Posted on 05/24/2007 6:03:30 AM PDT by Rebeleye
...he was stunned to see two large Confederate flags flying from trucks...emblazoned with the words "The South Shall Rise Again." I'm stunned, too, that people still think it is cool to fly this flag. Our society should bury these flags -- not flaunt them...because the Confederate flag symbolizes racial tyranny to so many... ...This flag doesn't belong on city streets, in videos or in the middle of civil discussion. It belongs in our past -- in museums and in history books -- along with the ideas it represents.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansas.com ...
I won't justify your ridiculous insinuation with a comment!!
"Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806. The financial base of New England's antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping. And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.
Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans. "
1. Hugh Thomas, “The Slave Trade,” N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1997, p.519.
2. Lorenzo Johnston Greene, “The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776,” N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1942, p.68-69.
3. ibid., p.26.
4. “Brown University committee examines historical ties to slavery,” Associated Press, The Boston Globe, March 5, 2004
Before changing the subject how about answering the question?
As much claim as New York had.
If both had a claim to it why was South Carolina justified in seizing it without compensating New York for their share?
Which becomes null and void when South Carolina no longer is in the Union and that fort was a direct and immediate threat to that State.
Based on what rule of law?
The State seceded. Therefore, that was a foreign military base
So it had a foreign owner. It was still the property of someone else. What gave South Carolina any legal claim to it?
Since much of the tax money collected in the South had been spent on infrastructure in the North, why not?
Because it didn't belong to South Carolina and the rightful owner wasn't interested in just giving it away. That's why not.
On another note, why was Jeff Davis never tried?
Still trying to change the subject? Ok. The reason was the 14th Amendment. Now it's your turn to actually answer some of my questions.
Same here. And, my ancestors wore blue.
I recently visited a battle field in Virginia where soldiers from both sides and their families would gather for annual picnics. If they could get over things then, how can anyone be holding a grudge now?
This is something they don’t want to admit, while they sit on their moral pedestal. The entire COUNTRY was guilty for slavery. They have no moral high-ground to stand on on this issue.
Frankly, if Lincoln had had some sort of plan to properly deal with former slaves better than “you’re free, buh bye”, civil relations in this country since then would’ve been far more pleasant. Unfortunately, he didn’t. No one after him did either. The Brits actually handled abolition far better.
(1) Compensate the former owners.
(2) Free the slaves.
(3) Give the former slaves something to start out with.
(Slavery Abolition Act 1833)
Problem effectively over. Much of the tumult all the way to today would have been avoided.
Still trying to enslave people, so typical from the losers of the 'lost cause'.
You are already enslaved to your twisted mindset.
Yes, it was justified. That fort was a loaded gun pointing at South Carolina.
“If both had a claim to it why was South Carolina justified in seizing it without compensating New York for their share?”
New York wasn’t under that fort’s guns.
“Based on what rule of law?”
The State was no longer under the Constitution.
” So it had a foreign owner. It was still the property of someone else. What gave South Carolina any legal claim to it?”
What gave us a legal claim to British forts on our territory? That fort was not private property. It was a military base in the territorial waters of South Carolina.
“Because it didn’t belong to South Carolina and the rightful owner wasn’t interested in just giving it away. That’s why not.”
It belonged to all the States until South Carolina seceded.
All the other forts were vacated, why not that one? Lincoln wanted a trigger.
“Still trying to change the subject? Ok. The reason was the 14th Amendment. Now it’s your turn to actually answer some of my questions.”
I prefaced that with “on another note”, sonny. The reason wasn’t the 14th Amendment. He was imprisoned without trial for 2 years. Why was he released? Oh, the 14th is a wrong answer, by the way.
“You are already enslaved to your twisted mindset.”
No sense of humor at all.
Liberal loser from a liberal state.
The problem is while they were off doing that, who was protecting their homes, farms and states from intrusive local Confederate goon squads?
It seems easy and mentally satisfying to project current issues back into the 1860s, but under examination, the behavior of the reb regime does not measure up to the noble principles that many today wish to attribute to it.
“I recently visited a battle field in Virginia where soldiers from both sides and their families would gather for annual picnics. If they could get over things then, how can anyone be holding a grudge now?”
The South isn’t. Some in the North are.
I had relatives on both sides.
“It seems easy and mentally satisfying to project current issues back into the 1860s, but under examination, the behavior of the reb regime does not measure up to the noble principles that many today wish to attribute to it.”
The same can be said for the Lincoln regime.
WHatever mistakes Lincoln made, I’d much rather be a Copperhead in the North than a Unionist in the South. Being a Lincolnite in the South was a very dangerous thing.
“WHatever mistakes Lincoln made, I’d much rather be a Copperhead in the North than a Unionist in the South.”
It was military courts all around.
You bet wrong, again - lost causer. What a track record, it never ends lol
Who is this "WE"? Single issue wahoos, most Americans would ne shocked still exist.
Get over it, this is 2007.
Waxman is from California, when did Cali become part of the South?
Liberalism is the real Lost Cause. Enjoy.
“Who is this “WE”? Single issue wahoos, most Americans would ne shocked still exist.”
My “single issue” is to keep liberals out of power. Many seem to come from New York.
“Get over it, this is 2007.”
We are “over it”. It’s bigotted people like you who aren’t.
You act as if the North sat on a moral pedestal over the issue of slavery. Well, it didn’t. It was JUST as responsible. In fact, some Union states were slave states until after the war.
Perhaps you’re just jealous that we are freer than you.
You mind reading skills have hit rock bottom - again.
Which liberal & commie free state do you reside?
We already know your claim on that. The question is by your criteria wouldn't Castro be justified in bombarding Guantanamo Bay into surrender. And if he did, again by your criteria, then shouldn't the U.S. just sit back and let him?
New York wasn’t under that fort’s guns.
But New York was co-owner.
The State was no longer under the Constitution.
That's not the question. What rule of law transferred Sumter from its legal owner to the South Carolina without compensation? If you can't come up with one just say so.
What gave us a legal claim to British forts on our territory? That fort was not private property. It was a military base in the territorial waters of South Carolina.
Following the war that would have been the Treaty of Paris, signed by both sides. Now what gave South Carolina legal claim to Sumter?
All the other forts were vacated, why not that one? Lincoln wanted a trigger.
No, all the other forts were seized without permission or the agreement of their rightful owner, the government of the United States. They were stolen.
I prefaced that with “on another note”, sonny.
You're trying to be condescending again, aren't you?
The reason wasn’t the 14th Amendment. He was imprisoned without trial for 2 years. Why was he released? Oh, the 14th is a wrong answer, by the way.
Actually it was the correct answer. Chief Justice Chase, who would have been one of the two judges trying Davis, made it clear that he would not vote to convict because the passage of the 14th Amendment stripped Davis from holding any office or any position of trust in the government. Having been punished for his role in leading the rebellion by Section 3 of the amendment, Chase was of the opinion that further trial and punishment would be a violation of Davis's 5th Amendment right against double jeopardy.
But I'll bite, laddie. What's your version?
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.