest presidents from the then-largest slave state, Virginia. To understand why, one must go back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when Southern delegates argued that black slaves should be counted as complete persons, while Northern delegates didn’t want them counted at all since they were not citizens and couldn’t vote. To get over this hurdle and create a unified nation (their highest priority), the delegates decided to negotiate: the North proposed counting black slaves as half a person, and the South countered with three-quarters, so they compromised at three-fifths.

The “three-fifths” clause in the Constitution (Article I, section 2) was all about determining a state’s representation in Congress. That meant southern states collectively gained an advantage that often provided the margin of victory in close elections. In his book Negro President, Garry Wills points out that the slave states always had one-third more seats in Congress than their free population justified. This was decisive in the Election of 1800 in which Thomas Jefferson beat out northern rivals John Adams and Aaron Burr in the House of Representatives

Also, three key Southerners – George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison – finagled locating the national capital, Washington, DC, in slave territory. The capital started out in New York City, in a free state, then moved to Philadelphia. But in Philadelphia a slave-owner could only keep a slave for six months before freeing him, unless he was temporarily sent into slave territory, which was inconvenient to the owner. So the founders set aside land around a slave town, Alexandria, Virginia, to serve as the capital of the new nation.

Historian David Brion David summarized:


Even most history books fail to convey the extent that the American government was dominated by slaveholders and proslavery interests between the inaugurations of Presidents Washington and Lincoln. Partly because of the clause in the Constitution that gave the South added political representation for three-fifths of its slave population, Southern slaveholding presidents governed the nation for roughly 50 of those 72 years. And four of the six Northern presidents in that span catered to Southern proslavery policies. For example, Martin Van Buren, who came from a New York slaveholding family, sought to undermine the nation’s judicial process and send the captives from the slave ship Amistad back to Cuba – and certain death. Millard Fillmore, also from New York, signed the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, which enforced return of escaped slaves even from free states.
From the start, America‘s foreign policy favored slaveholding interests, and administrations refused to cooperate with efforts byBritain to suppress the international slave trade, even though the United States had defined the African slave trade in 1820 as piracy, a capital crime. The one exception to this proslavery stand was the support John Adams’s administration gave to Toussaint L’Ouverture during the Haitian Revolution — both to help the slaves gain freedom and to expel the French.[/URL][2]
[URL="http://www.gvsu.edu/hauenstein/?id=2F05A35A-DBC8-BCD4-9E7BF43B71815521&CFID=8374388&CFTOKEN=68600531#_ftn2"] (http://www.gvsu.edu/hauenstein/?id=2F05A35A-DBC8-BCD4-9E7BF43B71815521&CFID=8374388&CFTOKEN=68600531#_ftn2)
One final point. Most historians argue that the biggest challenge the founders failed to confront was the existence of slavery on American soil. Our earliest presidents struggled to find solutions. The most radical proposal in the early days of the republic was to ship slaves and other blacks back to Africa. Jefferson was keen on the idea, believing that blacks would eventually have to be removed from the U.S. or else whites would live in perpetual dread that the slaves would rise up in rebellion. Such fears prompted a later president, James Monroe, to support the creation of the American Colonization Society (founded 1816-1817).

The Society was not just well-intentioned. It raised money, acquired lands in what is present-day Liberia, and supported passage of emancipated slaves, former indentured servants, and free blacks across the Atlantic to the west coast of Africa. The Society named the major settlement in the colony Monrovia in honor of our nation’s fifth president.

