Aa
Down comes the Confederate Flag.....in SC
The South Carolina House has approved a bill to remove the Confederate flag from the statehouse grounds, and the flag will be taken down Friday.
The vote early this morning came after more than 13 hours of debate.
The House approved the Senate bill by more than a two-thirds margin. Republican Gov. Nikki Haley will sign the bill at 4 p.m. today and the flag will come down at 10 a.m. Friday, the governor's office confirmed today.
“Today, as the Senate did before them, the House of Representatives has served the State of South Carolina and her people with great dignity,” Haley said in a statement after the House vote. “I'm grateful for their service and their compassion. It is a new day in South Carolina, a day we can all be proud of, a day that truly brings us all together as we continue to heal, as one people and one state.”
Efforts to have the flag removed intensified amid a June 17 shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal church in Charleston in which nine people died.
Republican Rep. Jenny Horne scolded fellow members of her party for stalling the debate with dozens of amendments, recalling the Rev. Clementa Pinckney, the pastor of Emanuel AME and a former house member who died in the shooting.
"For the widow of Sen. Pinckney and his two young daughters, [keeping the flag] would be adding insult to injury and I will not be a part of it," she screamed into a microphone.
The flag has been flying at the statehouse since the early 1960s, serving, for many, as a reminder of a racist past. Others have argued that the flag reflects Southern pride.
The vote marks a stunning reversal in a state that was the first to leave the Union in 1860 and raised the flag again at its statehouse more than 50 years ago to protest the civil rights movement.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/south-carolina-house-approves-bill-removing-confederate-flag/story?id=32319323
The vote early this morning came after more than 13 hours of debate.
The House approved the Senate bill by more than a two-thirds margin. Republican Gov. Nikki Haley will sign the bill at 4 p.m. today and the flag will come down at 10 a.m. Friday, the governor's office confirmed today.
“Today, as the Senate did before them, the House of Representatives has served the State of South Carolina and her people with great dignity,” Haley said in a statement after the House vote. “I'm grateful for their service and their compassion. It is a new day in South Carolina, a day we can all be proud of, a day that truly brings us all together as we continue to heal, as one people and one state.”
Efforts to have the flag removed intensified amid a June 17 shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal church in Charleston in which nine people died.
Republican Rep. Jenny Horne scolded fellow members of her party for stalling the debate with dozens of amendments, recalling the Rev. Clementa Pinckney, the pastor of Emanuel AME and a former house member who died in the shooting.
"For the widow of Sen. Pinckney and his two young daughters, [keeping the flag] would be adding insult to injury and I will not be a part of it," she screamed into a microphone.
The flag has been flying at the statehouse since the early 1960s, serving, for many, as a reminder of a racist past. Others have argued that the flag reflects Southern pride.
The vote marks a stunning reversal in a state that was the first to leave the Union in 1860 and raised the flag again at its statehouse more than 50 years ago to protest the civil rights movement.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/south-carolina-house-approves-bill-removing-confederate-flag/story?id=32319323
The truth has spoken. We are moving forward as a nation.
Anthony Hervey was reportedly driving the car of passenger Arlene Barnum when it veered off the road and flipped over. The pair reportedly thought that they were being chased, and Hervey was attempting to get away from the pursuer.
A black pro-Confederate-flag activist from Oxford, Miss., reportedly died in a car crash after believing he was being chased, the Clarion-Ledger reports.
According to the report, Anthony Hervey, 49, was a fixture in Oxford, known for his support of the Confederate flag, for at least the last two decades. Hervey had attended a flag rally on Sunday and was driving back in the vehicle of an acquaintance when the crash occurred.
The McAlester News-Capital reported that Arlene Barnum, who owned the vehicle that Hervey was driving and was a passenger at the time, posted that the pair were being chased just before the crash, in which the car rolled over.
“HELP.. They after us. My vehicle inside down,” Barnum wrote in one post.
Later she posted again, saying, “Anthony pinned in… gas leaking,” before finally posting a picture of the overturned vehicle.
The overturned vehicle in a photograph that Arlene Barnum posted on Facebook
ARLENE BARNUM VIA FACEBOOK
According to Barnum, she “didn’t know” Hervey well but gave him a ride to the rally because they were both supporters of the Confederate flag. When they neared his hometown, she let him drive to make navigation easier.
As the Clarion-Ledger notes, Hervey wrote Why I Wave the Confederate Fl
http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2015/07/black_pro_confederate_flag_activist_killed_in_mississippi_car_crash.html
News Video- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUTnm4ivt6I
A black pro-Confederate-flag activist from Oxford, Miss., reportedly died in a car crash after believing he was being chased, the Clarion-Ledger reports.
