Politico spin: Government shutdown unleashes racism

[JCDenton0451]

http://images.politico.com/global/2013/10/14/131013_confederate_flag_white_house_rtr.jpg


This weekend, racism came out of the closet. (Which assumes it has ever been in the closet.)


Protesters marched through the streets of Washington on Sunday with a Confederate flag and then a protester lounged against the White House fence with one. Displaying the Confederate flag in front of a home occupied by a black family was meant to send a particular, and particularly repellent, message.


There were other signs of our descent. Remember Samuel Wurzelbacher? Known as “Joe the Plumber,” he was selected by John McCain as his presidential campaign mascot in 2008 with the same care McCain used to select Sarah Palin.


Over the weekend, Wurzelbacher posted an article on his blog titled: “America Needs a White Republican President.”


“Admit it,” the article said. “You want a white Republican president again. Wanting a white Republican president doesn’t make you racist, it just makes you American.”


America has come to a sorry pass. Not because there are still racists among us, but because the racists among us think they can tell us what makes an American.



Now, I know most of you will be willing to dismiss this article as futher evidence of media bias, but one has to ask: why do this? What kind of message are you trying to send by proudly waving the Confederate flag in front of the residence of the first african-american president? It's this kind of stuff that makes me question the sanity of some of these Tea Party protesters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/10/13/Local/Images/VETMARCH0151381683671.jpg

[torchbearer]

had the president been dr. ben carson, and if the congress actually understood economics and followed the constitution- there would be no problem.

[aGameOfThrones]

What's so wrong about waving the confederate flag?

[FloralScent]

Now, I know most of you will be willing to dismiss this article as futher evidence of media bias, but one has to ask: why do this? What kind of message are you trying to send by proudly waving the Confederate flag in front of the residence of the first african-american president?


The same message they were sending when it was flying over regiment after regiment of good ol' boys during the War of Northern Aggression. "If you want to live, RUN!".


I wish...

[Ender]

http://images.politico.com/global/2013/10/14/131013_confederate_flag_white_house_rtr.jpg



Now, I know most of you will be willing to dismiss this article as futher evidence of media bias, but one has to ask: why do this? What kind of message are you trying to send by proudly waving the Confederate flag in front of the residence of the first african-american president? It's this kind of stuff that makes me question the sanity of some of these Tea Party protesters.

Because the War Between the States was NOT about slavery; it was about FREEDOM.
Most Americans today are too brainwashed to understand that.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Sometimes I forget that the president is black, until the media brings it up again.

Then I go back to not caring about it.

[ronpaulfollower999]

What's the lefty excuse for the right hating Biden, Reid, and Pelosi?

[Ender]

What's the lefty excuse for the right hating Biden, Reid, and Pelosi?

Jealous of their good looks? ;)

[Elias Graves]

What's the lefty excuse for the right hating Biden, Reid, and Pelosi?
That's racism too. Those guys follow Obama. Hate them? Hate Obama.

[Occam's Banana]

What's the lefty excuse for the right hating Biden, Reid, and Pelosi?

It's okay for lefties to hate other people so much. They only do it because they care about other people so much ...

[shane77m]

LOL. Racism. LOL

Oh no. Someone is offended by a guy with a flag. :(

[Cleaner44]

http://images.politico.com/global/2013/10/14/131013_confederate_flag_white_house_rtr.jpg



Now, I know most of you will be willing to dismiss this article as futher evidence of media bias, but one has to ask: why do this? What kind of message are you trying to send by proudly waving the Confederate flag in front of the residence of the first african-american president? It's this kind of stuff that makes me question the sanity of some of these Tea Party protesters.

Who are you to claim the man pictured is a racist?

Who are you to state what particular message the man holding a flag means to send?

Oh, I get it, this is not your claim, you are just regurgitating the baseless claim made by a substandard reporter using low quality journalistic tactics.

Is it your intention that all Americans live and act in order to gain the approval the MSM or is it just these tea party people that need to stay within MSM guidelines?

[acptulsa]

Is it your intention that all Americans live and act in order to gain the approval the MSM or is it just these tea party people that need to stay within MSM guidelines?

Doesn't matter. With tactics and 'standards' like this, they'll be able to misrepresent you as some kind of undesirable no matter how rigorously you toe the line.

That's the beauty of the media bubble. Doesn't even matter if no one believes them--they repeat themselves with all the outlets and billions of watts behind them, and never let a sensible rebuttal hit the air, and manufacture impossible 'realities' to their hearts' content.

[Red Green]

What's the lefty excuse for the right hating Biden,

Bigoted against the mentally challenged.



Reid,

Religious bigotry (Mormons who love abortions)



and Pelosi?

Misogynist - I mean, that is if Pelosi is really a woman and not a really bad attempt at drag.

[Demigod]

In Europe the confederate flag is the only acceptable flag to have except the flag of your country or the colors of your team ( it is mostly brought the sport games and protests ) .It is seen as the rebel flag by everyone except the governments and communists ( phisophical,economical,political and law students ) of course.


http://southernnationalist.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Croatia-soccer-fans2.jpg

[phill4paul]

Was actually called a "Racist" on farcebook by a friend. I'm going to be saving a bunch of FRNs this Christmas season. lol.

[Antischism]

Over the weekend, Wurzelbacher posted an article on his blog titled: “America Needs a White Republican President.”

“Admit it,” the article said. “You want a white Republican president again. Wanting a white Republican president doesn’t make you racist, it just makes you American.”


Haha, this guy is a joke. A clear example of what is wrong with this country. I don't think the flag is the real issue here, it's this type of mentality which no doubt is prevalent.

Then you have people at that vet march, saying things like this:

"...demand that this president leave town, to get up, to put the Quran down, to get up off his knees, and to figuratively come out with his hands up." - Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch

[ItsTime]

Sometimes I forget that the president is black, until the media brings it up again.

Then I go back to not caring about it.

Yup same here. I very often forget he is black until I read an article like this.

[specsaregood]

I didn't read the article, so help me out: Did politico mention la raza's presence at the WWII memorial the other day?

[XNavyNuke]

What kind of message are you trying to send by proudly waving the Marine flag in front of the residence of the first african-american president who couldn't serve during Vietnam? It's this kind of stuff that makes me question the sanity of some of these Tea Party protesters.

Barack Obama 'wanted to join US military' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/2700555/Barack-Obama-wanted-to-join-the-US-military.html)


And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honourable option. But keep in mind that I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end.

Its Nixon fault for depriving the Glorious Leader the chance of serving as a Marine in Vietnam. I can't believe the flag waver is so inconsiderate of others feelings.

XNN

[angelatc]

And here's the resident troll, here to once again call us racists.


What kind of message are you trying to send by proudly waving the Confederate flag in front of the residence of the first african-american president?

Like it matters. YOu've already decided what you think the message is, and nobody except black people are allowed to celebrate their heritage.



It's this kind of stuff that makes me question the sanity of some of these Tea Party protesters.

You don't like us. We get that. Go away.

If they were waving an Israeli flag, you'd be all upset about that, too. But it were a Mexican flag? That would probably be alright.

[bunklocoempire]

http://images.politico.com/global/2013/10/14/131013_confederate_flag_white_house_rtr.jpg



Now, I know most of you will be willing to dismiss this article as futher evidence of media bias, but one has to ask: why do this? What kind of message are you trying to send by proudly waving the Confederate flag in front of the residence of the first african-american president? It's this kind of stuff that makes me question the sanity of some of these Tea Party protesters.

What did the media interview reveal about the flag bearer? Is there an interview? The media got his name and a few pics so why no interview?

Here's another picture at this link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/10/15/confederate-flag-in-front-of-white-house-our-politics-as-war-by-other-means/

American politics today, however, is the reverse of the Clausewitz analysis. American politics is now the continuation of ‘war by other means.’ This became crystal clear when Michael Ashmore of Hooks, Texas, waved a confederate flag in front of the White House at a demonstration. As Jonathan Capehart wrote, that flag is “a symbol of Southern resistance and white supremacy” and it was “unfurled in front of the home of the first black president of the United States.”
The author gives her opinion and Jonathan Capehart's opinion is mentioned but no interview with the flag bearer...