donttread
07-10-2015, 01:48 PM
The American flag could be said to represent the slaughter of the "we were here first Americans" or oppression of women and blacks and immigrants in general at one time. Now it could be associated with open discrimination against white males.
The British flag? With imperialism and the addiction of a continent. Name one not associatable with man's inhumanity to man I have no problem with a state choosing to remove said flag from their offices. I do have a problem with fucking mindless sheep suddenly being offended by a symbol they had no problem with until they were told to! The Dukes of Hazzard if anything would be a testament to the fact that the Confederate flag does not represent racism. Or NASCAR having "Confederate Flags exchange program"
The Confederate flags , to many, represents State's Rights and rebellion against federal intrusion. I personally do not believe that the civil war was a violation of State's Rights because of the Constitutional rights violations perpetrated on the slaves. However, the symbolism for many is not about racism at all.
Just as the American flag is supposed to symbolize freedom and state's rights and currently we no not operate in that manner , it does not necessarily kill the symbolism.
Personally, I think we need a new state's right's flag.

Tahuyaman
07-10-2015, 01:49 PM
I agree, then they will realize that the name designation like Democrat is just a place holder, social conservative ideology is where the racism is constant.

I love the way you people dodge and weave.

Tahuyaman
07-10-2015, 01:52 PM
Racism has never been a feature of conservatives.


Liberals claim it is because they can't argue the political positions factually, so they just throw out the accusation of racism in the attempt to get one to defend against a position he does not hold.

Liberalism is the very definition of racism.

Safety
07-10-2015, 01:52 PM
It was your decision to bring up Stephens.

As I say, the war Washington fought and the war Davis fought were pretty much the same to me.

Think about it. Washington also fought to preserve slavery.
Stephens was the f'king VP of the Confederacy, I think his word means alot when discussing the Civil War.

Washington fought to be independent from England. They were paying taxes across the pond for nothing in return.

Apples - Oranges.

Safety
07-10-2015, 01:55 PM
I love the way you people dodge and weave.

At least you didn't go with shuck and jive....

Tahuyaman
07-10-2015, 01:57 PM
At least you didn't go with shuck and jive....

if one is a loyal Democrat and liberal, one is a proud racist.

Safety
07-10-2015, 01:59 PM
if one is a loyal Democrat and liberal, one is a proud racist.

Don't worry, they have medicine for that.

Bob
07-10-2015, 02:00 PM
Stephens was the f'king VP of the Confederacy, I think his word means alot when discussing the Civil War.

Washington fought to be independent from England. They were paying taxes across the pond for nothing in return.

Apples - Oranges.

Make up your mind.

The seceding of states or the war

I don't mind discussing each in turn

Safety
07-10-2015, 02:05 PM
Make up your mind.

The seceding of states or the war

I don't mind discussing each in turn

The war was caused by the seceding states, no?

Archer0915
07-10-2015, 02:07 PM
The war was caused by the seceding states, no?

No it was caused by an overbearing federal government. We are getting to that point again.

Safety
07-10-2015, 02:11 PM
No it was caused by an overbearing federal government. We are getting to that point again.

Historically inaccurate.

del
07-10-2015, 02:21 PM
Historically inaccurate.

but it feels so good and who wants to admit that the treasonous assholes brought it on themselves by attacking ft sumpter?

it sounds much better to blame an over-reaching federal govt while making ominous noises about how it's almost that time again instead of admitting it was about chattel slavery and greed.

*shrug

Safety
07-10-2015, 02:24 PM
but it feels so good and who wants to admit that the treasonous assholes brought it on themselves by attacking ft sumpter?

it sounds much better to blame an over-reaching federal govt while making ominous noises about how it's almost that time again instead of admitting it was about chattel slavery and greed.

*shrug

Which is why we are here, having this discussion. Some people believe that if you say it enough, it becomes true.

Archer0915
07-10-2015, 02:24 PM
Historically inaccurate.

Actually it is 100% accurate.

Bob
07-10-2015, 02:25 PM
The war was caused by the seceding states, no?

Up to a point. The states could have, should have seceded because they, Like General Washington, could no longer tolerate a government.

del
07-10-2015, 02:25 PM
Actually it is 100% accurate.

not on the home planet, s0n

sorry

Safety
07-10-2015, 02:26 PM
Up to a point. The states could have, should have seceded because they, Like General Washington, could no longer tolerate a government.

