Posted on 06/23/2015 4:16:19 AM PDT by Biggirl
Mitt Romney stated recently that the Confederate flag was "a symbol of racial hatred" and asked that it be removed from South Carolina's capital to honor victims of Charleston's deadly church shooting. President Obama agreed with Romney and believes the Confederate flag "belongs in a museum." Even before Dylann Roof murdered nine African-Americans at a historically black church, Southern institutions had decided to part ways with this "symbol of racial hatred." According to former Ole Miss Chancellor Robert Khayat, the University of Mississippi chose to "disassociate" itself from the Confederate flag in the late 1990s and has prospered ever since.
Recent history. The Democrats promoted the Stars and Bars in the 50’s and 60’s. You taking ownership of that now?
Please. We all know why the Stars and Bars started flying in the first place. They didn’t start flying over statehouses until the 50’s and 60’s, and that was because Democrat governors opposed Federal Government efforts to end Jim Crow.
Its a loser flag. From a bygone era. Lets not equate it with the US flag and the Cross. Its not even close.
Recent history? You’re really stretching it. I wasn’t alive at the time but I’ll endorse it now if you’d like.
Please. The army was not fighting for the freedom of southern slaves. It was fighting to stop independence from Washington D.C.
If the Confederates had given up early, they could have kept slavery, but because they put up such a fight, the Union decided to punish them.
And now you sort come along and try to pretend that the valiant union soldiers were fighting for the freedom of southern slaves, and that is just an abject lie.
No, the sticking point of the war was not slavery, but Independence. That was what Washington D.C. couldn't tolerate.
WE aren’t.
THEY are.
And the sheep and the low info’s will, too.
All we can do is keep pointing it out.
he rebels were fighting to maintain the equal admission of free and slave states. Had the entire west been free states slavery would have been outlawed by congressional decree in 10-20 years. When Lincoln was elected 7 states succeeded before his inauguration. The constant spinning that the war was not about slavery is put to lie by the history of the issue, from the declaration of Independence through the compromises to 1860.
Hey Mitt - What do you call that that big Black fist in downtown Detroit that greets everybody to the City of Detroit. Yeah, the one that was suppose to honor Joe Louis the boxer, ......you know, the one where they didn’t see fit to put up a complete statue. Yep it’s there Mitt, ....in the same city your Father , then Governor of Michigan , - let the Blacks burn down the city for over 5 days before he found a backbone to call in the National Guard. Yeah, and not to mention how the UNCF supports private Black Colleges to help turn out model citizens like Spike Lee (director) that can tweet out incorrect address to inflict harm without anyone mentioning “Prejudice”?
Yeah, Mitt old boy, I guess it’s safe to say that a Mind is a Terrible thing to waste”/ - guess what?? SO IS A NEIGHBORHOOD! Looking at the progress Detroit has made under black leadership over the past say, 40 years or so? , I can see why you wouldn’t want the Stars and Bars waving, after all it was all for naught in your eyes. History to you is BUNK! Looking back a few months to Baltimore and Ferguson everybody can see the great contributions that were made to the American cities by Black people. Yep,- hey, let’s not forget that 2 people (whites) were executed in their own home in New Orleans, recently by Black Teens! Oh yeah, and let’s just forget about the Tawana Brawley rape allegations.........which were found out completely false but, that had no bearing on the people that lost scholarships and jobs over her falsely accusing six white men of raping her. Hey, Mitt, .....no big deal here. Well, Mitt ....ask yourself this question; “ If you were ever good enough to win a debate with facts, and say you someday became President?? Do you think the people would excuse you for saying the “N” word from the podium presidential seal??
I doubt it! Ok, well Mitt, ———now you can go back to watching your favorite TV channel tax payer supported ? BET ? was it?
Side note to Gov. Nikki Barbour: - You might as well pull down both (stars and bars, and stars and stripes) and hoist the “Union Jack” then you can “Reminisce” about how bad you all had it in India when the evil British ruled over you and taught you folks.........not to worship a cow, but how read, write, engineering, sciences, arts and mostly .......HOW to THINK!
What a Sad, Sad, time for our beloved Southern States and for America! What’s wrong .......can’t handle the Truth? Then GO live elsewhere!
sure give more concessions, get rid of the flag that has flown for years and is part of Southern history. Enough is enough. Isn’t giving them an affirmative action president, paying them for having more kids, supplying free phones, food stamps, and special consideration across the board doesn’t satisfy the thirst for more. Won’t learn is schools because that would be acting white. generations of people sleeping til afternoon and telling the world how they are mistreated. It is all a bunch of crap and I for one am fed up with the constant whining. Some one needs to stand up and tell them GET AN EDUCATION AND ASSIMILATE AND STOP ASKING THE REST OF THE COUNTRY TO SUPPORT THEM.