What kind of message you ask? If it's a big deal why not just ask the guy and remove any speculation?
If Michael Ashmore's motive is as media is projecting, does that negate anything else he might believe?

What kind of message is the White House sending as it flies the stars & stripes while ignoring individual liberty and the constitution?

A president sassing off to his boss is what the deal is.

Work though that knee-jerk statement. :rolleyes: lol

[KEEF]

What's the lefty excuse for the right hating Biden, Reid, and Pelosi?

The right must be gerontophobic and gynophobic ;0)

[angelatc]

“unfurled in front of the home of the first black president of the United States.”

No, Obama's home is in Chicago. The White House belongs to all of us.

[Elias Graves]

But it were a Mexican flag? That would probably be alright.

Not a chance. That'd just be a racist who's making fun of "undocumented workers." (ie, democrat slaves)

[Brian4Liberty]

Now, I know most of you will be willing to dismiss this article as futher evidence of media bias, but one has to ask: why do this? What kind of message are you trying to send by proudly waving the Confederate flag in front of the residence of the first african-american president?

Good question. What is the message? It seems that a lot of people have ASSumed a message. The person with the flag is the one who knows exactly what the intended message is. Maybe he was paid to go there and wave that flag by Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews.


Because the War Between the States was NOT about slavery; it was about FREEDOM.
Most Americans today are too brainwashed to understand that.

That is a perfectly realistic possible intended message.


Who are you to claim the man pictured is a racist?

Who are you to state what particular message the man holding a flag means to send?

Oh, I get it, this is not your claim, you are just regurgitating the baseless claim made by a substandard reporter using low quality journalistic tactics.

Is it your intention that all Americans live and act in order to gain the approval the MSM or is it just these tea party people that need to stay within MSM guidelines?

A video of the flag waver talking would tell us what he really had in mind. Since the media has not put that out, he probably never said anything bad.

The Marxist left has lost their minds, spewing hate and venom for weeks. And through their hateful eyes, they assume that hate is the always the motivation. "You don't want to eat marshmallows for dinner? You are a hater!"

[jmdrake]

Because the War Between the States was NOT about slavery; it was about FREEDOM.
Most Americans today are too brainwashed to understand that.

And one of the "freedoms" the southerner politicians who started the confederacy wanted was the freedom to expand slavery into the new territories. And no I'm not "brainwashed." I read the southern declarations of secession, the confederate constitution and the southern articles of secession. References to the expansion of slavery can be found in all of them. But hell, I've gone over this a zillion times at RPF and nobody ever seems to want to listen. Carry on.

Edit: And for the record, I make no excuses for this racist either.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVcfymOvoUo

[angelatc]

I didn't read the article, so help me out: Did politico mention la raza's presence at the WWII memorial the other day?

No, and it didn't mention the OFA's "Tea-Tards" signage either.

What really ticks me off is that we're forced to put up with this "intellectually superior" liberal trolling.

[angelatc]

And one of the "freedoms" the southerner politicians who started the confederacy wanted was the freedom to expand slavery into the new territories. And no I'm not "brainwashed." I read the southern declarations of secession, the confederate constitution and the southern articles of secession. References to the expansion of slavery can be found in all of them. But hell, I've gone over this a zillion times at RPF and nobody ever seems to want to listen. Carry on.

Lincoln said he would allow slavery if it meant keeping the union together. The civil war was about not allowing the states to leave the union.

[Legend1104]

Wow I am amazed it took this long to pull out the race card.

[jmdrake]

Lincoln said he would allow slavery if it meant keeping the union together.

Yep. That doesn't negate a thing I said.


The civil war was about not allowing the states to leave the union.

The reason the union needed to be kept together is that some states wanted to leave in order, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. That is historical fact. Imagine this. A pro-life president is elected. Some blue states threaten to secede. The pro-life president says "I'm not going to push to overturn Roe v. Wade if that means the U.S. will split up." The blue states secede. (I'm sure many here would like that anyway). The fact that the pro-life president was willing to sacrifice his own position on life for the sake of the union in no way means that the states that seceded didn't do it because they were pro-choice.

[torchbearer]

Yep. That doesn't negate a thing I said.



The reason the union needed to be kept together is that some states wanted to leave in order, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. That is historical fact. Imagine this. A pro-life president is elected. Some blue states threaten to secede. The pro-life president says "I'm not going to push to overturn Roe v. Wade if that means the U.S. will split up." The blue states secede. (I'm sure many here would like that anyway). The fact that the pro-life president was willing to sacrifice his own position on life for the sake of the union in no way means that the states that seceded didn't do it because they were pro-choice.

the emancipation only effected the rebelling states.

[jmdrake]

the emancipation only effected the rebelling states.

Why do you and others keep telling me history I already know when it in no way negates the point that I made? See point #31. The fact that Lincoln was hoping to keep as much of the union together as possible and was willing to sacrifice his own party's position on abolition in no way changes the fact that in all three sets of documents outlining the south's reasons for leaving, the declarations of secession, the articles of secession, and the confederate constitution, the "right" to own slaves was prominent. Your argument is like saying that the fact that the GOP "leadership" might cave on Obamacare means the democrats don't want Obamacare.

[torchbearer]

we are in our third union.
the first two unions were made voluntarily.
the first being the Articles of Confederation.
the second union began with the constitution of federation, which was a voluntary union. that is why its a compromise document with stuff like slavery in it.
but the third union was not voluntary. Lincoln used the gun with murder, to create this new union. a forced union of federal dominance and domestic armies.

anyone who says what Lincoln did was a good thing is a fool. that conflict is the origin of the monstrosity we call the federal government today and why the states have become wards of this involuntary union.

[Icymudpuppy]

Three possibilities here...

1. Dude is a fucking idiot redneck and is too stupid to realize that he is hurting his own movement by waving a flag that whatever the original message was about, is recognized in the USA as a symbol of the White Supremist Movement.
2. Dude is Cointel, and is placed there by the CIA/FBI or similar government group to discredit the Tea Party.
3. Dude is a proud white supremist and doesn't care about the Tea party movement at all. Any excuse to wave the Confederate Battle Flag.

[torchbearer]

Three possibilities here...

1. Dude is a fucking idiot redneck and is too stupid to realize that he is hurting his own movement by waving a flag that whatever the original message was about, is recognized in the USA as a symbol of the White Supremist Movement.
2. Dude is Cointel, and is placed there by the CIA/FBI or similar government group to discredit the Tea Party.
3. Dude is a proud white supremist and doesn't care about the Tea party movement at all. Any excuse to wave the Confederate Battle Flag.

By the details of your post, you don't know much about the battle flag he is carrying.
people i know who fly the flag aren't racist- they are anti-federal government.
it is something that has been passed down since the 1860's and some of us won't forget the atrocities carried out by the federal government.

[jmdrake]

anyone who says what Lincoln did was a good thing is a fool.


Has anyone in this thread said that Lincoln did a good thing? Because I certainly didn't. Do you need some hay to go along with that straw man?


that conflict is the origin of the monstrosity we call the federal government today and why the states have become wards of this involuntary union.

The conflict may have originated with the federal government, but secession began with rich southern planters wanting to protect their economic engine that was slavery. And yes, lots of southerners who didn't own slaves got drug into the meat grinder, some against their own will as the south was the first side to institute a draft. (Anyone who thinks that southern politicians did a good thing by drafting poor whites to fight in a war that didn't economically benefit those poor whites is a fool.)

[torchbearer]

Has anyone in this thread said that Lincoln did a good thing? Because I certainly didn't. Do you need some hay to go along with that straw man?



The conflict may have originated with the federal government, but secession began with rich southern planters wanting to protect their economic engine that was slavery. And yes, lots of southerners who didn't own slaves got drug into the meat grinder, some against their own will as the south was the first side to institute a draft. (Anyone who thinks that southern politicians did a good thing by drafting poor whites to fight in a war that didn't economically benefit those poor whites is a fool.)

The southern elitist did what they did for bad reason, but the result of the division would have been better than what we have today.

