It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nikki Haley To Call For Confederate Flag To Be Removed From South Carolina Capitol: Reports

page: 12
22
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Yes, I pointed that out in the thread I authored today (which I just noticed isn't this one... ) Lincoln was against expanding Slavery into the west, but he wasn't about actually ending it which the South believed was the case.




posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

That's the thing. What the people THINK they are fighting the war for is usually VERY different than what the real reasons the elite started the war for. That is almost ALWAYS the case.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: nenothtu


the Confederacy was at best the third (although some would argue it was farther down the list than that) foreign nation that "Union" invaded with intent to conquer and annex.



That view assigns a legitimacy to the Confederacy that did not exist. The Confederacies' bid for succession failed. You can point to confederate currency or the unopposed election of Jefferson Davis, but none of that makes for a country..hell ISIS has city services and appoints leading officials in the regions it has taken over. No foreign country officially recognized the Confederacy as an independent country and neither did the USA.



A legitimacy that "did not exist"? I guess it's true - history IS written by the conquerors!

Why would I, or they, care a fig as to what YOU believe to be "legitimate"? By that yardstick, the entire US is not "legitimate" - but then, the US were the victors in that one, so they got to write the history, eh?

Those "foreign countries" seem to have had no problem trading with the Confederacy that didn't exist.

Strange world.




edit on 2015/6/24 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nenothtu

That's the thing. What the people THINK they are fighting the war for is usually VERY different than what the real reasons the elite started the war for. That is almost ALWAYS the case.


You may not understand how hard it is to actually snuff out another human until you get real good and used to it, so I can let that slide, after attempting to explain to you that every man who picks up a weapon and snuffs out another man knows exactly why he ended that other guy. Now, the reasons may be right, or they may be wrong, and that's for Monday morning quarterbacks to figure out, but when you pull that trigger, you know EXACTLY why you are pulling it - otherwise, you likely wouldn't.

Other folks' motives, and why THEY do what they do, are not your lookout at that point.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

When I was in Iraq and in situations where I may have had to shoot someone, the only thing that was going through my head was to listen to my sergeant's orders so that I could make it back alive. I was 100% prepared to shoot someone and think about the consequences later. Luckily that didn't happen and I didn't have to kill anyone, but don't assume I don't have an idea of what it would be like to take a life.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

With all due respect to your service, there is a world of difference between laying crosshairs or lining up the sight post on someone and actually squeezing that trigger. Do you know why you were in Iraq to begin with? Was it because some Texas oil tycoon told you to go, conquer, and be well?

The ancestor I mentioned who fought for the Union (18th PA Inf, Co, D) - he didn't fight because someone had the red-ass at slavery, and he didn't fight because Lincoln told him to go to war. he fought, according to him, because "those yayhoos had the temerity to walk away from the country" he loved. Could not understand that mindset, wanting to be away and have your own turf. That's what he said anyhow.

I've often wondered if the cheap land south of the Mason Dixon line that was created in the aftermath of the destruction didn't factor in there just a little bit - he died in the south, on a little patch of land he got hold of in the wake of the war. That is pure speculation, however, based solely on his actions after the war. I can't attribute it to him with certainty, because that's not what HE said, and all we have to go on for motivation is what the guy says he did it for. What's important to me, in light of this discussion, is that he never, EVER claimed to have fought to "end slavery". The battle flag meant Graybacks were coming to him, not "slavery".

Folks will see in that flag, or any other, just exactly what they WANT to see in it. None of us is responsible for what someone else wants to see in it, nor do we get to dictate that. For example, you see "slavery", and there is nothing I can do about that, nor is there anything I want to do about that - that is entirely your own viewpoint, not subject to MY dictates of what I see. It's not something I feel any pressing need to change, just something I have to provide a counter viewpoint on, so that folks know there ARE alternate viewpoints... same as you.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu

Those "foreign countries" seem to have had no problem trading with the Confederacy that didn't exist.



Who would have that been? England gave them "Belligerent actor" status...aka..we will make money from you but not recognize you as legitimate...but even England's trade was less than Amazon sells in a minute and it quickly screeched to a halt.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Indigo5

Yes, I pointed that out in the thread I authored today (which I just noticed isn't this one... ) Lincoln was against expanding Slavery into the west, but he wasn't about actually ending it which the South believed was the case.


Well, there's a timing kind of thing.

He was definitely against slavery for moral reasons. But, holding the country together was political priority.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu
a reply to: Krazysh0t

With all due respect to your service, there is a world of difference between laying crosshairs or lining up the sight post on someone and actually squeezing that trigger. Do you know why you were in Iraq to begin with? Was it because some Texas oil tycoon told you to go, conquer, and be well?


This actually segues nicely into my point about your great grandparents being misinformed on the reasons for the war. I HAVE experience with being lied to about the reasons to fight a war. I've since discovered the lies (I wish I knew the truth... But I have opinions on it).


The ancestor I mentioned who fought for the Union (18th PA Inf, Co, D) - he didn't fight because someone had the red-ass at slavery, and he didn't fight because Lincoln told him to go to war. he fought, according to him, because "those yayhoos had the temerity to walk away from the country" he loved. Could not understand that mindset, wanting to be away and have your own turf. That's what he said anyhow.


This topic isn't about why the Union soldiers fought the war. Trying to reunite the country was OBVIOUSLY of great concern to most of the Union soldiers.


I've often wondered if the cheap land south of the Mason Dixon line that was created in the aftermath of the destruction didn't factor in there just a little bit - he died in the south, on a little patch of land he got hold of in the wake of the war. That is pure speculation, however, based solely on his actions after the war. I can't attribute it to him with certainty, because that's not what HE said, and all we have to go on for motivation is what the guy says he did it for. What's important to me, in light of this discussion, is that he never, EVER claimed to have fought to "end slavery". The battle flag meant Graybacks were coming to him, not "slavery".


Look, you aren't educating me on anything I don't know about history. I already KNOW that not all of the north were abolitionists before the Civil War (and therefore wouldn't be fighting against slavery in the war). I already KNOW that there was slavery in the south. These are things I'm acutely aware of. It STILL doesn't mean that slavery wasn't the major reason for the war.


Folks will see in that flag, or any other, just exactly what they WANT to see in it. None of us is responsible for what someone else wants to see in it, nor do we get to dictate that. For example, you see "slavery", and there is nothing I can do about that, nor is there anything I want to do about that - that is entirely your own viewpoint, not subject to MY dictates of what I see. It's not something I feel any pressing need to change, just something I have to provide a counter viewpoint on, so that folks know there ARE alternate viewpoints... same as you.


I respect your viewpoint. I really don't care if YOU like the flag or want to wave it though, the mere fact that a group of people thinks the flag is inappropriate means it shouldn't be on the capitol building. Heck, to be honest, the only flags that should be at the capitol building is the state flag and the country's flag. Everything else is paying undue attribute to a group of people at the expense of others.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
So 1 guy kills 9 people, you remove the flag.
Today 27 killed in Tunesia, 1 beheaded in France, and do we then also remove any muslim/islam related flag also ?




top topics



 
22
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join