They wanted their own government. We are getting closer to being on the same page.

Now, the reasons for this "new" government is what people are struggling with.

Safety
07-10-2015, 02:26 PM
Actually it is 100% accurate.

Not close, Arch.

Archer0915
07-10-2015, 02:31 PM
The slave states felt that the northern states were forcing them to change laws and traditions. The federal government was formed to protect the several states and allow them to function as individual mini nations with their own laws and constitutions. The federal government had no say over these things but they still wanted to impose their will. This started before Lincoln and had much to do with the western states. It is historical fact that revisionist history even covers.

del
07-10-2015, 02:36 PM
that's nice.

where does it cover the part where the traitors opened fire on fort sumter?

because that started the war, you know.

Bob
07-10-2015, 02:38 PM
but it feels so good and who wants to admit that the treasonous assholes brought it on themselves by attacking ft sumpter?

it sounds much better to blame an over-reaching federal govt while making ominous noises about how it's almost that time again instead of admitting it was about chattel slavery and greed.

*shrug

First, prior to Abe's invasion of Virginia, he knew very well that Major Anderson suffered no casualties due to the South barely reaching Ft. Sumpter. The range of those old cannons sucked big time.

Nobody forced Abe to order up tens of thousands of troops over one small fort.

Abe did not have to invade.

del
07-10-2015, 02:40 PM
First, prior to Abe's invasion of Virginia, he knew very well that Major Anderson suffered no casualties due to the South barely reaching Ft. Sumpter. The range of those old cannons sucked big time.

Nobody forced Abe to order up tens of thousands of troops over one small fort.

Abe did not have to invade.

it's amusing to watch you guys make excuses for treason.

carry on, bobo

Safety
07-10-2015, 02:40 PM
First, prior to Abe's invasion of Virginia, he knew very well that Major Anderson suffered no casualties due to the South barely reaching Ft. Sumpter. The range of those old cannons sucked big time.

Nobody forced Abe to order up tens of thousands of troops over one small fort.

Abe did not have to invade.

That's like saying "the dog didn't have to bite". You saw the sign that says "beware of dog", yet you decide to walk in after throwing rocks at it from outside.

Bob
07-10-2015, 02:48 PM
that's nice.

where does it cover the part where the traitors opened fire on fort sumter?

because that started the war, you know.


The Anderson troops did not belong there to begin with.

Bob
07-10-2015, 02:49 PM
That's like saying "the dog didn't have to bite". You saw the sign that says "beware of dog", yet you decide to walk in after throwing rocks at it from outside.

I blame Buchanan for not removing the troops. They did not belong at Ft. Sumter


In a letter delivered January 31, 1861, South Carolina Governor Pickens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Wilkinson_Pickens) demanded of President Buchanan that he surrender Fort Sumter because," I regard that possession is not consistent with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina."[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter#cite_note-8) Over the next few months repeated calls for evacuation of Fort Sumter[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter#cite_note-9)[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter#cite_note-10) from the government of South Carolina and then from Confederate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America) Brigadier General (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigadier_General) P. G. T. Beauregard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._G._T._Beauregard) were ignored.

Peter1469
07-10-2015, 02:51 PM
The siege of Ft. Sumpter was the casus belli of the Civil War, at least from the North's point of view. However, the chances of war had been building for 20-30 years. Once the South broke with the Union, Lincoln just needed an excuse to invade.

Bob
07-10-2015, 02:54 PM
it's amusing to watch you guys make excuses for treason.

carry on, bobo

You do it over George Washington.

Don't be hypocritical.

Bob
07-10-2015, 02:55 PM
The siege of Ft. Sumpter was the casus belli of the Civil War, at least from the North's point of view. However, the chances of war had been building for 20-30 years. Once the South broke with the Union, Lincoln just needed an excuse to invade.