[jmdrake]

By the details of your post, you don't know much about the battle flag he is carrying.
people i know who fly the flag aren't racist- they are anti-federal government.
it is something that has been passed down since the 1860's and some of us won't forget the atrocities carried out by the federal government.

I know some who fly it who aren't racist and some who fly it that are. I also know people who use the swastika who aren't racist. Some are part of the falon gong cult as the swastika is an ancient Buddhist symbol. I knew a kid in high school who was drawing a picture of a swastika on a computer. At first I confronted him about it. Then he said "I'm German and it's part of my heritage." I started to say something, then I realized how I, a black teenager, had long accepted that my white friends who war the confederate flag (some of whom actually were racist), did so for their "southern heritage." I'm personally fine with people flying whatever flag floats their boat. But I find the "9/11 is an inside job" posters less offensive and none of this particularly politically astute.

[torchbearer]

I know some who fly it who aren't racist and some who fly it that are. I also know people who use the swastika who aren't racist. Some are part of the falon gong cult as the swastika is an ancient Buddhist symbol. I knew a kid in high school who was drawing a picture of a swastika on a computer. At first I confronted him about it. Then he said "I'm German and it's part of my heritage." I started to say something, then I realized how I, a black teenager, had long accepted that my white friends who war the confederate flag (some of whom actually were racist), did so for their "southern heritage." I'm personally fine with people flying whatever flag floats their boat. But I find the "9/11 is an inside job" posters less offensive and none of this particularly politically astute.

I don't find any of the above offensive.
But i do find it offensive for someone to call someone racist/bigot because they wave a confederate battle flag.
that in itself is bigotry and ignorant.

[jmdrake]

The southern elitist did what they did for bad reason, but the result of the division would have been better than what we have today.

I totally agree on the first point. On the second point, as I don't have a crystal ball I can't say for sure. I've heard the international banksters were backing the south. We may have had our sovereignty overrun by them sooner rather than later. The best outcome, in my opinion, would have been if a compromise similar to what ended the nullification crisis had commenced. Namely tariffs should have been raised and all of the proceeds gone to buying the slaves from the south and helping the south industrialize. Ultimately it's the south's lack of an industrial base that caused it to lose the war anyway.

[torchbearer]

I totally agree on the first point. On the second point, as I don't have a crystal ball I can't say for sure. I've heard the international banksters were backing the south. We may have had our sovereignty overrun by them sooner rather than later. The best outcome, in my opinion, would have been if a compromise similar to what ended the nullification crisis had commenced. Namely tariffs should have been raised and all of the proceeds gone to buying the slaves from the south and helping the south industrialize. Ultimately it's the south's lack of an industrial base that caused it to lose the war anyway.

that would have been optimum, but wasn't really on the table from either party.

[Ender]

Yep. That doesn't negate a thing I said.



The reason the union needed to be kept together is that some states wanted to leave in order, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. That is historical fact. Imagine this. A pro-life president is elected. Some blue states threaten to secede. The pro-life president says "I'm not going to push to overturn Roe v. Wade if that means the U.S. will split up." The blue states secede. (I'm sure many here would like that anyway). The fact that the pro-life president was willing to sacrifice his own position on life for the sake of the union in no way means that the states that seceded didn't do it because they were pro-choice.

The South wanted to secede because of the high tariffs that were ruining their economy. The south delivered the goods to make manufacturing possible. The North used those goods and then charged enormous prices and tariffs ONLY TO THE SOUTH. It was cheaper to pay tariffs on imported goods from other countries than to buy from the North.

Much of the tariff revenue collected from Southern consumers was used to build railroads and canals in the North. Between 1830 and 1850, 30,000 miles of track was laid. At its best, these tracks benefited the North. Much of it had no economic effect at all. Many of the schemes to lay track were simply a way to get government subsidies. Fraud and corruption were rampant.

With most of the tariff revenue collected in the South and then spent in the North, the South rightly felt exploited. At the time, 90% of the federal government's annual revenue came from these taxes on imports.

Very few in the North were against slavery especially considering that the wealth of the North was based on production of goods from slaves; later the very political Emancipation Proclamation did not free Northern slaves- only those evil Southerners' slaves. Lincoln tried to make the war about slavery toward the end to get the abolitionists on board but everyone knew that slavery was on its way out. In probably another 50 years max, slavery would have ended in the US.

And I am 100% against slavery- so don't even go there.

[seapilot]

Interesting they focus on the one confederate flag there than the hundreds of Gadsen flags. There was a photo of a Gadsen flag hanging off the white house fence. The media had to spin this somehow and when they have no real argument they pull out the race card, smells like paid plant to me.

Why do they always bring up the letters when they talk about Ron Paul, because they cant win the argument, same deal here. The media completely misses the real story about the veterans getting targeted by this administration, because they do not want people on the left to think about it.

[Occam's Banana]

The reason the union needed to be kept together is that some states wanted to leave in order, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. That is historical fact. Imagine this. A pro-life president is elected. Some blue states threaten to secede. The pro-life president says "I'm not going to push to overturn Roe v. Wade if that means the U.S. will split up." The blue states secede. (I'm sure many here would like that anyway). The fact that the pro-life president was willing to sacrifice his own position on life for the sake of the union in no way means that the states that seceded didn't do it because they were pro-choice.

And if another "civil war" was fought over such a secession by the "blue states," it would be because the United States federal government refused to allow those states to secede peacefully - NOT because the blue states wanted to preserve "abortion rights" (or whatever). The desire to preserve the institution of abortion would be the reason for secession, but NOT the reason for the war. The same is true of any secessionary war - regardless of any (stated or unstated) reasons or causes for secession.

When the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) seceded from the Soviet Union, NO war was fought. This fact had nothing to do with the Baltic states' reasons for secession. It had everything to do with the fact that the parent political unit (the USSR) did NOT, for whatever reasons, seek to forcibly prevent secession.

But when the southern states seceeded from the Union, a war was fought. This fact had nothing to do with the southern states' reasons for secession. It had everything to do with the fact that the parent political unit (the USA) DID, for whatever reasons, seek to forcibly prevent secession.


Why do you and others keep telling me history I already know when it in no way negates the point that I made? See point #31. The fact that Lincoln was hoping to keep as much of the union together as possible and was willing to sacrifice his own party's position on abolition in no way changes the fact that in all three sets of documents outlining the south's reasons for leaving, the declarations of secession, the articles of secession, and the confederate constitution, the "right" to own slaves was prominent. Your argument is like saying that the fact that the GOP "leadership" might cave on Obamacare means the democrats don't want Obamacare.

Lincoln did far more than merely "hope to keep the Union together" or "sacrifice his party's position on abolition" - he went to war to forcibly prevent the southern states from seceding. The Civil War would NOT have been fought otherwise. (Put a "peace Democrat" in the White House instead of Lincoln, for example, and the American Civil War never happens, even if secession does.)

As hypocritical as the southern states' were (with respect to liberty, "states' rights," etc.), and regardless of their bombastic declarations of undying devotion to and defense of the despicable institution of human chattel slavery, the Civil War was fought over secession - NOT slavery (or tariffs, or anything else). Had the "North" allowed the "South" to go peacefully, there would have been no Civil War (though war between the USA & CSA might have come later, over westward expansion, for example - but that is an entirely separate matter from secession).

In ALL secessions, it is the parent political unit's (un)willingness to permit secession that is the sole determinant of whether secessionary war occurs. In any secession scenario, there may be myriad reasons why the parent political unit does (or does not) try to forcibly prevent secession, but those are all contributary to the war (or lack thereof), as distinct from the secession.

[Icymudpuppy]

By the details of your post, you don't know much about the battle flag he is carrying.
people i know who fly the flag aren't racist- they are anti-federal government.
it is something that has been passed down since the 1860's and some of us won't forget the atrocities carried out by the federal government.

You apparently didn't read option 1 all the way through.... Regardless of what YOU think of it as, you are an idiot if you don't know that most of the USA associates that flag with the White supremist movement, and that waving it around WILL hurt the Tea Party movement.

[torchbearer]

You apparently didn't read option 1 all the way through.... Regardless of what YOU think of it as, you are an idiot if you don't know that most of the USA associates that flag with the White supremist movement, and that waving it around WILL hurt the Tea Party movement.

