Skip to comments.Confederate Flag represents both heritage and hate
Posted on 03/05/2008 6:38:02 PM PST by Rebeleye
Does the Confederate battle flag represent heritage or hatred? The answer is yes. It represents a heritage that included hatred.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.mywebpal.com ...
The ONLY reason that slavery was an issue AT ALL was because of the sanctions and tariffs the North forced on the South. A black vote being equivalent to 2/3 a white vote was put into the Constitution BY THE NORTH!
I hear you. Not that the brainwashed will ever even recognize their base error.
Interesting picture. Where is it from and what is it of (other than the obvious)? A victim of inter-tribal or internecine warfare in Africa? The victim of a Belgian colonist in the Congo? A wayward servant of an Arab?
Slavery was and is a terrible thing. Even when it was practiced in the North. Even when New England shipping interests made fortunes trafficking in their sad cargo.
Inhumanity is evil, even when perpetrated in Detroit.
It was, in fact, a rebellion.
It was, as has been accurately stated before, Mr. Lincolns War or the War of Yankee Aggression.
War of Southern Rebellion, or The War of the Rebellion. Either one would be more accurate.
You're looking at it backwards. War was what the confederacy chose to further their aims. And the reason why the confederacy seceded in the first place was to protect their institution of slavery from what they saw as threats from the Republican president. So when you look at if from the South's viewpoint, it was most certainly a war about slavery.
“NOBODY has been better at the historical revisionist game than Southern historians, who have successfully pushed the ahistorical myth that the Civil War ‘had nothing to do about slavery.’”
Read the contemporary writings on the conflict. The issue was economic freedom and states’ rights. If the war was about slavery, then why didn’t the Yankees invade Delaware, for instance? Or Maryland? Or Kentucky? Delaware, a Yankee state, still practiced slavery in the early 1860s. Maryland and Kentucky were slave states, but did not secede. If the war was about slavery, one would think the altruistic Yankees would have marched into Maryland and Kentucky to free the slaves there. But, they didn’t. If the war was fought to free the slaves then why didn’t the fraudulent Emabcipation Proclamation free anyone? Talk about revisionist history! Tell me, exactly, who was freed by the Emancipation Proclamation?
I suggest you ask others on this forum about that picture.
The slave wasn’t beaten in the South. It was a publicity stunt.
You really need to read the Constitution some times. The count was for census purposes, not voting. A free black person counted the same as a free white person. And the 3/5ths was a compromise between the North, which didn't believe slaves should be counted for the purpose of determining congressional representation, and the South, which believed 1 slave should be treated as 1 person for determining representation. Considering that in the South a slave was property and not a person, it's hard to understand why they needed congressional representation other than to give the South a disproportionate representation in Congress. Even with the compromise the South still had dozens of congressmen they had no justification having since they were for people who weren't citizens.
If the South had freed its slaves why would it have seceded in the first place?
No. It wouldn’t be accurate.
War Between the States would be.
None of the above. It's a slave named Gordon who had been born in the U.S. and who had run away from the Gillespie (or Glasby) plantation and later joined the Union army. Harper's Weekly made a Northern hero out of him. Link.
By definition a rebellion is an open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government. That pretty much sums up the Southern attempt.
Rebellions usually are an attempt to remove or usurp an established government. The Confederate States attempted neither. They withdrew, and desired to be left ALONE.
Not at all. Rebellions are an armed opposition to the established government for whatever reason be it to overthrow the existing government or to break away from it. The Founding Father's knew that, which is why we study the American Revolution, not the American Secession.
As you well know, The American Colonies had no legal means of leaving. So in that case, it was a “rebellion” or a “Revolution” The Southern States did. Big difference.
Or if you still insist that it was a rebellion, then the term “ War for Southern Independence” would apply.
You’re looking at it backwards. War was what the confederacy chose to further their aims. And the reason why the confederacy seceded in the first place was to protect their institution of slavery from what they saw as threats from the Republican president. So when you look at if from the South’s viewpoint, it was most certainly a war about slavery.
Please show me in history where Lincoln threatened the south with freeing the slaves. The south chose independence and that’s when the hostilities began. If you believe “Honest Abe Lincoln”, he stated as much 16 months after the initiation of the conflict.