Eric Erickson has an interesting take on this. He points out that everytime there’s an attempt at gun control people rush out to buy guns.
He says that a likely outcome here is that a lot of Southerners will probably now run out and buy and display ANoVA flags. Not out of racism but as a big eff you against the folks trying to ban it.
The result will be MORE ANoVA flags flying. Which will be portrayed by the Left as even more evidence of the racism they are working so hard to stomp out (through any means necessary).
IOW the Left here is exacerbating a problem that only their Leftist policies can solve.
Please don't interject bullshit into the discussion. The war was about who was going to rule the south, not about whether southerners had slaves, just as five northern states did.
You can't argue that the north was fighting to end slavery when Lincoln could have done so with the five northern states at the flip of his pen.
Just as he tossed the legislators of Maryland (a northern slave state) into jail, he could have ordered all Maryland slaves freed. He had the army to back up his intentions, but his intentions were not that the Maryland slaves should go free, it was that the Southern States should not.
Well said.
I have never had any interest in that flag, but they are certainly motivating me in that direction. I doubt I will bother getting one, but I certainly am feeling the urge to be defiant and rebellious.
Shut up, Milt...you and the rest of you Red England fascists.
It amazes me that when it comes to this topic, northern Freepers suddenly adopt the same pathetic debate techniques used by liberals. Honestly, you can’t tell them apart.
There’s no homogeneity in the reasoning for the Civil War. There were different reasons between the North and the South. There were different reasons beteen the soldiers, the officers, the politicians and the public. There were different reasons within all those groups.
The fact remains that while the perpetuation of slavery wasn’t the only reason, it was certainly a major one from the vantage point of the politicians and voters who led the charge on seccession.
We know this because we can read many of the Confederate States’ own articles of seccession, where they openly state it was a reason.
So which is it?
This may be so, but the top of that chain of command is the only person who's reasons matter. His reason was to stop independence, not slavery.
The rank and file operated on his reasons, and in the pursuit of his reasons, the implementation sometimes suited their own.
We know this because we can read many of the Confederate States’ own articles of seccession, where they openly state it was a reason.
I believe someone pointed out that the slave holders were 1.7% of the population? So you have the writings of 1.7% of the population's reasons for it. Now what were you saying about the diverse reasons on the part of the Northern populations?
I'm sort of thinking that if someone invades my country, I don't care what our public policies are, or how much other people despise them. I don't care if *I* despise them, i'm going to fight the invaders regardless of internal policy disputes with my own government.
You invade my state, you're going to get a fight.
I’m not talking about “writings”, I’m talking about the actual text of the articles of seccession. AND the monied interests behind them.
And that it’s ok to understand that while the Northern political leadership was certainly waging a war of conquest, slavery played a really significant role in why the South was fighting as well.
Those things don’t have to be mutually exclusive. If made that way, it reduces war that took around 750,000 lives to simplistic slogans. Removing from consideration the richness and depth of the history and motivations involved.
Only around 4% of the slave ships flew under the American flag. A few of them were owned by southern interests. Approximately 80% flew under the British flag.
There is no question that slavery constituted a major portion of the economic assets and productivity of the South at that time. For the South, it was very much part of their economic interests, but again whether it be their reason for seceding does not address what were the Northern reasons for stopping them.
The reasons for the North sending an invasion force have nothing to do with Slavery. ergo, the casus belli was not slavery, but Independence. Slavery was going to be tolerated by the Union, Independence was not going to be tolerated.
Those things don’t have to be mutually exclusive. If made that way, it reduces war that took around 750,000 lives to simplistic slogans. Removing from consideration the richness and depth of the history and motivations involved.
People insist that the conflict be summarized. Those that generally have ancestors on the Northern side very much want their ancestors to be "the good guys" morally. They don't want a version of history in which their ancestors are not.
The Same is true of people with Southern ancestors.
I have neither Northern Ancestors nor Southern ancestors that fought in that conflict. My Ancestors arrived in this country over forty years after the conflict was over, and so I don't have a "preferred" history.
I have a more objective perspective than most because i'm not trying to force reality to confirm to a preference.
But yes, there is a lot of nuance to what happened, but if you have to summarize it, it comes down to an effort to gain independence and an effort to stop it. The effort to stop independence was successful, but at horrible cost. A cost that begs the question of whether it was worth it or not.
Slavery was doomed in the long term anyways.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.