The media will scream racist everytime it is shown. The retards who watch the boobtube will eat it up.
that is true.
But i don't let retards and elitist controlled media dictate what i do with my time.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Because the War Between the States was NOT about slavery; it was about FREEDOM.
Most Americans today are too brainwashed to understand that.I thought it was about money/tariffs-taxations opression of the north. Of course today's propaganda has twisted the South's history because, the southern states/10th amendment the ground they had to separate was the grounds of states rights of slavery. In other words, Southern agricultural states only grounds to fight the tariff-taxes/price-fixing of the northern states/banks, were to use the slavery issue as legal(Constitutional) justification for independence.

Anyone have a concise reference to the truth for the accurate historical documents? (note: not the propaganda documentation of the post war victors)

[FloralScent]

You apparently didn't read option 1 all the way through.... Regardless of what YOU think of it as, you are an idiot if you don't know that most of the USA associates that flag with the White supremist movement, and that waving it around WILL hurt the Tea Party movement.

So if the Communist media smears a proud symbol of heritage and resistance, because their goal is to suppress all heritage and resistance, we're supposed to give up that symbol despite the fact that it represents the sacrifice of the bravest men who ever lived who fought against impossible odds because like I fucking care what my fellow fucktard countrymen think. Fuck you. I'd rather be dead.

[Snew]

So if the Communist media smears a proud symbol of heritage and resistance, because their goal is to suppress all heritage and resistance, we're supposed to give up that symbol despite the fact that it represents the sacrifice of the bravest men who ever lived against impossible odds because like I fucking care what my fellow fucktard countrymen think. Fuck you. I'd rather be dead.
calm down bro.

[FloralScent]

calm down bro.

Fuck you too.

[torchbearer]

calm down bro.

depending on where you are from, the response is quite calm compared to what it should be.

[anaconda]

...

[anaconda]

I would at least hope the gentleman would display his confederate flag similarly had Mitt Romney or Hillary Clinton been the current POTUS.

[torchbearer]

I would at least hope the gentleman would display his confederate flag similarly had Mitt Romney or Hillary Clinton been the current POTUS.

how could he if they aren't president.

[anaconda]

how could he if they aren't president.

I would hope that the gentleman's perception of the race of the President had nothing to do with his display of the Confederate flag.

[torchbearer]

I would hope that the gentleman's perception of the race of the President had nothing to do with his display of the Confederate flag.


I didn't disagree with jmdrake when he said he knows racist people who fly the battle flag.
That could very well be the case.
But that doesn't make the battle flag racist, nor does it make everyone who flies the flag racist.
If the guy was wearing white bedsheets while holding that flag, i'd consider it fair to prejudge him as racist, since the only people who seriously dress is white sheets are KKK.

[Petar]

Was the WONA really any worse than slavery itself? Bad bad bad situation all around... sick idiots in charge of both sides as usual... If only the USA could have started off on the right foot by not having slavery in the first place.. would have deprived TPTB of a very useful wedge instrument, and maybe federal tyranny would not be as much of a problem as it is today... and LOL at the people who think that Confederate flags are ok, and only truthers are politically toxic... derp.

[Petar]

In Croatian culture you have a similar phenomenon whereby the people who fought for Croatian independence in WWII also happened to be allied with the NAZI's... you wanna celebrate being on the right side of history, but you also have to accept the fact that the situation was also totally compromised by the forces of evil... I guess all that you can really do is admit that some things were totally wrong, and try to separate the good parts from the bad... of course you get the people who just choose complete denial and want to act like everything was 100% kosher... doesn't help anything IMO.

[torchbearer]

Was the WONA really any worse than slavery itself? Bad bad bad situation all around... sick idiots in charge of both sides as usual... If only the USA could have started off on the right foot by not having slavery in the first place.. would have deprived TPTB of a very useful wedge instrument, and maybe federal tyranny would not be as much of a problem as it is today... and LOL at the people who think that Confederate flags are ok, and only truthers are politically toxic... derp.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana

History

Located along the Red River, the city of Alexandria was originally home to a community which supported activities of the adjacent Spanish outpost of Post du Rapides. The area developed as an assemblage of traders and merchants in the agricultural lands bordering the mostly unsettled areas to the north and providing a link from the south to the El Camino Real (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_San_Antonio_Road) and then larger settlement of Natchitoches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natchitoches,_Louisiana), the oldest permanent settlement in the Louisiana Purchase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase).


Alexander Fulton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fulton_%28Louisiana%29), a businessman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business) from Washington County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_County,_Pennsylvania), near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh,_Pennsylvania), received a land grant from Spain in 1785, and the first organized settlement was made at some point in the 1790s. In 1805, Fulton and business partner Thomas Harris Maddox laid out the town plan and named the town in Fulton's honor. That same year Fulton was appointed coroner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroner) in Rapides Parish by territorial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Territory) Governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Louisiana) William C.C. Claiborne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C.C._Claiborne).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-3) Alexandria was incorporated as a town in 1819 and received a city charter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_charter) in 1832.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-citysite-4)


The Civil War in Alexandria

In the spring of 1863, Alexandria was occupied by Union forces under the command of Admiral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral) David Dixon Porter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dixon_Porter) and General Nathaniel P. Banks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_P._Banks). Porter arrived with his gunboats on May 7. Later in the day Banks reached Alexandria with his cavalry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry), whose members had marched 25 miles to reach the city. According to the historian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian) John D. Winters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Winters) of Louisiana Tech University, Porter disliked Banks but nevertheless turned over Alexandria to Banks and then departed to rejoin U.S. Grant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Grant) at the ongoing siege of Vicksburg, Mississippi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicksburg,_Mississippi). Banks posted guards and declared martial law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law). Porter left behind the gunboat USS Lafayette (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Lafayette_%281848%29) in Alexandria and posted the USS Pittsburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pittsburgh_%281861%29) on the Black River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_River_%28Louisiana%29) to the northeast.[5]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-5)

In 1864, Admiral Porter, back in the area, and General Banks quarreled over possession of Louisiana cotton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton). Porter seized three hundred bales of Confederate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America) cotton from various warehouses in Alexandria and stamped it "U.S.N. prize", referring to the United States Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy). Porter sent his sailors into the country to search for unginned cotton. After the crop was located, it was brought to Alexandria to be ginned and baled. The sailors also seized molasses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molasses) and wool (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wool). Winters writes that Porter "took all cotton wherever he found it, cotton belonging to the Confederate government, cotton belonging to the 'rebels,' and cotton belonging to 'loyal' citizens."[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-6)


Winters continues: "Banks was furious with Porter when he learned that the admiral was scouring the interior for cotton. Since he had no authority to stop Porter's speculative activities, Banks could only try to beat him to the remaining cotton. Army wagons were sent out in large numbers to collect the cotton. Thousands of bales were brought in by the troops and stored for future shipment. Jealous of the abundant transportation facilities of the army, unprincipled navy men stole army wagons and teams at night, repainted the wagons, and branded the mules with navy initials, and dove deep in the country in search of cotton. . . . "[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-7)


The federal army made itself as comfortable as possible during its long stay in Alexandria. Winters writes that "lumber and tools were foraged, and the men busied themselves by building wooden tent floors, benches, and furniture. . . . Alexandria [was enclosed] with a zigzag line of fortifications."[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-8) While Banks remained in Alexandria in the spring of 1864, Porter was temporarily trapped north of the city because of the low level of the Red River, four feet instead of the needed seven feet to accommodate gunboats.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-9)


Confederate citizens as a whole were most fearful of the Union. According to Winters, "most [Confederates] had never before seen a Yankee soldier [and] expected the worse from the invader. . . . 'Some cried, some cursed, some whined; and some overcome with fear, hid themselves in the woods, leaving everything to the tender mercies of the army.' Negroes were responsible for much of the plunder and pillage. Negro camp followers and officers' servants roamed the plantations and small farms without hindrance, bringing in their booty to camps each afternoon. . . . "[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-10)


