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.

 

The Confederate Flag: A Disturbing Trend?

page: 12
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


That's what the winners that get to write history put in the text books.
It really wasn't just about that, that's just a good way to turn people on the rebels forever.

from wiki:

The Democrats in Congress, controlled by Southerners, wrote the tariff laws in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s, and kept reducing rates, so that the 1857 rates were the lowest since 1816. The South had no complaints but the low rates angered Northern industrialists and factory workers, especially in Pennsylvania, who demanded protection for their growing iron industry. The Whigs and Republicans complained because they favored high tariffs to stimulate industrial growth,; Republicans called for an increase in tariffs in the 1860 election. The increases were finally enacted in 1861 after Southerners resigned their seats in Congress.[75][76]

Historians in recent decades have minimized the tariff issue, noting that few Southerners in 1860–61 said it was of central importance to them. Some secessionist documents do mention the tariff issue, though not nearly as often as the preservation of slavery.


Notice how it says historians minimized the tariff issue in recent decades? Notice that the south had no complaints but the North was angered and the increases were only enacted after the Southerners resigned their seats in congress? The North didn't fight them because the hated slavery. They didn't care that much. Slaves fled to the north because no one there had any need or desire to own them. Then when a war broke out they of course gave them sanctuary from the Norths enemies (and probably loved recruiting them to fight).

As a disclaimer, I'm not really into the whole rebel thing, nor would I fly that flag, because I don't care about it. However I am opposed to manipulated history and I like the truth laid out.

There is really a lot more to it and it's an interesting topic to read into.
americanhistory.about.com...
edit on 17-9-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Slavery was not the reason the south went to war. Lincoln is the reason the south went to war.Most southerners didnt own slaves but they did pay taxes. Primarily they left because of the political promises that Abraham Lincoln had made during his presidential campaign to the northern industries. He promised to raise protectionist tariffs for northern industries. At the time the South paid the most in taxes, by some accounts as much as 80% of the taxes collected by the federal government. With Lincoln's new protectionist taxes, the new tax rate for foreign goods were set to 37% and would be increased to over 50%. This was done to pay back the northern corporations who had backing Lincoln for president. Now you must realize the northern goods where at the time shoddy at best. So this meant the south ended up paying more for everything. So guess what it started over taxes this wasn't the only reason but it was the major reason.This is why Lincoln thought it was his duty to end the civil war he started it.

PS sounds familiar doesnt it corporate payoffs even back then some things never change do they.

edit on 9/17/11 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


The South had an active and lucrative trade of their wares with Europe. "Trade" means exports and imports, and the tariffs were damaging that relationship and driving up prices in the South. On top of that, the tariff income was largely funding industrialization in the North, there was no infrastructure being built by that tax money in the South. Plus, Lincoln was against the Southern expansion into the new territories.

Lincoln in fact was not "against" slavery, but he was against expanding it into the new territories.

The South seceded because they felt the 14 Northern States had breached the responsibilities, and had already formed a Union of their own that excluded the Southern States. The South did not have proportional representation in government, and they did not have proportional representation in how their tax money was spent, and they were paying the majority of the tax payments due to their imports.

Things are not so much different today, but instead of "South" just substitute the lower-middle class and blue-collar working folks. We are the same crowd, we are just more geographically dispersed, and we are still fighting the same battle. Everyone is looking out for the special interests, the rich, and the impoverished, but all the tax money is coming on the backs of us working folks and then unfairly distributed elsewhere. The reason the rebel spirit still lives on, is that the Federal government is still practicing the same unfair representation and unfair redistribution of wealth.
edit on 17-9-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side."
Ulysses S. Grant, slaveholder

Many in the north didn't hate that blacks were in slavery, they just hated blacks. Lincoln supported Illinois' amendment to prohibit black people from moving to that state. Lincoln was also looking at having all the blacks deported out of the country. Read some of the writings of the northern abolitionist Lysander Spooner, he hated slavery in all its forms yet fully supported the South's fight for Independence. If slavery was the main issue the South was fighting to keep, they could have stayed in the union of states and had the Corwin Amendment passed. But there was more to it. From the beginning the yankee mercantilists passed trade legislation that benefited themselves and hurt the South. The South had had enough and decided they would be better off leaving the union. But Lincoln wanted to preserve what had been a voluntary union of states at all costs. But by preserving the union, Lincoln destroyed it by making it one of force and coercion.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by xEphon
 

Even though the flag has a controversial past, I support their freedom to display such a symbol.

Free speech is free speech.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
The Confederate flag is about racism? What?! I was born in the Deep South and have proudly grown up under the shadow of that flag just like the American flag which flies above it. Whenever I talk to people some may claim it is a sign of racial superiority of the Whites most others believe it is a sign of rebellion and culture. The Northerners and the politically correct may degrade it as a flag representing a culture of bigotry, discrimination, and slavery but that is only because they never grew up under its shadow.

I know exactly what that flag is about. It represents who we are, where we have been, where we are going, and why we should be proud to consider ourselves Southern. It is one thing that binds us together as a bloc within this nation, to show our open rebellion to all those who want to step on our heritage. The ones who cringe at its site are the ones who do not know what it means and probably do not even care to know.