So many of us misspell the name of the fort. I work my behind off trying to not make that error. Even trying, at times I simply misspell it.

Mister D
07-10-2015, 02:56 PM
but it feels so good and who wants to admit that the treasonous $#@!s brought it on themselves by attacking ft sumpter?

it sounds much better to blame an over-reaching federal govt while making ominous noises about how it's almost that time again instead of admitting it was about chattel slavery and greed.

*shrug

Yes, it was war by northern industrialists against greed. lol Love that one. Thanks.

Mac-7
07-10-2015, 02:57 PM
Black SC Rep. Gives House GOPers A History Lesson On Confederate Flag

http://a1.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_365,w_652/xyz8hdrwgzymmoeolyl5.jpg

While railing against a House amendment to preserve the display of the Confederate battle flag, Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) on Thursday chose to use an anecdote about Gen. Robert E. Lee to convince conservatives to stand down.

The congressman displayed the flag next to him as he condemned a surprise move by House GOPers led by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) to defeat amendments that would ristrict the display of the symbol on federal grounds such as national parks.


"The Confederacy had three flags. This was never one of them," Clyburn said. "This is a flag, the Confederate battle flag of the army of Northern Virginia, Robert E. Lee's army."


"And when Robert E. Lee surrendered he asked all of his followers to furl this flag. Stow it away, he said. Put it in your attics," Clyburn continued. "He refused to be buried in his Confederate uniform. His family refused to allow anyone dressed in the confederate uniform to attend his funeral."


"Why? Because Robert E. Lee said he considered this emblem to be a symbol of treason. Yet, Calvert puts up an amendment that we're going to vote on this afternoon to ask us to allow this flag to be sold and displayed in our national parks."


He urged his colleagues to defeat the amendment.

And yet ignorant liberal wackos are defacing statues of Robert e lee across the country.

Bob
07-10-2015, 03:01 PM
They wanted their own government. We are getting closer to being on the same page.

Now, the reasons for this "new" government is what people are struggling with.

I have stated that from day one.

I submit for about the same reason George Washington did his war.

*to del

You know del, that treasonous war.

Archer0915
07-10-2015, 03:06 PM
that's nice.

where does it cover the part where the traitors opened fire on fort sumter?

because that started the war, you know.

No, they were told to evacuate... Federal properties has been given up preceding this even setting a precedent and it seems that the Union changed its mind. Many mixed messages sent early on but the fact is the Union started the rebellion and it had been brewing for a long time.

Tahuyaman
07-10-2015, 03:07 PM
Don't worry, they have medicine for that.

Then evidently, you've not been taking your meds.

magicmike
07-10-2015, 04:30 PM
Ok, yes the original pardon that was issued to stop the war only applied to the soldiers. The exempted classes had to request pardon directly from the President. Lee did that, but his request never made it to the President. He was since officially pardoned.

http://burnpit.legion.org/2011/08/president-ford-restores-robert-e-lees-citizenship-after-100-years

Jefferson Davis has also been pardoned

http://news.yahoo.com/pardon-jefferson-davis-14th-amendment-163609181.html

And if that's not enough, President Andrew Jackson went ahead and just extended the pardon to the entire Confederacy

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72360

Your argument that they gave up their citizenship means nothing. They are Americans.

Lol. You're accusing me of saying things I never said.

You're like the Bob of closeted homos. :rofl:

magicmike
07-10-2015, 04:33 PM
The hypocrisy of Democrats goes back more than a decade at least

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/205416/dems-need-houseclean-deroy-murdock

Lol. 2003.

Trent Lott.

:rofl:

magicmike
07-10-2015, 04:36 PM
You should look up the term "dixiecrat".

Lol. This again???

Just ask them if they support this platform:


I've heard that stupid talking point before. Yes, the Republican party once supported the same platforms dems do today and vise versa.

That changed soon after the passage of the Civil Right Act.