According to the report, Anthony Hervey, 49, was a fixture in Oxford, known for his support of the Confederate flag, for at least the last two decades. Hervey had attended a flag rally on Sunday and was driving back in the vehicle of an acquaintance when the crash occurred.
The McAlester News-Capital reported that Arlene Barnum, who owned the vehicle that Hervey was driving and was a passenger at the time, posted that the pair were being chased just before the crash, in which the car rolled over.
“HELP.. They after us. My vehicle inside down,” Barnum wrote in one post.
Later she posted again, saying, “Anthony pinned in… gas leaking,” before finally posting a picture of the overturned vehicle.
The overturned vehicle in a photograph that Arlene Barnum posted on Facebook
ARLENE BARNUM VIA FACEBOOK
According to Barnum, she “didn’t know” Hervey well but gave him a ride to the rally because they were both supporters of the Confederate flag. When they neared his hometown, she let him drive to make navigation easier.
As the Clarion-Ledger notes, Hervey wrote Why I Wave the Confederate Fl
http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2015/07/black_pro_confederate_flag_activist_killed_in_mississippi_car_crash.html
News Video- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUTnm4ivt6I
I'm pleased that you recognize the validity of my post.
I consider that real progress.
I consider that real progress.
Yes, of course, you're absolutely right... that was a poor choice of words. Unfortunately, history is not pure. Way too many times over the years, it's been full of ugliness like war and slavery - things we don't like to think about and that some people would like to have written out of history books.
History books should not be written like some blog that puts forth an individual's opinion; history books should put forth the facts as closely as they can be pieced together from whatever documentation remains from the time/person being written about.
Aside from that, you can refute whatever you choose, that doesn't necessarily make it right.
History books should not be written like some blog that puts forth an individual's opinion; history books should put forth the facts as closely as they can be pieced together from whatever documentation remains from the time/person being written about.
Aside from that, you can refute whatever you choose, that doesn't necessarily make it right.
"Pure history"
Do you ever think before you post?
History is not science. It's an attempt to reconstruct events and put them in some context. Invariably there will be a degree of subjectivity in the narrative. If the degree of subjectivity coincides with your belief system I'm sure you'll embrace it passionately. If not, well we all know how that plays out..
You stated as fact that the North was dependent on slave labor. That bold statement was easily refuted by stating the fact that the North was experiencing huge influx of Irish and Scotish immigrants due to the potato famine. It sounds real good until it's examined which is something republicans are loathe to do. Writness climate change, the origin of the earth, creationism and on and on.
Do you ever think before you post?
History is not science. It's an attempt to reconstruct events and put them in some context. Invariably there will be a degree of subjectivity in the narrative. If the degree of subjectivity coincides with your belief system I'm sure you'll embrace it passionately. If not, well we all know how that plays out..
You stated as fact that the North was dependent on slave labor. That bold statement was easily refuted by stating the fact that the North was experiencing huge influx of Irish and Scotish immigrants due to the potato famine. It sounds real good until it's examined which is something republicans are loathe to do. Writness climate change, the origin of the earth, creationism and on and on.
Yes, I agree -- history books should be "pure history" and not the opinion of the author/editor. I've read some very disconcerting things about who writes and edits history books these days, but this isn't the thread on which to get into that...
Revisionist history is farly commonplace these days. And what's more, opinionated-history is even MORE commonplace.
For instance, I read in my son's 8th grade American History book, just the other day while helping him prepare for a quiz about GWB... and I quote: "George Bush had a lackluster presidency, highlighted by the events of September 11th, 2001, towards the end of his term in office..."
Now, tell me... should the word "lackluster" be used to describe ANY president, in a history book? Wouldn't that be the OPINION of the author?
Now, every 8th grader that reads that (and actually processes & remembers), will think that the only thing that happened during the Bush years, was 9/11, and that he had a 'lackluster' presidency.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree, mind you, I'm just saying that the authors OPINION has no place in a historical reference book.
Thoughs?
For instance, I read in my son's 8th grade American History book, just the other day while helping him prepare for a quiz about GWB... and I quote: "George Bush had a lackluster presidency, highlighted by the events of September 11th, 2001, towards the end of his term in office..."
Now, tell me... should the word "lackluster" be used to describe ANY president, in a history book? Wouldn't that be the OPINION of the author?
