The Civil War Was About Slavery, Seriously

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: SgtHamsandwich
You are correct.

Another one is the "Heritage not Hate" debate. That's hogwash too. The flag is an absolute symbol of hate and racism.

No it isn't. To some people, yes it is.

The flag itself is not even the actual flag of the confederate states. It was the BATTLE flag of the confederate army.

To a lot of people 150years ago that flag was one of military honor, and a symbol that you yourself fought for, and/or members of your family DIED for! It was VERY personal to almost everyone in the south, more so than even vet's today feel about the US flag, or maybe even a unit insignia, or POW-MIA.


With that said, just like words, physical things can take on a different meaning if collectively a large number of people understand them to mean something else. This is an interesting issue, because I feel like we should fight against human ignorance dictating how we feel about something (example: "A chink in your armor" is not a racist phrase!). However, what matters is the spirit of how the flag is flown, by whom, and under what circumstances.

The flag never should have been flown at the south Carolina capitol, and ESPECIALLY not with a directive that it doesn't fly at half-mast, even while the US flag is beside it at half-mast...

Furthermore, those who erected the Confederate Army flag at the SC capitol in the 60's did it as a big F-YOU to the civil rights movement, and to antagonize southern blacks. It should have come down a LONG time ago!

Oh but it so is hogwash. The image of that flag has been marred and destroyed by the hate groups that used it to push their raciest agenda. No matter where it came from or what it used to mean, in this day in age it is a symbol of hate and racism. That fact can't be reversed no matter how many history lessons are spouted about in it's defense.

The swastika is a sacred image of "good-fortune" or "well-being" to Hindu's and Buddhist, but to the rest of the world it is and always will be a symbol of hate and racism due to the atrocities done by the Nazi's and their sympathizers.

I love where I come from and I am deeply saddened that the flag has become what it is today, but I won't fight and deny what it means today. We cannot fault the people that want it removed from our society. We can only fault the idiot extremist groups that have destroyed the image of the flag.

I took the flag down a long time ago. What it means to me doesn't mean the same thing to other folks. I grew up and changed my ways.

History lessons are not going to prove to other folks that your not racist, but you still wanna fly a now, racist symbol. It just doesn't work that way. If folks want to hold onto the flag to remind them of where they came from then that's perfectly fine. Keep it to yourselves though. Pass down that history to your kids. Just don't throw it in the faces of the people that have dealt with the negative side of what that symbol has become. It's the same with religious and non religious folk. We all know the old adage, "I don't care if you're religious, just don't push your crap on me."

originally posted by: SgtHamsandwich
I took the flag down a long time ago. What it means to me doesn't mean the same thing to other folks. I grew up and changed my ways.

"Grew up and changed my ways" can be restated as "i cowered before the almighty sword of public opinion".

That isn't growing up. Its merely putting a greater value on your manufactured social persona. Nothing wrong with (or right about) that....its just what humans seem to be finding fashionable lately....

History lessons are not going to prove to other folks that your not racist, but you still wanna fly a now, racist symbol. It just doesn't work that way. If folks want to hold onto the flag to remind them of where they came from then that's perfectly fine. Keep it to yourselves though. Pass down that history to your kids. Just don't throw it in the faces of the people that have dealt with the negative side of what that symbol has become. It's the same with religious and non religious folk. We all know the old adage, "I don't care if you're religious, just don't push your crap on me."

The one history lesson that has helped guide me in this (and other discussions) is from my own history. The mantra that used to be taught to students in school was "sticks and stones may break my bones....". You know the rest.

Since we have enacted this "Participants Win, Too" culture (aka: the Green Ribbon, or Honorable Mention culture), sticks and stones has been pushed aside. Now, you don't ignore it. You cower, feel like you are being bullied, and go tell someone that your feelings were hurt.

There is a striking difference between the "sticks and stones" vs the "Green Ribbon" upbringing.

There are all manner of cultural things that other cultures find tasteless. Part of living in a melting pot: you just have to suck it up, get over it, and move on. Either that or drive yourself insane trying to control other people.