On May 13, 1864, when the Union decided to abandon Alexandria, the city was set afire despite General Banks' order to the contrary. Winters reports that "burning and plundering" by two Union corps, who set fire to a store on Front Street. Then "a strong wind spread the flames rapidly from one building to the next."[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-11) Banks later claimed that the fire "broke out in the attic of one of the buildings on the levee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levee) inhabited by either soldiers or refugees."[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-Winters.2C_p._374-12) Winters reports that "pandemonium reigned; frightened cows bellowed and charged through the flaming streets; squawking chickens with scorched wings tried to fly out of danger. Hundreds of women, children, and old people ran through the streets, trying to carry a few of their belongings to safety. When the heat became unbearable, they dropped their loads and fled to the levee. Thieves ran from house to house and even along the levee taking whatever they wanted from the shocked people. By noon the most congested parts of town were destroyed. An attempt to blow up a church in the path of the fire only succeeded in helping to spread the flames. . . . "[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-Winters.2C_p._374-12)


Alexandria faced the overwhelming task of rebuilding with a year of the war remaining. Prices became exorbitant; butter cost $10 a pound, bacon $5 a pound, flour $3 a pound, and a bushel of meal $10. Many of the helpless lived in the forest without food, shelter, or clothing, subsisting on blackberries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackberry). All clothing was homespun, and shoes were mostly made of cloth.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-13) While Admiral Porter expressed sympathy for the suffering Alexandria residents, he declared the "burning of Alexandria a fit termination of the unfortunate Red River expedition."[12]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-Winters.2C_p._374-12)note: the union soldiers did not take freed slaves with them, nor leave protectors. instead, after using them to steal the cotton, left the former slaves behind for reprisal.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-Winters.2C_p._374-12)

[Petar]

History

Located along the Red River, the city of Alexandria was originally home to a community which supported activities of the adjacent Spanish outpost of Post du Rapides. The area developed as an assemblage of traders and merchants in the agricultural lands bordering the mostly unsettled areas to the north and providing a link from the south to the El Camino Real (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_San_Antonio_Road) and then larger settlement of Natchitoches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natchitoches,_Louisiana), the oldest permanent settlement in the Louisiana Purchase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase).


Alexander Fulton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fulton_%28Louisiana%29), a businessman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business) from Washington County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_County,_Pennsylvania), near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh,_Pennsylvania), received a land grant from Spain in 1785, and the first organized settlement was made at some point in the 1790s. In 1805, Fulton and business partner Thomas Harris Maddox laid out the town plan and named the town in Fulton's honor. That same year Fulton was appointed coroner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroner) in Rapides Parish by territorial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Territory) Governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Louisiana) William C.C. Claiborne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C.C._Claiborne).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-3) Alexandria was incorporated as a town in 1819 and received a city charter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_charter) in 1832.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-citysite-4)
The Civil War in Alexandria

In the spring of 1863, Alexandria was occupied by Union forces under the command of Admiral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral) David Dixon Porter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dixon_Porter) and General Nathaniel P. Banks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_P._Banks). Porter arrived with his gunboats on May 7. Later in the day Banks reached Alexandria with his cavalry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry), whose members had marched 25 miles to reach the city. According to the historian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian) John D. Winters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Winters) of Louisiana Tech University, Porter disliked Banks but nevertheless turned over Alexandria to Banks and then departed to rejoin U.S. Grant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Grant) at the ongoing siege of Vicksburg, Mississippi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicksburg,_Mississippi). Banks posted guards and declared martial law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law). Porter left behind the gunboat USS Lafayette (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Lafayette_%281848%29) in Alexandria and posted the USS Pittsburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pittsburgh_%281861%29) on the Black River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_River_%28Louisiana%29) to the northeast.[5]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-5)

In 1864, Admiral Porter, back in the area, and General Banks quarreled over possession of Louisiana cotton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton). Porter seized three hundred bales of Confederate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America) cotton from various warehouses in Alexandria and stamped it "U.S.N. prize", referring to the United States Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy). Porter sent his sailors into the country to search for unginned cotton. After the crop was located, it was brought to Alexandria to be ginned and baled. The sailors also seized molasses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molasses) and wool (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wool). Winters writes that Porter "took all cotton wherever he found it, cotton belonging to the Confederate government, cotton belonging to the 'rebels,' and cotton belonging to 'loyal' citizens."[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-6)


Winters continues: "Banks was furious with Porter when he learned that the admiral was scouring the interior for cotton. Since he had no authority to stop Porter's speculative activities, Banks could only try to beat him to the remaining cotton. Army wagons were sent out in large numbers to collect the cotton. Thousands of bales were brought in by the troops and stored for future shipment. Jealous of the abundant transportation facilities of the army, unprincipled navy men stole army wagons and teams at night, repainted the wagons, and branded the mules with navy initials, and dove deep in the country in search of cotton. . . . "[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-7)


The federal army made itself as comfortable as possible during its long stay in Alexandria. Winters writes that "lumber and tools were foraged, and the men busied themselves by building wooden tent floors, benches, and furniture. . . . Alexandria [was enclosed] with a zigzag line of fortifications."[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-8) While Banks remained in Alexandria in the spring of 1864, Porter was temporarily trapped north of the city because of the low level of the Red River, four feet instead of the needed seven feet to accommodate gunboats.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-9)


Confederate citizens as a whole were most fearful of the Union. According to Winters, "most [Confederates] had never before seen a Yankee soldier [and] expected the worse from the invader. . . . 'Some cried, some cursed, some whined; and some overcome with fear, hid themselves in the woods, leaving everything to the tender mercies of the army.' Negroes were responsible for much of the plunder and pillage. Negro camp followers and officers' servants roamed the plantations and small farms without hindrance, bringing in their booty to camps each afternoon. . . . "[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-10)


On May 13, 1864, when the Union decided to abandon Alexandria, the city was set afire despite General Banks' order to the contrary. Winters reports that "burning and plundering" by two Union corps, who set fire to a store on Front Street. Then "a strong wind spread the flames rapidly from one building to the next."[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-11) Banks later claimed that the fire "broke out in the attic of one of the buildings on the levee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levee) inhabited by either soldiers or refugees."[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-Winters.2C_p._374-12) Winters reports that "pandemonium reigned; frightened cows bellowed and charged through the flaming streets; squawking chickens with scorched wings tried to fly out of danger. Hundreds of women, children, and old people ran through the streets, trying to carry a few of their belongings to safety. When the heat became unbearable, they dropped their loads and fled to the levee. Thieves ran from house to house and even along the levee taking whatever they wanted from the shocked people. By noon the most congested parts of town were destroyed. An attempt to blow up a church in the path of the fire only succeeded in helping to spread the flames. . . . "[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-Winters.2C_p._374-12)


Alexandria faced the overwhelming task of rebuilding with a year of the war remaining. Prices became exorbitant; butter cost $10 a pound, bacon $5 a pound, flour $3 a pound, and a bushel of meal $10. Many of the helpless lived in the forest without food, shelter, or clothing, subsisting on blackberries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackberry). All clothing was homespun, and shoes were mostly made of cloth.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-13) While Admiral Porter expressed sympathy for the suffering Alexandria residents, he declared the "burning of Alexandria a fit termination of the unfortunate Red River expedition."[12]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-Winters.2C_p._374-12)note: the union soldiers did not take freed slaves with them, nor leave protectors. instead, after using them to steal the cotton, left the former slaves behind for reprisal.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana#cite_note-Winters.2C_p._374-12)

C'mon man, there is absolutely no reason that you can't make your point in a concise way.

Expecting me to read all of that text in order to determine what exactly it is that you are trying to say really isn't practical in any way whatsoever.

Simply spit it out...

[torchbearer]

C'mon man, there is absolutely no reason that you can't make your point in a concise way.

Expecting me to read all of that text in order to determine what exactly it is that you are trying to say really isn't practical in any way whatsoever.

Simply spit it out...


It is proof that the north were aggressors. murderers. thieves.
they were only interested in looting cotton for the northern textiles.
they had no interest in the slaves beyond using them to steal the cotton and bring it back to them.
they destroyed my town, after using it- promising not to harm the people.

the people in this town fly the confederate battle flag as not to forget what the federal government did to them.
we still reenact the battles in the area, and we do so with much fan-fare.


edit: i did bold the most important parts if you wanted to speed read it.