Just ask Roy Barnes the former Georgia Democratic Governor what happens when you take the politically correct position in regards to this flag. He lost re-election giving Georgia to the first Republican governor since 1871.


This is a fine example of on-going control in America. An intelligent person with articulate thought that cannot overcome the divide and conquer mentality perpetuated by -our- government. Generation after generation of a prideful mindset is kept alive on purpose, encouraged by a subtle ruling class to divide and conquer. For many the Mason-Dixon Line in America has the dividing strength that the Iron Curtain once physically held in Europe. I wonder if Americans will ever be able to overcome the stranglehold of this mental block and realize we are all together in these United States.
Calling out "the politically correct" while being politically correct is a bonus. But it refreshing to see someone use the term "Northeners" instead of the traditional hate-filled 'Yankees'.
Traveling outside one's city limits on vacation can be a real eye-opening experience. Where I went to high school in the 1970's was not that far from NYC. Almost all of the fellows there who liked to have a good time wore work boots, blue jeans & flannel shirts. They were all about the Southern Rock bands, Confederate flags and pick up trucks. Sometimes projecting how we think others are is nothing more than imagination.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by TravisT

Yes, because we all know that all of the northerners are on our CB radios, and not using newer technology like a cell phone. Sounds more like a cultural thing for truckers...

Oh, sorry. You're right. It can't be your culture that has the problem; it has to be... let's see... those darn Southerners! Yeah, flying their rebel flags all over the place! They're responsible! They caused it all! Er... wait... no, it's not just them; it's the truckers too! Yeah, the truckers! And I'll bet they're from the South and they fly those racist rebel flags and probably try to run down blacks on the freeway!

Sheesh, man, do you hear yourself?

TheRedneck
Yes, I do hear myself, and I didn't say all truckers are from the south, you did. Your point, was to say you understand racism, by going to one place in PA, and turning on a CB. I live in the north, and I don't see anybody communicating on their CB radio. My point, was you just over generalized an entire region, based on going to a particular isolated place, and turning on a device that not too many people use. In other words, it doesn't make sense to make a generalization over a CB radio.

Do you hear yourself?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
"The confederate flag always has and always will be about racism. "

Aliens who landed before some flag, totally unfamiliar with earth rituals... would see a design / cloth & stick.. maybe on their planet waving something over you head = middle finger??..

Some people see this, others that.. opinions are allowed ya know. Some are even still legal..lol.

Besides, history repeats.. unpopular criminal a hole things once considered abhorrent crimes against humanity.. are cool again... fascism is the new freedom. I figure blatant racism will make a come back too.. and some people will display symbols / flags known to offend some other people.. the more things change, the more they remain the same..



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by xEphon
 


Confederate flag racist? You are correct that it's a disturbing trend. Anything, ANYTHING that the hate industry Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and now Obama, decides to attack, the useful idiot followers are easily convinced that it is true. The hate industry is the NAACP the congressional black caucus, etc. They spread racial hate and anti Americanism at an alarming rate in this once great nation. Sure, the KKK was bad, but 2 wrongs don't make a right. Until my fellow black citizens start looking ahead instead of dwelling on the past, we just get weaker as a nation. Stop looking so hard for something to be offended by and get on board trying to make our nation better for ALL!



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by tankerpilot
Nonsense.

Do a little research willya? The Civil War was NOT about race. It was about states rights.


It was about states rights. The rights of states to decide on the issue of slavery. It was also about the rights of northern states to refuse the return of runaway slaves from the South.

Was the civil for primarly about race? No? But race was a fundamental part to the justification of slavery.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by tankerpilot
Nonsense.

Do a little research willya? The Civil War was NOT about race. It was about states rights. It wasnt until after the emancipation proclaimation that the war became about race and slavery. The confederate flag respresented a group of states that stood up to the federal government. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE. Get over yourself. By playing the race card in every aspect of life you prove only one thing....that you are a rascist!!!!


Actually it was the flag of a foreign country. The Confederacy became a different country when it seceded from the United States.

It was called The Confederate States of America.The C.S.A declared war on the United States first by firing upon Fort Sumter.

www.eyewitnesstohistory.com...

It is not a symbol of freedom, otherwise all those southern boys would have been fighting for the freedom of men they held in slavery. It is the symbol of a foreign nation.
edit on 9/17/2011 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by xEphon
 



Sounds like a lot of typical liberal anti-white whining to me. You know, Blacks fought in the Confederacy too. Only a small percentage of Whites actually owned slaves. They were an expensive investment that most simply could not afford. Race and slavery were small factors in The Civil War.

You people who whine about the Confederate flag are trying to simplify something that was brought about from a large variety of complex issues and you only succeed in making yourself look like a fool. Sometimes I think you just aren't happy unless you're complaining about something. Here's a tip, if you don't like the Confederate flag, turn your head. Don't go to the south and expect them to change their ways for you. That is the epitome of arrogance and nobody likes that. Nobody.