Obviously, not you in particular.

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

The flag never should have been flown at the south Carolina capitol, and ESPECIALLY not with a directive that it doesn't fly at half-mast, even while the US flag is beside it at half-mast...

Furthermore, those who erected the Confederate Army flag at the SC capitol in the 60's did it as a big F-YOU to the civil rights movement, and to antagonize southern blacks. It should have come down a LONG time ago!

Thank you for that interesting tid-bit about 'the flag' never being flown at half mast.

originally posted by: diggindirt

Tens of thousands of them were DRAFTED into the fight---just like all the wars that followed until the hippies got the draft abolished.
If you weren't rich enough to buy a substitute or pay a bribe to the government, you had no choice except jail.
If you are going to argue about history you really should read about the subject beyond your high school textbook. I don't suppose it had anything about the New York City Draft riots?

You are absolutely correct. And I am not a student of the Civil War or many other things.

BTW I have read the entire thread and no I don't want to research the civil war. My ignorance of the south and her 'heritage' is profound - I had no idea of the depth of the continuing bigotry toward far too many things that is showing it'self so clearly in these last few weeks.

But you are correct about the draft (is that better or worse then 'taking the kinds shilling' - don't know). It, the reasons that individual soldiers fought, is still irrelevant to the propriety of flying the confederate flag over a current day state house in the USA.

a reply to: FyreByrd

that is the worst part about this whole thing: the Confederate Flag has no place flying above a state house. It is an act of sedition, no matter how you slice it.

But the conversation has been so screwed up on both sides. The straw men were trotted out, and before you know it the discussion on whether it should be "banned" (and thus a 1st amendment issue) instead of whether or not we should allow another "nations" flag to fly over state buildings in the US.

If Texas decided to hoist up the Mexican flag in Austin...what would the response be? I seem to remember that, during the immigration arguments a few years ago, it was an act of treason just to walk in public with a Mexican flag.

I can sum it up most easily with: people, on the whole, are flat out insane.

originally posted by: KlownKilla

Almost had me. La Raza has been making noise about immigration. Amnesty is a big issue around my area. On all sides. All groups of people have an agenda. I won't get into which group is the right group. But the group that wins in the end will be the group that works the hardest and most effectively toward their goals. History can show us that fact. Morality and justice rarely have anything to do with victory.

True, I stand corrected..

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: diggindirt

Tens of thousands of them were DRAFTED into the fight---just like all the wars that followed until the hippies got the draft abolished.
If you weren't rich enough to buy a substitute or pay a bribe to the government, you had no choice except jail.
If you are going to argue about history you really should read about the subject beyond your high school textbook. I don't suppose it had anything about the New York City Draft riots?

You are absolutely correct. And I am not a student of the Civil War or many other things.

BTW I have read the entire thread and no I don't want to research the civil war. My ignorance of the south and her 'heritage' is profound - I had no idea of the depth of the continuing bigotry toward far too many things that is showing it'self so clearly in these last few weeks.

But you are correct about the draft (is that better or worse then 'taking the kinds shilling' - don't know). It, the reasons that individual soldiers fought, is still irrelevant to the propriety of flying the confederate flag over a current day state house in the USA.

So you admit that you are profoundly ignorant of the south and its heritage and yet you come here to argue about it. Thank you for that admission. At least I know now where all those crazy statements originated.
Who is flying a "confederate flag" over a current day state house in the US? My understanding was that the flag in South Carolina was moved from the dome of the capitol to Confederate memorial nearby as a result of legislative action in 2000. Am I mistaken?
Just for your edification: Apparently the legislators of the CSA were just as good at useless arguments as today's politicians because over four years they had four different variations of the "official" flag, none of them what is today called the "confederate flag."
I have no idea why those '60s racists co-opted the second Confederate Navy Jack as their symbol. I have no idea why people today think it is THE Confederate flag. Simple ignorance I guess.
It is much easier to just lash out at people who disagree with you than to do some actual reading and learning about our history.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: SgtHamsandwich
The flag is an absolute symbol of hate and racism.