[Demigod]

In Croatian culture you have a similar phenomenon whereby the people who fought for Croatian independence in WWII also happened to be allied with the NAZI's... you wanna celebrate being on the right side of history, but you also have to accept the fact that the situation was also totally compromised by the forces of evil... I guess all that you can really do is admit that some things were totally wrong, and try to separate the good parts from the bad... of course you get the people who just choose complete denial and want to act like everything was 100% kosher... doesn't help anything IMO.

The Ustashi were 100% the bad guys no matter the situation.Running concentration camps and making records for kills in a day is hardly a revolutionary war for freedom.

[Petar]

It is proof that the north were aggressors. murderers. thieves.
they were only interested in looting cotton for the northern textiles.
they had no interest in the slaves beyond using them to steal the cotton and bring it back to them.
they destroyed my town, after using it- promising not to harm the people.

the people in this town fly the confederate battle flag as not to forget what the federal government did to them.
we still reenact the battles in the area, and we do so with much fan-fare.

edit: i did bold the most important parts if you wanted to speed read it.

Right, I know that the North was evil, but slavery was also evil, and I am NOT claiming that Lincoln was actually motivated by a desire to free the slaves.

I'm saying that the absolutely evil institution of slavery served as a very unfortunate popular excuse that allowed TPTB to split the USA right down the middle, create a lot of destruction, and also impose the federal tyranny that we have today.

You may fly the Confederate flag because you want to remember the unfortunate people in your area who were caught up in all of this insanity, but the only thing that the average person in society sees is some kind of KKK member.

The problem is that it can actually make it a lot more difficult to achieve the political goals that are necessary to bring down the federal leviathan at this point.

It's the same reason Jack Hunter had to recuse himself from Rand Paul's staff.



The Ustashi were 100% the bad guys no matter the situation.Running concentration camps and making records for kills in a day is hardly a revolutionary war for freedom.

Yes, the Ustasha leadership was completely in bed with the NAZI's and they committed a lot of terrible atrocities.

The problem is that the Ustasha were the only group of fighters that any nationalists had to fight with at the time.

It was a case of civilization gone completely mad, and no one who wanted to do anything good had any legitimate option then.

Modern Croatian nationalists who are on the right side of history have unfortunately had to carry all that stigma from WWII, yet we somehow managed to become a nation anyway.

[torchbearer]

You may fly the Confederate flag because you want to remember the unfortunate people in your area who were caught up in all of this insanity, but the only thing that the average person in society sees is some kind of KKK member.

the general Lee is parked outside the cajun pawn stars' silver dollar pawn shop on Lee street.
http://www.fastlanemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/fastlanemag-kaki-west-dukes-of-hazzard-004.jpg


people would be throwing a shit fit if anyone would tell an african-american to shut up about their heritage.
but you are shamed if you have 'white' southern heritage.
fuck that. i won't be shamed.

[Petar]

the general Lee is parked outside the cajun pawn stars' silver dollar pawn shop on Lee street.
http://www.fastlanemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/fastlanemag-kaki-west-dukes-of-hazzard-004.jpg

people would be throwing a shit fit if anyone would tell an african-american to shut up about their heritage.
but you are shamed if you have 'white' southern heritage.
fuck that. i won't be shamed.

Things would have turned out a lot better if the stupid idiots in charge of the south would have fought to abolish slavery one-tenth as hard as they fought to resist the WONA.

In fact, if the country was founded without the evil institution of slavery then a whole lot of trouble could have been avoided.

Same goes for the stupid idiots in charge of my people during WWII; they should have repudiated evil in all its forms.

Oh well, can't go back in time, history is a big sloppy mess all-around.

[better-dead-than-fed]

what does it meeaaan


http://narcosphere.narconews.com/userfiles/Clinton%20Slagle.jpg

http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/politics-other-controversies/4986d1183710949-whats-wrong-confederate-flag-confed-bikini2marquita-untitled-4.gif

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

And yet, no mention of the racist and genocidal portent behind the American Flag. No mention of the Northern bastards massacring, pillaging, raping, and humiliating the Native American's. Oh, but only the Flag that those same Native American's fought under, as well as Virginia and many other Upper and Western Southern States against the involuntary call of arms against fellow states exercising their right of association and independence. Sure, the 'deep south' main motivation was Slavery and the economics behind it, but for most of the other States this was not even in the back of their minds. Besides, the Battle Flag was never the Confederate Flag, it was the Flag of the soldiers and common people of the South who fought not for the reasons that the politicians pursued.

Here is the Confederate Flag: http://gcaggiano.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/confederate-flag-1.png

Now, that that's out of the way. "Joe the Plumber" and whoever else the other guy is are doofuses, but what does that have to do with the Flag, or the guy infront of the White House who they never interviewed?

[fr33]

More people have been enslaved and killed by the Union than were by the Confederacy. If the confederate flag is racist, the star spangled banner is a megadeath genocidal rag.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Don't fprget Sherman's March to the Sea, 1864-65

That would absolute constitute WAR CRIMES and Crimes against Humanity... The pillaging, burning, and destruction of Georgia, North & South Carolina.


His army of 65,000 cut a broad swath as it lumbered towards its destination. Plantations were burned, crops destroyed and stores of food pillaged. In the wake of his progress to the sea he left numerous "Sherman sentinels" (the chimneys of burnt out houses) and "Sherman neckties" (railroad rails that had been heated and wrapped around trees.). Along the way, his army was joined by thousands of former slaves who brought up the rear of the march because they had no other place to go. Sherman's army reached Savannah on December 22. Two days later, Sherman telegraphed President Lincoln with the message "I beg to present to you, as a Christmas gift, the city of Savannah..."
It was the beginning of the end for the Confederacy. Sherman stayed in Savannah until the end of January and then continued his scorched earth campaign through the Carolinas burning down/destruction of Columbia & Charleston. On April 26, Confederate troops under General Joseph E. Johnston surrendered to Sherman in North Carolina; seventeen days after General Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox.

Now there's some actions/crimes that will leave a mark of animosity, hatred, and vengeance, for a century to come.

[jmdrake]

The South wanted to secede because of the high tariffs that were ruining their economy.

Yeah yeah yeah. I'VE HEARD ALL THAT CRAP BEFORE AND IT SIMPLY IS A HALF TRUTH AT BEST! You know where I first heard it? From my dumbass HS history teacher. Yes dumbass. He knew so little about history that whenever we took an exam I would get a C...until we corrected the exam and I showed him how wrong he was and then I would have an A.

Okay, personal history aside, here are the facts.

1) At the time of the civil war tariffs were at historic lows.

2) When tariffs were extremely high Andrew Jackson was president and the South did not secede against their fellow slaveholding southerner. Only South Carolina was willing to push succession. That was known as the "nullification crisis". How did it end? Tariffs were reduced to historic lows.

3) At the start of the civil war there was indeed a move in congress to raise tariffs. But there were enough southern senators to stop that bill if they hadn't resigned after their states seceded!

4) In every set of documents where the South stated its reasons for seceding, protecting the expansion of slavery was mentioned. That is not true of tariffs.

Now your side will keep coming back with the same stupid arguments. "Lincoln didn't want to end slavery. The north didn't want to end slavery." What you dishonestly leave out is the north was dead set to stopping the expansion of slavery. That was what the fight was over. The expansion of slavery. While the north didn't have the votes or the desire to push for full abolishment of slavery, they did have the votes and the desire to keep it from expanding into the new territories. Why is that important? Because, eventually, there would have been enough "free states" for the north to do whatever the hell it wanted to.


And I am 100% against slavery- so don't even go there.

Oh FFS! I never said you were. You just are clueless about U.S. history.

[jmdrake]

And if another "civil war" was fought over such a secession by the "blue states," it would be because the United States federal government refused to allow those states to secede peacefully - NOT because the blue states wanted to preserve "abortion rights" (or whatever). The desire to preserve the institution of abortion would be the reason for secession, but NOT the reason for the war. The same is true of any secessionary war - regardless of any (stated or unstated) reasons or causes for secession.