I'm sorry you're not intelligent enough to realize that.

Here's the Republican Presidential Platform from 1944. I'm glad to see you still support causes such as the below:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25835
The War and the Peace

We pledge prosecution of the war to total victory against our enemies in full cooperation with the United Nations and all-out support of our Armies and the maintenance of our Navy under the competent and trained direction of our General Staff and Office of Naval Operations without civilian interference and with every civilian resource. At the earliest possible time after the cessation of hostilities we will bring home all members of our armed forces who do not have unexpired enlistments and who do not volunteer for further overseas duty.
We declare our relentless aim to win the war against all our enemies: (1) for our own American security and welfare; (2) to make and keep the Axis powers impotent to renew tyranny and attack; (3) for the attainment of peace and freedom based on justice and security.
We shall seek to achieve such aims through organized international cooperation and not by joining a World State.
We favor responsible participation by the United States in post-war co-operative organization among sovereign nations to prevent military aggression and to attain permanent peace with organized justice in a free world.
Such organization should develop effective co-operative means to direct peace forces to prevent or repel military aggression. Pending this, we pledge continuing collaboration with the United Nations to assure these ultimate objectives.
We believe, however, that peace and security do not depend upon the sanction of force alone, but should prevail by virtue of reciprocal interests and spiritual values recognized in these security agreements. The treaties of peace should be just; the nations which are the victims of aggression should be restored to sovereignty and self-government; and the organized cooperation of the nations should concern itself with basic causes of world disorder. It should promote a world opinion to influence the nations to right conduct, develop international law and maintain an international tribunal to deal with justiciable disputes.
We shall seek, in our relations with other nations, conditions calculated to promote world-wide economic stability, not only for the sake of the world, but also to the end that our own people may enjoy a high level of employment in an increasingly prosperous world.
We shall keep the American people informed concerning all agreements with foreign nations. In all of these undertakings we favor the widest consultation of the gallant men and women in our armed forces who have a special right to speak with authority in behalf of the security and liberty for which they fight. We shall sustain the Constitution of the United States in the attainment of our international aims; and pursuant to the Constitution of the United States any treaty or agreement to attain such aims made on behalf of the United States with any other nation or any association of nations, shall be made only by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.
We shall at all times protect the essential interests and resources of the United States.
Western Hemisphere Relations

We shall develop Pan-American solidarity. The citizens of our neighboring nations in the Western Hemisphere are, like ourselves, Americans. Cooperation with them shall be achieved through mutual agreement and without interference in the internal affairs of any nation. Our policy should be a genuine Good Neighbor policy, commanding their respect, and not one based on the reckless squandering of American funds by overlapping agencies.
Postwar Preparedness

We favor the maintenance of postwar military forces and establishments of ample strength for the successful defense and the safety of the United States, its possessions and outposts, for the maintenance of the Monroe Doctrine, and for meeting any military commitments determined by Congress. We favor the peacetime maintenance and strengthening of the National Guards under State control with the Federal training and equipment as now provided in the National Defense Act.
Domestic Policy

We shall devote ourselves to re-establishing liberty at home.
We shall adopt a program to put men to work in peace industry as promptly as possible and with special attention to those who have made sacrifice by serving in the armed forces. We shall take government out of competition with private industry and terminate rationing, price fixing and all other emergency powers. We shall promote the fullest stable employment through private enterprise.
The measures we propose shall avoid federalization of government activities, to the end that our States, schools and cities shall be freed; shall avoid delegation of legislative and judicial power to administrative agencies, to the end that the people's representatives in Congress shall be independent and in full control of legislative policy; and shall avoid, subject to war necessities, detailed regulation of farmers, workers, businessmen and consumers, to the end that the individual shall be free. The remedies we propose shall be based on intelligent cooperation between the Federal Government, the States and local government and the initiative of civic groups—not on the panacea of Federal cash.
Four more years of New Deal policy would centralize all power in the President, and would daily subject every act of every citizen to regulation by his henchmen; and this country could remain a Republic only in name. No problem exists which cannot be solved by American methods. We have no need of either the communistic or the fascist technique.
Security