Now, every 8th grader that reads that (and actually processes & remembers), will think that the only thing that happened during the Bush years, was 9/11, and that he had a 'lackluster' presidency.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree, mind you, I'm just saying that the authors OPINION has no place in a historical reference book.
Thoughs?
As noted elsewhere, we ALL make typos now and then... :-))
I'm glad you referenced that because the previous mention has apparently been deleted.
There IS value in acknowledging our history, not in wiping it out.
I'm glad you referenced that because the previous mention has apparently been deleted.
There IS value in acknowledging our history, not in wiping it out.
"It's also interesting to note that the real 13th Amendment was defeated the first time it went before the House of Representatives in June 1964 and it took 6 months before they brought it back up again... apparently, not all those northern Congressmen really wanted to get rid of slavery for good, after all."
Before someone jumps on me, the June "1964" should be June 1864...
As noted elsewhere, we ALL make typos now and then... :-))
Before someone jumps on me, the June "1964" should be June 1864...
As noted elsewhere, we ALL make typos now and then... :-))
Amen....
Yes, there's quite interesting reading about the Corwin Amendment. It's interesting to note that Lincoln was even in favor of it and that Ohio and Maryland ratified it as soon as Congress passed it and it was sent to the states to ratify. Some accounts say Illinois did too, but others dispute that.
It's also interesting to note that the real 13th Amendment was defeated the first time it went before the House of Representatives in June 1964 and it took 6 months before they brought it back up again... apparently, not all those northern Congressmen really wanted to get rid of slavery for good, after all.
"The Corwin amendment is dead but, like a ghost, not quite as dead as it should be. Although Ohio rescinded its ratification in 1864, neither the amendment itself nor the enabling resolution, H.J.R. No. 80, placed a limit on the time during which it would remain open for ratification. So in a technical sense, it is still open for ratification, just like the 27th Amendment on Congressional pay, which took nearly 202 years to become part of the Constitution. In fact, there was even a bizarre attempt by a few legislators in Texas to ratify the Corwin amendment in 1963!
We should eliminate the technicality. As a gesture toward healing the wounds of slavery and racism, Congress should rescind House Joint Resolution No. 80 of 1861. To any who might ridicule this as "meaningless symbolism," my response is that it would be meaningful symbolism. Nothing can undo the horror and injustice of slavery, but there is value in acknowledging our history. The Corwin amendment is a ghost that haunts our Constitutional edifice. Let's exorcise that ghost."
The quote came from: http://ghostamendment.com/
There IS value in acknowledging our history, not in wiping it out.
It's also interesting to note that the real 13th Amendment was defeated the first time it went before the House of Representatives in June 1964 and it took 6 months before they brought it back up again... apparently, not all those northern Congressmen really wanted to get rid of slavery for good, after all.
"The Corwin amendment is dead but, like a ghost, not quite as dead as it should be. Although Ohio rescinded its ratification in 1864, neither the amendment itself nor the enabling resolution, H.J.R. No. 80, placed a limit on the time during which it would remain open for ratification. So in a technical sense, it is still open for ratification, just like the 27th Amendment on Congressional pay, which took nearly 202 years to become part of the Constitution. In fact, there was even a bizarre attempt by a few legislators in Texas to ratify the Corwin amendment in 1963!
We should eliminate the technicality. As a gesture toward healing the wounds of slavery and racism, Congress should rescind House Joint Resolution No. 80 of 1861. To any who might ridicule this as "meaningless symbolism," my response is that it would be meaningful symbolism. Nothing can undo the horror and injustice of slavery, but there is value in acknowledging our history. The Corwin amendment is a ghost that haunts our Constitutional edifice. Let's exorcise that ghost."
The quote came from: http://ghostamendment.com/
There IS value in acknowledging our history, not in wiping it out.
I read somewhere - and I don't recall exactly where - that the southern soil had become exhausted from the continual planting of cotton and to a lesser degree tobacco. The plantation owners/slave owners were eager to find fresh soil to plant and the newly acquired or soon to be acquired territories offered them that opportunity. Of course, the abolitionist movement was growing and that was increasingly a point of contention. But, from what I have read it was the territories that was the main issue - free soil vs slave soil.
Yeah, I read that and something about the Corwin Amendment. its interesting. Kind of shines a different light on things.
That's a common perspective.
However, most historians agree that it wasn't control of the southern states that was the issue - it was whether the new territories would be free or slave. But, I'm sure you read that already.
However, most historians agree that it wasn't control of the southern states that was the issue - it was whether the new territories would be free or slave. But, I'm sure you read that already.