People need a reason to secede. I know you and others want to ignore that, but that is a fact. The south on balance was not willing secede over high tariffs when fellow southerner Andrew Jackson was president. The south was willing to secede when tariffs were much lower and the expansion of slavery was on the table. And guess what? When the south seceded, some areas in the south (areas with few slaves) seceded from the south. That's why you have West Virginia. A part North Alabama also seceded, although it reunited with Alabama after the war.


Lincoln did far more than merely "hope to keep the Union together" or "sacrifice his party's position on abolition" - he went to war to forcibly prevent the southern states from seceding.

Right. And liberty "hero" Andrew Jackson (he killed the national bank) would have done the same fucking thing. He was fully prepared to go to war and hang all secessionists as traitors. Thankfully there were cooler heads on both sides and we got a compromise that lowered tariffs. Andrew Jackson would have been much tougher on South Carolina than Sherman was on Georgia. Torchbearer seems to be the only southern apologist who gets it. The southern elitists who pushed secession were total assholes. They enslaved free white poor men through the initiation of the draft! Jefferson Davis and his whole ilk were total scum. I have nothing against the poor white dirt farmer who saw Sherman burning crops, thought to himself "what the hell" and took up arms. But I will not romanticize gutter slime elite planters who helped bring this nation to a bloody civil war just so they could expand slavery and were even willing to enslave poor whites to die for them. Hate Lincoln all you want. Just hate Jeff Davis along with him.

[jmdrake]

Don't fprget Sherman's March to the Sea, 1864-65

That would absolute constitute WAR CRIMES and Crimes against Humanity... The pillaging, burning, and destruction of Georgia, North & South Carolina.



Now there's some actions/crimes that will leave a mark of animosity, hatred, and vengeance, for a century to come.

Yep. Sherman was a prick. And things would have gone just as bad or worse for the south if it had seceded when Andrew Jackson was president.

[jmdrake]

It is proof that the north were aggressors. murderers. thieves.
they were only interested in looting cotton for the northern textiles.
they had no interest in the slaves beyond using them to steal the cotton and bring it back to them.
they destroyed my town, after using it- promising not to harm the people.

the people in this town fly the confederate battle flag as not to forget what the federal government did to them.
we still reenact the battles in the area, and we do so with much fan-fare.


edit: i did bold the most important parts if you wanted to speed read it.

I'll take that and raise you one. The northern general assigned to defend Nashville impressed slave and free blacks and forced them to build Ft Negley under horrid conditions. I've been to the fort. If you ever visit Nashville I'll take you there. And southern generals committed war crimes too. At Ft. Pillow (also in Tennessee), Nathan Bedford Forrest presided over the massacre of escaped slaves, men women and children. I haven't been their yet. There were assholes on both sides. War is stupid.

[JCDenton0451]

Because the War Between the States was NOT about slavery; it was about FREEDOM.
Most Americans today are too brainwashed to understand that.

Americans outside the South don't normally associate the Confederate flag with freedom. It's more of a symbol of Southern white pride, which is why its display is considered controversial. You seem to understand that.

Now, if you know the Confederate flag is a powerful and... divisive symbol, yet choose to display it anyway, than this is the kind of message you're sending. Is it not?

There is also a question of Why? If this was a march to honor the veterans of the US military, why bring the old flag of the Confederacy, which ironically was the enemy of the US military in the Civil war? If this was an event to garner public support for the Tea Party, then does waving the Confederate flag really help?

I don't know if the man in the picture is racist. But it bothers me that his actions are just so profoundly irrational.

[phill4paul]

If you're white and celebrate southern heritage you're racist, if you are black and do it your a "house ******." Get it? Got it? Good.

http://blackconfederatesoldiers.com/images/H.K._Edgerton.jpg?588

http://jeffwinbush.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/edgerton.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

Oh, goody, this...again.

I'll be leaving now.

[moostraks]

Americans outside the South don't normally associate the Confederate flag with freedom. It's more of a symbol of Southern white pride, which is why its display is considered controversial. You seem to understand that.

Now, if you know the Confederate flag is a powerful and... divisive symbol, yet choose to display it anyway, than this is the kind of message you're sending. Is it not?



So no one should be divisive but rather do what makes everyone else comfortable according to how government has spun the propaganda to properly control the discourse in the country? Good luck shoveling that line of garbage here.

The racist propaganda is to prevent rational discussion over the deep divide that still exists generations later, many were raised Southern with a deeply embedded contempt for the Federal government and THAT is what lives on. Not some wish to reinstate the slave trade but a deep seated feeling that that particular forced relationship can finally be destroyed.

Why aren't you flaming over the pictures bdtf posted? Is it because it doesn't fit the narrative of nonsense you have been trying to force here with all the threads you have started to falsely portray the intentions of people who choose to post here?

[torchbearer]

Oh, goody, this...again.

I'll be leaving now.

kinda like walking into the bar and realizing its gay bar.
just walk away.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Americans outside the South don't normally associate the Confederate flag with freedom. It's more of a symbol of Southern white pride, which is why its display is considered controversial. You seem to understand that.

Now, if you know the Confederate flag is a powerful and... divisive symbol, yet choose to display it anyway, than this is the kind of message you're sending. Is it not?

There is also a question of Why? If this was a march to honor the veterans of the US military, why bring the old flag of the Confederacy, which ironically was the enemy of the US military in the Civil war? If this was an event to garner public support for the Tea Party, then does waving the Confederate flag really help?

I don't know if the man in the picture is racist. But it bothers me that his actions are just so profoundly irrational.

And it is perfectly normal to be this concerned over one stranger's choice to hold a certain flag. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

[Root]

Americans outside the South don't normally associate the Confederate flag with freedom. It's more of a symbol of Southern white pride, which is why its display is considered controversial. You seem to understand that.

Now, if you know the Confederate flag is a powerful and... divisive symbol, yet choose to display it anyway, than this is the kind of message you're sending. Is it not?

There is also a question of Why? If this was a march to honor the veterans of the US military, why bring the old flag of the Confederacy, which ironically was the enemy of the US military in the Civil war? If this was an event to garner public support for the Tea Party, then does waving the Confederate flag really help?

I don't know if the man in the picture is racist. But it bothers me that his actions are just so profoundly irrational.
Please do not speak for me. I've always called it the "Rebel Flag" and never associated it with anything racist. How many Americans outside the South did you actually interview anyway?

[Athan]

Now, I know most of you will be willing to dismiss this article as futher evidence of media bias, but one has to ask: why do this? What kind of message are you trying to send by proudly waving the Confederate flag in front of the residence of the first african-american president? It's this kind of stuff that makes me question the sanity of some of these Tea Party protesters.

Could be a counter-operation. Why aren't there MORE pictures of MORE than one confederate flag.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Americans outside the South don't normally associate the Confederate flag with freedom. It's more of a symbol of Southern white pride, which is why its display is considered controversial. You seem to understand that.

Now, if you know the Confederate flag is a powerful and... divisive symbol, yet choose to display it anyway, than this is the kind of message you're sending. Is it not?

There is also a question of Why? If this was a march to honor the veterans of the US military, why bring the old flag of the Confederacy, which ironically was the enemy of the US military in the Civil war? If this was an event to garner public support for the Tea Party, then does waving the Confederate flag really help?

I don't know if the man in the picture is racist. But it bothers me that his actions are just so profoundly irrational.

Since when is the White House "outside the South"?

[bunklocoempire]

Americans outside the South don't normally associate the Confederate flag with freedom. It's more of a symbol of Southern white pride, which is why its display is considered controversial. You seem to understand that.

Now, if you know the Confederate flag is a powerful and... divisive symbol, yet choose to display it anyway, than this is the kind of message you're sending. Is it not?

There is also a question of Why? If this was a march to honor the veterans of the US military, why bring the old flag of the Confederacy, which ironically was the enemy of the US military in the Civil war? If this was an event to garner public support for the Tea Party, then does waving the Confederate flag really help?

I don't know if the man in the picture is racist. But it bothers me that his actions are just so profoundly irrational.