Not much more to be said.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by xEphon
 


I know many good folks whom I do not think is racist, who have confederate flags and bumper stickers. Their kids wear shirts with the conferedate flag... for many people the confederate flag is about cultural heritage and nothing more so I do believe that's an unfair generalization. There was a time when I myself assumed it was about at core racism, the flag, until I actually spoke and got to know some of the people behind those flags.

Now those folks arguing that the confederate state as an entity, a government, fought for freedom in the civil war, they are ignoring reality dead on. But putting that aside, the flag itself represents heritage for many.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
are you aware of the Robert E. Lee Statue at our nations capitol?

i guess that makes the ENTIRE NATION racist for having a monument of the leader of the racist insurrection.

heritage is just another word for RACIST!
edit on 17-9-2011 by RelentlessLurker because: racist racist racist racist (your right this is fun) racist racist racist *dances is circles* raaaaccciiisssssstttt



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Expired
As a person born outside the USA, can I make this observation without causing controversy?

The American civil war killed millions, the loser the south ....was forced to join the USA?

So why shouldn't there be a fair proportion of Southerners who see themselves living in occupied territory?

Like the Irish in Ireland, the Palestinians in Israel, ?
Fly the flag you belong to in your heart?
We have foreign people living in the west who still cheer their home counrty over their new country, so why not the South?....A land taken by gunpoint?
edit on 17-9-2011 by Dr Expired because: clarity


The C.S.A. surrendered. But they seceded in the first place.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Secondly, slavery was not a major issue of the Civil War. The issue was unfair taxation


This is false. The civil war was at core about slavery, taxation had little to nothing to do with it.


Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states’ rights — that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.

On Dec. 24, 1860, delegates at South Carolina’s secession convention adopted a “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” It noted “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery”

www.washingtonpost.com...

Why do you have to speak for the confederate state governments? They said it very clearly in their declarations:

The Georgia delcaration of Independence:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.


The Mississippi declaration of independence:


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.


South Carolina Declaration of independence:

fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right.


Texas Declaration of independence:

She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. 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

sunsite.utk.edu...

Confederate apologists continue to ignore these declarations as if somebody in the time machine went back and planted them. It's just astounding.

What of taxes? Where was this war about taxes?


These explanations are flatly wrong. High tariffs had prompted the Nullification Controversy in 1831-33, when, after South Carolina demanded the right to nullify federal laws or secede in protest, President Andrew Jackson threatened force. No state joined the movement, and South Carolina backed down. Tariffs were not an issue

www.washingtonpost.com...

Do you know when the tarrifs were passed? 1828, more than 30 years prior to the civil war. Do you know when the southern states decided to split? A mere 2 months after Lincoln won the elections. Before Lincoln even assumed office and pass any taxes whatsoever, the confederate decided to scatter off.

This is all confederal apologists do, fold their arms, insist it was about taxes and freedom, and look the other way, away from the obvious.

And yes, I'm well aware of Lincolns change of tune over slavery. He promised he wouldn't touch it during the elections elections, most northerners benefitted from slavery as well. But what makes you think the confederate state governments were convinced? And just because those unfortunate southern souls fought for their land, not necessarily for slavery, did this change the core agenda to the southern state governments and their intentions to leave? I don't think s.

The civil war was at core about slavery. Pointing to the otherside doesn't change the agendas of the southern governments at the time. You know what's most amazing about the civil war? Afew years prior confederate states were calling for northern states to abide by their laws in the south when it came to escaping slaves. States rights huh? Right.
edit on 17-9-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
[
The civil war was at core about slavery.


Ya, they wanted slavery. BUT...more important than slavery was that they wanted to do whatever they wanted to do without interference. That was the key.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
[
The civil war was at core about slavery.


Ya, they wanted slavery. BUT...more important than slavery was that they wanted to do whatever they wanted to do without interference. That was the key.


The interference was in the fact they were states holding slaves while in a nation that had abolished slavery. So they had to make their own country to do what they wanted. They did not secede over tobacco or cotton. They did not secede over whiskey. They did not secede over any other issue than the right to have slaves.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by exlibertateveritas
"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side."
Ulysses S. Grant, slaveholder

Many in the north didn't hate that blacks were in slavery, they just hated blacks. Lincoln supported Illinois' amendment to prohibit black people from moving to that state. Lincoln was also looking at having all the blacks deported out of the country. Read some of the writings of the northern abolitionist Lysander Spooner, he hated slavery in all its forms yet fully supported the South's fight for Independence. If slavery was the main issue the South was fighting to keep, they could have stayed in the union of states and had the Corwin Amendment passed. But there was more to it. From the beginning the yankee mercantilists passed trade legislation that benefited themselves and hurt the South. The South had had enough and decided they would be better off leaving the union. But Lincoln wanted to preserve what had been a voluntary union of states at all costs. But by preserving the union, Lincoln destroyed it by making it one of force and coercion.


Actually the slave he owned in question was a gift from his father-in-law, of which he gave freedom to upon receiving. And that was August 28, 1848. Grant lived in Ohio, which was not a slave state.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
The confederate flag is not racist, it is the person that holds the flag that represents the meaning
edit on 17-9-2011 by TechniXcality because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join