Q. What caused the Civil War?
(Not that he would be the authority on the subject but Charles Dickens stated the following.
" .....the Northern onslaught upon Southern slavery is a specious piece of humbug designed to mask their desire for the economic control of the Southern states." Charles Dickens
(Not that he would be the authority on the subject but Charles Dickens stated the following.
" .....the Northern onslaught upon Southern slavery is a specious piece of humbug designed to mask their desire for the economic control of the Southern states." Charles Dickens
Causes Of The Civil War
Slavery
The burning issue that led to the disruption of the union, however, was the debate over the future of slavery. That dispute led to secession, and secession brought about a war in which the Northern and Western states and territories fought to preserve the Union, and the South fought to establish Southern independence as a new confederation of states under its own constitution.
The agrarian South utilized slaves to tend its large plantations and perform other duties. On the eve of the Civil War, some 4 million Africans and their descendants toiled as slave laborers in the South. Slavery was interwoven into the Southern economy even though only a relatively small portion of the population actually owned slaves. Slaves could be rented or traded or sold to pay debts. Ownership of more than a handful of slaves bestowed respect and contributed to social position, and slaves, as the property of individuals and businesses, represented the largest portion of the region’s personal and corporate wealth, as cotton and land prices declined and the price of slaves soared.
The states of the North, meanwhile, one by one had gradually abolished slavery. A steady flow of immigrants, especially from Ireland and Germany during the potato famine of the 1840s and 1850s, insured the North a ready pool of laborers, many of whom could be hired at low wages, diminishing the need to cling to the institution of slavery. Learn more about Slavery in America.
http://www.historynet.com/causes-of-the-civil-war
Slavery
The burning issue that led to the disruption of the union, however, was the debate over the future of slavery. That dispute led to secession, and secession brought about a war in which the Northern and Western states and territories fought to preserve the Union, and the South fought to establish Southern independence as a new confederation of states under its own constitution.
The agrarian South utilized slaves to tend its large plantations and perform other duties. On the eve of the Civil War, some 4 million Africans and their descendants toiled as slave laborers in the South. Slavery was interwoven into the Southern economy even though only a relatively small portion of the population actually owned slaves. Slaves could be rented or traded or sold to pay debts. Ownership of more than a handful of slaves bestowed respect and contributed to social position, and slaves, as the property of individuals and businesses, represented the largest portion of the region’s personal and corporate wealth, as cotton and land prices declined and the price of slaves soared.
The states of the North, meanwhile, one by one had gradually abolished slavery. A steady flow of immigrants, especially from Ireland and Germany during the potato famine of the 1840s and 1850s, insured the North a ready pool of laborers, many of whom could be hired at low wages, diminishing the need to cling to the institution of slavery. Learn more about Slavery in America.
http://www.historynet.com/causes-of-the-civil-war
The Reasons for Secession
A Documentary Study
by John Pierce
One method by which to analyze this historical conflict is to focus on primary sources. Every state in the Confederacy issued an “Article of Secession” declaring their break from the Union. Four states went further. Texas, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina all issued additional documents, usually referred to as the “Declarations of Causes," which explain their decision to leave the Union. The documents can be found in their entirety here.
Two major themes emerge in these documents: slavery and states' rights. All four states strongly defend slavery while making varying claims related to states' rights. Other grievances, such as economic exploitation and the role of the military, receive limited attention in some of the documents. This article will present, in detail, everything that was said in the Declarations of Causes pertaining to these topics.
SLAVERY
1) Each declaration makes the defense of slavery a clear objective.
Mississippi
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth… These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
Texas
The servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations.
South Carolina
Those [Union] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States.
Georgia
That reason was [the North's] fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/secession/
A Documentary Study
by John Pierce
One method by which to analyze this historical conflict is to focus on primary sources. Every state in the Confederacy issued an “Article of Secession” declaring their break from the Union. Four states went further. Texas, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina all issued additional documents, usually referred to as the “Declarations of Causes," which explain their decision to leave the Union. The documents can be found in their entirety here.
Two major themes emerge in these documents: slavery and states' rights. All four states strongly defend slavery while making varying claims related to states' rights. Other grievances, such as economic exploitation and the role of the military, receive limited attention in some of the documents. This article will present, in detail, everything that was said in the Declarations of Causes pertaining to these topics.
SLAVERY
1) Each declaration makes the defense of slavery a clear objective.
Mississippi
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth… These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
Texas
The servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations.