Our goal is to prevent hardship and poverty in America. That goal is attainable by reason of the productive ability of free American labor, industry and agriculture, if supplemented by a system of social security on sound principles.
We pledge our support of the following:
1. Extension of the existing old-age insurance and unemployment insurance systems to all employees not already covered.
2. The return of the public employment-office system to the States at the earliest possible time, financed as before Pearl Harbor.
3. A careful study of Federal-State programs for maternal and child health, dependent children, and assistance to the blind, with a view to strengthening these programs.
4. The continuation of these and other programs relating to health, and the stimulation by Federal aid of State plans to make medical and hospital service available to those in need without disturbing doctor-patient relationships or socializing medicine.
5. The stimulation of State and local plans to provide decent low-cost housing properly financed by the Federal Housing Administration, or otherwise, when such housing cannot be supplied or financed by private sources.

magicmike
07-10-2015, 04:41 PM
The slave states felt that the northern states were forcing them to change laws and traditions. The federal government was formed to protect the several states and allow them to function as individual mini nations with their own laws and constitutions. The federal government had no say over these things but they still wanted to impose their will. This started before Lincoln and had much to do with the western states. It is historical fact that revisionist history even covers.

Lol. And Peter thanked it!

magicmike
07-10-2015, 04:48 PM
The siege of Ft. Sumpter was the casus belli of the Civil War, at least from the North's point of view. However, the chances of war had been building for 20-30 years. Once the South broke with the Union, Lincoln just needed an excuse to invade.

They seceded. Lincoln didn't need an excuse to "invade". Ft. Sumter was Federal property. Technically, the confederates did the " invading".

GrassrootsConservative
07-10-2015, 04:49 PM
Lol. And Peter thanked it!

Because it was a good post, yes.

Ravens Fan
07-10-2015, 05:03 PM
They absolutely have a place on Government property. I can agree with taking the flags down from state houses and courthouses, but that is it. The rest are a part of American history, like it or not. If we forget where we came from, we will never know where we are going.

And the soldiers of the Confederate Army were far from traitors. They were just as American as you or I, if not more... they put their money where their mouths were.


When you secede, you give up your rights of citizenship.

This is where you said it. Remember now?


Lol. You're accusing me of saying things I never said.

You're like the Bob of closeted homos. :rofl:

Grow the fuck up.

Mister D
07-10-2015, 05:06 PM
This is where you said it. Remember now?



Grow the $#@! up.

Hateful Howey. If I disliked people here that much I'd...well I'd find something better to do. lol

del
07-10-2015, 05:07 PM
Yes, it was war by northern industrialists against greed. lol Love that one. Thanks.

the apologists continue to bray.

you're gonna need more straw.

Mister D
07-10-2015, 05:08 PM
the apologists continue to bray.

you're gonna need more straw.

It has all been settled. It was war northern industrialists fought against greed. :laugh: One of my favorites.

GrassrootsConservative
07-10-2015, 05:10 PM
This is where you said it. Remember now?



Grow the fuck up.

Can't believe he called you a "closeted homo."

Don't know why I can't believe it, but it's true.

Peter1469
07-10-2015, 05:13 PM
Lol. And Peter thanked it!

Don't worry about who I thank and why.

Mister D
07-10-2015, 05:14 PM
Don't worry about who I thank and why.

Dude, he probably has it all on a spreadsheet.

Tahuyaman
07-10-2015, 05:15 PM
Point out the racist roots of the Democrat party and these people hyperventilate.

nic34
07-10-2015, 05:26 PM
Point out the racist roots of the Democrat party and these people hyperventilate.

Well, that was interesting and informative. Get that straight from Texas public school textbooks?

magicmike
07-10-2015, 05:32 PM
This is where you said it. Remember now?