I would say that, like beauty, that's in the eye of the beholder. Some people genuinely see that symbol as a positive thing, while others see it very negatively. For that and other reasons, it should be available to those who want to display it, but not flown on a building where government bodies are at work making laws.

Kind of like what happened last friday with the flying of the rainbow flag from govenment buildings? Fly it at home but not on govnment buildings?

originally posted by: SgtHamsandwich

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: SgtHamsandwich
You are correct.

Another one is the "Heritage not Hate" debate. That's hogwash too. The flag is an absolute symbol of hate and racism.

No it isn't. To some people, yes it is.

The flag itself is not even the actual flag of the confederate states. It was the BATTLE flag of the confederate army.

To a lot of people 150years ago that flag was one of military honor, and a symbol that you yourself fought for, and/or members of your family DIED for! It was VERY personal to almost everyone in the south, more so than even vet's today feel about the US flag, or maybe even a unit insignia, or POW-MIA.


With that said, just like words, physical things can take on a different meaning if collectively a large number of people understand them to mean something else. This is an interesting issue, because I feel like we should fight against human ignorance dictating how we feel about something (example: "A chink in your armor" is not a racist phrase!). However, what matters is the spirit of how the flag is flown, by whom, and under what circumstances.

The flag never should have been flown at the south Carolina capitol, and ESPECIALLY not with a directive that it doesn't fly at half-mast, even while the US flag is beside it at half-mast...

Furthermore, those who erected the Confederate Army flag at the SC capitol in the 60's did it as a big F-YOU to the civil rights movement, and to antagonize southern blacks. It should have come down a LONG time ago!

Oh but it so is hogwash. The image of that flag has been marred and destroyed by the hate groups that used it to push their raciest agenda. No matter where it came from or what it used to mean, in this day in age it is a symbol of hate and racism. That fact can't be reversed no matter how many history lessons are spouted about in it's defense.

The swastika is a sacred image of "good-fortune" or "well-being" to Hindu's and Buddhist, but to the rest of the world it is and always will be a symbol of hate and racism due to the atrocities done by the Nazi's and their sympathizers.

I love where I come from and I am deeply saddened that the flag has become what it is today, but I won't fight and deny what it means today. We cannot fault the people that want it removed from our society. We can only fault the idiot extremist groups that have destroyed the image of the flag.

I took the flag down a long time ago. What it means to me doesn't mean the same thing to other folks. I grew up and changed my ways.

History lessons are not going to prove to other folks that your not racist, but you still wanna fly a now, racist symbol. It just doesn't work that way. If folks want to hold onto the flag to remind them of where they came from then that's perfectly fine. Keep it to yourselves though. Pass down that history to your kids. Just don't throw it in the faces of the people that have dealt with the negative side of what that symbol has become. It's the same with religious and non religious folk. We all know the old adage, "I don't care if you're religious, just don't push your crap on me."

Sooooooo.... you didn't even READ my entire post before quoting it and replying.

I clearly stated that sometimes objects and words take on a different meaning over time because of association, and because of this, it's long overdue to take down the flag at official locations.

a reply to: VforVendettea

It was a very important and specific amendment that was basically erased. The purpose was to bar all lawyers and bankers that also claimed the title of esquire from holding office in Congress. The opinion at the time was that lawyers in the Bar Association and bankers making ties with the Central Bank of England did not have the countries best interest at heart and had divided loyalties. But the renouncement of citizenship and lifetime ban from holding office sets the tone of how serious of a problem it was at the time.

Funny thing is that if it were included now, every law and Supreme Court decision would be revoked or overturned until proper evaluation could be performed. So no Federal Reserve or IRS but no eighteen years old nor women could vote either. Reinstatement would be a giant reset button, leaving many States out of the US until everything was resolved.

And if you like messed up history, technically Ohio never was ratified as a state. When the oversight was pointed out, the official Congressional word was that there was no need for an official vote in the 1950's and Ohio was considered as a state since 1803... But the still means it was never actually ratified as a state. So I want my tax money back with interest, fees and late penalties.