South Carolina
Those [Union] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States.
Georgia
That reason was [the North's] fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/secession/
Actually I think the article points out the hypocrisy of the whole movement, was this man not targeted because of his belief's, yet because his beliefs don't fit the movement's there is nothing to see here but just another unfortunate accident.
My white flag is up on this one too :)
My white flag is up on this one too :)
Civil War Facts
Answers to your Civil War Questions
Many elements of Civil War scholarship are still hotly debated. The facts on this page are based on the soundest information available.
Q. What caused the Civil War?
While many still debate the ultimate causes of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that, "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries."
Q. What role did African-Americans play in the war effort?
With the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862, African-Americans - both free and runaway slaves - came forward to volunteer for the Union cause in substantial numbers. Beginning in October, approximately 180,000 African-Americans, comprising 163 units, served in the U.S. Army, and 18,000 in the Navy. That month, the 1st Kansas Colored Volunteers repulsed a Confederate attack at Island Mound, Missouri. Men of the U.S.C.T. (United States Colored Troops) units went on to distinguish themselves on battlefields east and west - at Port Hudson, Louisiana; Honey Springs, Oklahoma; Fort Wagner, South Carolina; New Market Heights, Virginia. African Americans constituted 10% of the entire Union Army by the end of the war, and nearly 40,000 died over the course of the war.
Q. Were there black Confederate soldiers?
Slaves and free blacks were present in the Confederate lines as handservants and manual laborers. On March 14, 1865 the Confederate military issued General Orders No. 14, which provided for the raising of black combat regiments, but there is no official military documentation that indicates these orders were carried out or that any black soldiers were ever properly enlisted in the Confederate army. There are a few photographs of blacks in Confederate uniforms, but these appear to be hoaxes.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/faq/
Answers to your Civil War Questions
Many elements of Civil War scholarship are still hotly debated. The facts on this page are based on the soundest information available.
Q. What caused the Civil War?
While many still debate the ultimate causes of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that, "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries."
Q. What role did African-Americans play in the war effort?
With the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862, African-Americans - both free and runaway slaves - came forward to volunteer for the Union cause in substantial numbers. Beginning in October, approximately 180,000 African-Americans, comprising 163 units, served in the U.S. Army, and 18,000 in the Navy. That month, the 1st Kansas Colored Volunteers repulsed a Confederate attack at Island Mound, Missouri. Men of the U.S.C.T. (United States Colored Troops) units went on to distinguish themselves on battlefields east and west - at Port Hudson, Louisiana; Honey Springs, Oklahoma; Fort Wagner, South Carolina; New Market Heights, Virginia. African Americans constituted 10% of the entire Union Army by the end of the war, and nearly 40,000 died over the course of the war.
Q. Were there black Confederate soldiers?
Slaves and free blacks were present in the Confederate lines as handservants and manual laborers. On March 14, 1865 the Confederate military issued General Orders No. 14, which provided for the raising of black combat regiments, but there is no official military documentation that indicates these orders were carried out or that any black soldiers were ever properly enlisted in the Confederate army. There are a few photographs of blacks in Confederate uniforms, but these appear to be hoaxes.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/faq/
Oh, I do see where you're coming from; that's not it at all.
Yes, the south wanted to secede from the union, but it wasn't "all" over slavery - keep in mind, as Brice just pointed out and has been pointed out, previously, people in the north owned slaves, as well, so if they were "only" fighting to get rid of slavery, they should have freed their own before the war, but many of them did not free their slave until after the war. The south wanted secede because they thought the Federal government was being too bossy and was taking away states rights. Part of it also was about economics that included cotton and other crops grown in the south.
Yes, they needed the cheaper slave labor, but the north was more industrialized and also needed the cheaper slave labor. Their cotton mills also depended on the south's cotton, which could not be grown up north and if the south were allowed to secede, they wouldn't have the cotton to keep their mills going.
We have states, in recent history, that have talked about seceding from the rest of the country, because they think the Federal government is being too bossy and taking away state's rights. Ironically, those states are in the south and it has nothing to do with slavery.
As has been noted, the story posted about the man being run off the road, was, I believe posted to show that not all black people see the Confederate flag as racist, no matter where it is.
Brice has a point that something like this just shows how messed up this country really is.
Instead of telling people what they should be offended by, we should be celebrating the accomplishments that had been made toward getting rid of racism prior to the election of our current President. We should be ignoring the media and people like Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and go back to being human beings who care about our fellow man no matter what color their skin.