Grow the $#@! up.

Lol. Why was their citizenship reinstated after the war?

Tahuyaman
07-10-2015, 05:44 PM
Lol. And Peter thanked it!

and what's your issue with that?

Tahuyaman
07-10-2015, 05:47 PM
Well, that was interesting and informative. Get that straight from Texas public school textbooks?


Do you need to go find a paper bag?

Why did you randomly use Texas?

Tahuyaman
07-10-2015, 05:48 PM
Lol. Why was their citizenship reinstated after the war?

Why don't you try to dig up any common sense you can accidently find and attemp to answer that one without help......

Mister D
07-10-2015, 09:05 PM
Well, that was interesting and informative. Get that straight from Texas public school textbooks?

Texas public school students do just fine. Well, the white ones anyway.

Safety
07-10-2015, 09:26 PM
Texas public school students do just fine. Well, the white ones anyway.

That's usually what happens when you try everything in your power to make sure that outcome is guaranteed......


She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery - the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits - a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

- Texas letter of secession

I mean, generation after generation is getting better, but let's not forget the obstacles placed in their way. I should hope to hell they are doing just fine.... :grin:

Mister D
07-10-2015, 09:27 PM
That's usually what happens when you try everything in your power to make sure that outcome is guaranteed......





Yes, all the money we spend on education is just a clever ruse. We don't actually want them to do well.

Safety
07-10-2015, 09:33 PM
Yes, all the money we spend on education is just a clever ruse. We don't actually want them to do well.

Yea, money helps, but it isn't the answer.

nic34
07-11-2015, 10:08 AM
Do you need to go find a paper bag?

Why did you randomly use Texas?

Do you need a current events lesson too?

nic34
07-11-2015, 10:09 AM
Yes, all the money we spend on education is just a clever ruse. We don't actually want them to do well.

Or knowing the truth. ..

Bo-4
07-11-2015, 10:28 AM
I'll be happy once they block the view of the Creepy Klan Wizard in Nashville.

http://www.wsmv.com/story/29504989/metro-council-passes-resolution-to-hide-nathan-bedford-forrest-statue-behind-trees

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CINb4HfWgAAPIY8.jpg

Tahuyaman
07-11-2015, 10:30 AM
Do you need a current events lesson too?


Evidently you need more than a current events lesson

Tahuyaman
07-11-2015, 10:32 AM
Yea, money helps, but it isn't the answer.

Continually lowering standards isn't the answer either.

Safety
07-11-2015, 11:12 AM
Continually lowering standards isn't the answer either.

I don't recall saying it was....

Look, how about you just tell me what my position is, then argue against it. Wouldn't that be easier than assuming?

Tahuyaman
07-11-2015, 11:19 AM
Continually lowering standards isn't the answer either.


I don't recall saying it was....

Look, how about you just tell me what my position is, then argue against it. Wouldn't that be easier than assuming?


Lowering standards is what we've been doing for the last four of five decades. I've never seen one liberal ever present an argument to reverse that trend. In fact they always find a way to argue against raising standards. They usually find a way to link raising standards to racism.

How about You?

Ravens Fan
07-11-2015, 11:23 AM
Lol. Why was their citizenship reinstated after the war?

So do you admit to making false accusations towards me?

donttread
07-11-2015, 01:33 PM
As I have pointed out before there are few if any flags that have not represented oppression of some group at some time including "The Stripes" ( I refuse to call it the "stars and Stripes until states have rights again. The point is the flag evolves with the people.

nic34
07-12-2015, 07:18 PM
As I have pointed out before there are few if any flags that have not represented oppression of some group at some time including "The Stripes" ( I refuse to call it the "stars and Stripes until states have rights again. The point is the flag evolves with the people.

Yes, and Lee and Davis knew when it was over and to retire their flags. Their racist followers didn't know when to get over it.