Amendment XIII
Passed by Congress May 1, 1810 - Ratified December 9, 1812.

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the united States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

a reply to: Phototropic If the civil war was entirely, or even mostly about civil war, I'm wondering why they didn't just remain with the union after reading the preliminary emancipation proclamation. After all, had they decided not to rebel by January 1st of the following year they would have been allowed to keep their slaves.

www.archives.gov...

a reply to: Ahabstar

And for the reasons you stated so well people need to be told about it or reminded of it again.
|The opposite of the tactic of telling a lie enough and people believe it, keep telling the truth that they want buried enough and people can't continue to ignore it.

FWIW- I'm good with a reset button. I think sufferage, and all the other laws that are fair and just will be passed for the simple reason that too many women work, own their own businesses, pay taxes and all that.

There are tens of thousands of laws and loopholes passed every year and a reset button is long overdue.

originally posted by: JohnFisher
a reply to: Phototropic If the civil war was entirely, or even mostly about civil war, I'm wondering why they didn't just remain with the union after reading the preliminary emancipation proclamation. After all, had they decided not to rebel by January 1st of the following year they would have been allowed to keep their slaves.

www.archives.gov...

whoops, typo. I meant to say, if the civil war was all or mostly about "slavery". Long day yesterday.

a reply to: PhototropicUpon doing deeper research I must come to the conclusion that, yes, the civil was was about slavery. But no, not about black slavery.

The end result of the war was Abraham Lincoln was "Advised" by his "Lawyers" how to solidify the federal governments control over the new nation. Abraham Lincoln declared Marshall law, and it have never been rescinded! In effect nullifying the original Constitution we all thought we were living under. Skillfully creating a duplicate/counterfeit one in its place. Thanks in full to, Lawyer Advisers. Corporate lawyers who had title to the bar.

Regardless of the claimed public reason for the war, the end results were that all people were now enslaved to the federal government and UCC code, contract law, and via the 14th amendment, taxes, licenses. We had all become enslaved to the federal government.

The confederacy separated from the federal government and took with it, our original constitution. And that confederate constitution contained the original 13th amendment, which forbade "Lawyers" from being part of our Government. Lincolns Marshall Law version was rewritten to include a new 13th amendment that freed black slaves to be part of the new slavery, but also because of the removal of the original 13th, opened the door to Lawyers entering government service.

The danger of this is Lawyers by virtue of their "Title" now tell us what is legal, in their eyes. And as you see today, virtually nothing can be done without legal counsel of one type or another. Its the lawyers who opened the door to allow privately owned banks to monopolize our government, and country, under authority of the UCC, not the original constitution.

spktruth2power.wordpress.com...

www.outpost-of-freedom.com...

a reply to: mbkennel

The emancipation proclamation was a political ploy. The people of the north were sick of the war and northern big wigs were talking about peace talks with the south which would have included allowing the south to secede.
Lincoln was between a rock and a hard place, with the election coming up he had to do something to get re-elected.he had to do something drastic to stop the talk of peace negotiations with the south and get the people back to supporting the war.
remember Lincoln said if he could free some of the slaves while leaving some alone he would do that, and that`s exactly what the proclamation emancipation did.Only the slaves in rebelling states were to be freed as of Jan 1st the slaves in union states would remain slaves.
Lincolns purpose in doing that was to try to get the southern states to re-join the union before the Jan 1st deadline,if they had done that they would have been allowed to keep their slaves,because they no longer would have been states in rebellion they would have been states in good standing in the union.Remember that states that were a part of the union were still allowed to have slaves, even after the emancipation proclamation.

Lincoln was a politician, telling people what they wanted to hear and trying to find compromises that would satisfy everyone.

a reply to: TardacusThe one thing people seem to miss about old Abe, was he was a lawyer, before becoming a politician.

And by the original 13th amendment, Old Abe was ineligible to hold any public office. So, I believe that is the real reason
the second 13th amendment was put into place.