Yes, the south wanted to secede from the union, but it wasn't "all" over slavery - keep in mind, as Brice just pointed out and has been pointed out, previously, people in the north owned slaves, as well, so if they were "only" fighting to get rid of slavery, they should have freed their own before the war, but many of them did not free their slave until after the war. The south wanted secede because they thought the Federal government was being too bossy and was taking away states rights. Part of it also was about economics that included cotton and other crops grown in the south.
Yes, they needed the cheaper slave labor, but the north was more industrialized and also needed the cheaper slave labor. Their cotton mills also depended on the south's cotton, which could not be grown up north and if the south were allowed to secede, they wouldn't have the cotton to keep their mills going.
We have states, in recent history, that have talked about seceding from the rest of the country, because they think the Federal government is being too bossy and taking away state's rights. Ironically, those states are in the south and it has nothing to do with slavery.
As has been noted, the story posted about the man being run off the road, was, I believe posted to show that not all black people see the Confederate flag as racist, no matter where it is.
Brice has a point that something like this just shows how messed up this country really is.
Instead of telling people what they should be offended by, we should be celebrating the accomplishments that had been made toward getting rid of racism prior to the election of our current President. We should be ignoring the media and people like Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and go back to being human beings who care about our fellow man no matter what color their skin.
You know what we can do? Lets claim war on this. We've claimed war on all kinds of things. "The war on drugs" "The war on poverty" "The war on homelessness". We solve all of the problems when we claim war upon something.... oh wait. Never mind.
The only flag I plan on waving on this subject is the white flag. I give up.
For me, its a flag. A piece of cloth. With everything else happening in the world and more importantly my personal life, I've got no time to worry about a flag that we were apparently not worried about 6 weeks ago. We weren't discussing this 6 weeks ago. The Dukes of Hazard was still on TV 6 weeks ago. I think its kind of petty, really.
Why aren't we taking a stand against the KKK? That is the sign or racism. Instead, we go after a flag that they adopted and used in their ceremonies along with the American flag..... nobody has a problem with a racist group using the American flag???
This whole situation sums up why this country is as screwed up as it is. There are real issues and we've only decided now that this is of importance. In the mean time, veterans are homeless and without medical care, our inner cities are a frigging shambles, kids are going hungry, schools suck..... and guess what? Black people are affect by each and every one of those reasons..... and we go after a flag?
Way to go America.
For the record, people in the north had slaves during this time frame so they shouldn't be exempt unless of course you are trying to blame a flag for the problem.
Way to go America.
Why aren't we taking a stand against the KKK? That is the sign or racism. Instead, we go after a flag that they adopted and used in their ceremonies along with the American flag..... nobody has a problem with a racist group using the American flag???
This whole situation sums up why this country is as screwed up as it is. There are real issues and we've only decided now that this is of importance. In the mean time, veterans are homeless and without medical care, our inner cities are a frigging shambles, kids are going hungry, schools suck..... and guess what? Black people are affect by each and every one of those reasons..... and we go after a flag?
Way to go America.
For the record, people in the north had slaves during this time frame so they shouldn't be exempt unless of course you are trying to blame a flag for the problem.
Way to go America.
I don't find it a wonderful, prideful history in general that that the South wanted to secede, fought for slavery, etc. But that isn't for me to say. I'm not talking about people's pride in that . . . I'm talking about hanging a flag with a controversial history on state property. not at your house, in your car off the rearview mirror, private property but the states house.
I agree with orphanedhawk. Love on the flag all people want but in an area where everyone's feelings do matter like government buildings--- I think it is a positive gesture to help tone down what occasionally feels like it is heating up, racial strife (with the things that have been going on around the country this past year).
I've said that I can see where others are coming from with their opinion but I guess that is not the case in the other direction. Oh well. I tried to get some understanding for my point but it's not happening. :>) I agree with orphanedhawk.
As to running off the road, that is an unfortunate story for sure. I was just saying that I'm not sure what that has to do with the issue of keeping the flag of not.
I agree with orphanedhawk. Love on the flag all people want but in an area where everyone's feelings do matter like government buildings--- I think it is a positive gesture to help tone down what occasionally feels like it is heating up, racial strife (with the things that have been going on around the country this past year).
I've said that I can see where others are coming from with their opinion but I guess that is not the case in the other direction. Oh well. I tried to get some understanding for my point but it's not happening. :>) I agree with orphanedhawk.
As to running off the road, that is an unfortunate story for sure. I was just saying that I'm not sure what that has to do with the issue of keeping the flag of not.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