I know it isn't written anywhere but it is strange that only two months after his election, the south began to succeed. Maybe, seeing how they had the original 13th, maybe they knew he wasn't eligible, because he was a lawyer.

The year 1860 marks a very pivotal time for the United States, namely the election of President Abraham Lincoln. This marked election is often thought of the first event in a series that turned into the civil war that started April of 1861. The first president from The Republican Party, (only in existence for fewer than 10 years at the time) Lincoln was responsible for many large changes and is an icon in American History.

There are many who perpetuate the rumor that Lincoln was a backwoods farmer when in actuality he was a well-educated lawyer. He received the nomination from the Republican Convention in 1860 and beat out contenders such as William H. Seward.

Part of the success behind his election was the Democratic Party disintegrating while attempting to nominate a candidate. Those democrats from the Deep South didn’t like Stephen A. Douglass who was one of the favorites among others in the Democratic Party. The split ended up forcing three candidates from the different factions: Stephen A. Douglas from border-states and Northern states, John Bell from those who used to be the Whig party and John C. Breckinridge from the Deep South Democrats.

One of the most significant aspects of Lincoln’s election is that he held all of the Free states and none of the slave states. When the results of the election were announced many in South Carolina and Charleston started meeting to discuss succession. Lincoln was elected the President of the United States (the 16th) on November 6th, 1860 and by November 10th legislature had started meeting and succession talk was underway.

Just over two months after he was elected, President Lincoln saw the first state to succeed when South Carolina voted to secede on December 20th 1860.

www.historynet.com...

Was the Civil War About Slavery?
What caused the Civil War? Did the North care about abolishing slavery? Did the South secede because of slavery? Or was it about something else entirely...perhaps states' rights? Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point, settles the debate.

Was about to post this as a new thread. but this will do fine, something of interest Col Ty Seidule said. .that one point the north was actually more productive in agriculture than the south,it may well be the type of crops being produced I don't know but it bears looking into, pls klik this short vid.

a reply to: Spider879

yep, too much profit selling cotton to Europe ourselves. Not to mention SUGAR CANE. the north was dependant on the south that's why they went to war to keep it. Abraham Lincoln never wanted to end slavery, he said so himself in multiple public addresses. They were scared of a slave uprising after the civil war, plain and simple. With all the old masters dead they weren't about to go enslave themselves again. With the surplus of arms this was a real possibility. . So the U.S.Army in essence committed genocide on her own people. Attempting to purge the separatist/independent ideology of the southern american. After they won the war they proceeded to burn towns to the ground and rape southern women. Maybe if they had not done that, the animosity wouldn't be so tense. . I don't see native american war flags being discriminated against, they also took slaves and went to war with the U.S. The only point in the recent media revival of the flag is to promote racism, against southern states. Tarnishing the sacrifice made by not only southern whites but african free-men and natives, who stood against Lincoln's new union. . Most of you who dismiss this flag as racist are in fact against fellow humans, because of where they come from.

originally posted by: Acidx
a reply to: Spider879

yep, too much profit selling cotton to Europe ourselves. Not to mention SUGAR CANE. the north was dependant on the south that's why they went to war to keep it. Abraham Lincoln never wanted to end slavery, he said so himself in multiple public addresses. They were scared of a slave uprising after the civil war, plain and simple. With all the old masters dead they weren't about to go enslave themselves again. With the surplus of arms this was a real possibility. . So the U.S.Army in essence committed genocide on her own people. Attempting to purge the separatist/independent ideology of the southern american. After they won the war they proceeded to burn towns to the ground and rape southern women. Maybe if they had not done that, the animosity wouldn't be so tense. . I don't see native american war flags being discriminated against, they also took slaves and went to war with the U.S. The only point in the recent media revival of the flag is to promote racism, against southern states. Tarnishing the sacrifice made by not only southern whites but african free-men and natives, who stood against Lincoln's new union. . Most of you who dismiss this flag as racist are in fact against fellow humans, because of where they come from.

I have an unflattering name for those Free men of African ancestry that took up arms in support of slavery but I'll let it be.