If you don't know for sure why would it bother you? ANY actions can seem profoundly irrational to an ignorant public. Apparently the Confederate flag is as divisive as the golden rule.:rolleyes:

Here's a guy who explains his motives in no uncertain terms and STILL gets booed:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v8qtZ3I5AM

An ignorant and hostile public is never a good reason to change one's tune -And we STILL don't know what Michael Ashmore's tune is. No interview yet that I know of.

[libertariantexas]

Who are you to claim the man pictured is a racist?

Who are you to state what particular message the man holding a flag means to send?

You are right. We don't know anything about this guy.

He could be a fine, upstanding citizen who is not racist and has a PhD in nuclear physics and a good job.

Or he could be an uneducated, unemployed racist yahoo from the deep south who, despite the Confederate Flag, doesn't have a clue as to when the Civil War was fought.

We really don't know for sure.

[Ender]

Yeah yeah yeah. I'VE HEARD ALL THAT CRAP BEFORE AND IT SIMPLY IS A HALF TRUTH AT BEST! You know where I first heard it? From my dumbass HS history teacher. Yes dumbass. He knew so little about history that whenever we took an exam I would get a C...until we corrected the exam and I showed him how wrong he was and then I would have an A.

Okay, personal history aside, here are the facts.

1) At the time of the civil war tariffs were at historic lows.

2) When tariffs were extremely high Andrew Jackson was president and the South did not secede against their fellow slaveholding southerner. Only South Carolina was willing to push succession. That was known as the "nullification crisis". How did it end? Tariffs were reduced to historic lows.

3) At the start of the civil war there was indeed a move in congress to raise tariffs. But there were enough southern senators to stop that bill if they hadn't resigned after their states seceded!

4) In every set of documents where the South stated its reasons for seceding, protecting the expansion of slavery was mentioned. That is not true of tariffs.

Now your side will keep coming back with the same stupid arguments. "Lincoln didn't want to end slavery. The north didn't want to end slavery." What you dishonestly leave out is the north was dead set to stopping the expansion of slavery. That was what the fight was over. The expansion of slavery. While the north didn't have the votes or the desire to push for full abolishment of slavery, they did have the votes and the desire to keep it from expanding into the new territories. Why is that important? Because, eventually, there would have been enough "free states" for the north to do whatever the hell it wanted to.



Oh FFS! I never said you were. You just are clueless about U.S. history.

It is YOU who are clueless and have bought into the typical US history carp. The North had slaves and although the slave population withered there, the North was THE primary shipper of slaves. This site is a pretty accurate place to upgrade your education:

http://www.slavenorth.com/chance.htm

And Virginia was actually the original leader in wanting to free the slaves:


Americans from 1760 to 1790 felt a general consensus “that black slavery was a historical anomaly that could survive for a time only in the plantation societies where it had become the dominant mode of production.”[1] In the Revolutionary generation, Southerners and Northerners alike predicted slavery would whither away throughout the United States once the importing of Africans stopped. At the same time the Northern states were committing themselves to gradual abolition, individual slaveowners in the Upper South were doing the same. Manumissions rose sharply. The free black population of Maryland was 1,817 in 1755 and 8,000 in 1790. By 1800, it stood at nearly 20,000, and a decade later nearly a quarter of the state's black population was free. Virginia's free black population rose steeply from 12,866 in 1790 to 30,570 in 1810. In Delaware, the number of free blacks was fewer than 4,000 in 1790, and more than 13,000 in 1810.[2]

The 1790s presented the best chance to end slavery that America ever had. And I agree with Gary B. Nash that historians have been too lenient in letting the Revolutionary leadership, especially that from the North, off the hook for not pushing on and ending it. It is said that they were too busy doing other things, or the unity of the nation was too precarious to risk. I say they knew they were building a nation, unifying different regions, and they deliberately let a cancer be built into it, which they all, at one time or another, said would someday tear the nation apart.

The will to end slavery on a national level was there, among the Virginian leaders. Several of them outlined plans for it in national publications. Slave power was politically the weakest it had been or would be again until 1865. And the resources were in hand to compensate the owners for the loss of their property, in the shape of the western lands that were the nation's treasure. A slightly higher price for the land, which was all but given away, could have provided ample money for compensated emancipation.

Virginia was the key state for this. Half the African-Americans in the colonies lived in Virginia and Maryland in 1776. And both places expressed strong sentiments for abolition during and after the Revolution. Indeed, it predated the Revolution. Virginia's colonial legislature petitioned the crown in 1772 to raise the import duties on slaves to slow the flow of them into the colony, saying the trade benefited a few in Britain but risked terrible consequences.

The importation of slaves into the colonies from the coast of Africa hath long been considered as a trade of great inhumanity, and under its present encouragement, we have too much reason to fear will endanger the very existence of your majesty's American dominions. We are sensible that some of your majesty's subjects of Great Britain may reap emoluments from this sort of traffic, but when we conside that it greatly retards the settlement of the colonies with more useful inhabitants, and may, in time, have the most destructive influence we presume to hope that the interest of a few will be disregarded when placed in competition with the security and happiness of such numbers of your majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects. Deeply impressed with these sentiments, we most humbly beseech your majesty to remove all those restraints on your majesty's governors of this colony, which inhibit their assenting to such laws as might check so very pernicious a commerce.[3]

And the Virginia constitution, after the rebellion began in 1776, listed causes for separation from Great Britain in its first clause. Among them was "the inhumane use of the royal negative" in refusing permission to pass laws excluding slave imports. In part this attitude was a consequence of the "natural rights" philosophy of the Revolution. Religion also played a role, via the rapid spread of Methodism in the 1780s. Methodism, in its early days under Francis Asbury and Thomas Coke, was almost as intollerant of slavery as the Society of Friends was becoming. Black soldiers had fought for freedom in large numbers in the Revolution. All in all, this was the least racist generation in American history. The anti-slavery attitude in the Chesapeake colonies was at its peak. The long list of leaders who supported abolishing slavery is stellar: Thomas Jefferson, George Wythe, Edmund Pendleton, George Mason, James Madison, Patrick Henry, St. George Tucker in Virginia; Luther Martin and Gustavus Scott in Maryland; Caesar Rodney in Delaware.
A Virginia convention in 1774 had banned the slave trade in the colony, asserting that the delegates wished "to see an entire stop put to such a wicked, cruel, and unnatural trade." Virginia was the inspiration for the Continental Congress in its foreswearing of the slave trade later that year. Virginia's state constitution in 1776 had banned further slave importation. Lafayette in 1782 had reported that Virginians "grieved at having slaves, and are constantly talking about abolishing slavery and of seeking other means of exploiting their lands." Residents of several Virginia counties petitioned the legislature for abolition in 1787.

South Carolina and Georgia vigorously defend their slavery, and denied the federal government's right to interfere in the institution. But Georgia was locked in a precarious war with the Creek Indians, and it needed a strong federal presence. It would have likely gone along with a compensated, gradual abolition. Georgia's case, in terms of "federal interference,” was summed up nicely by George Washington: “If a weak State, with powerful tribes of Indians in its rear and the Spanish on its flank, do not incline to embrace a strong general Government there must, I should think, be either wickedness, or insanity in their conduct.” There was no insanity: Georgia rushed to ratify the Constitution, with very little debate, and was the third state in.

South Carolina alone would have kicked up a fuss; but even with Georgia thrown in, the two states had only 5 percent of the population. Where would they have gone? Back to Britain? To Catholic Spain? Was there really enough tail there to wag the dog?

But Virginia and Maryland could not as easily do what the northern states were doing, and pass laws gradually ending slavery. There were just enough committed slave-owners to prevent such a plan. Jefferson drafted several bills to this effect. So did many others in the state. But, as Jefferson wrote in 1786, there were “men enough of virtue and talent in the General Assembly to sponsor” an abolition act, “but they saw that the moment for doing it with success was not yet arrived.” In these states, with their relatively huge black populations, emancipation would also have to be a good deal more complex than it was in the North, where the process was often simply to compensate slave-owners for the loss of their property by keeping slaves, even children yet unborn, in servitude during their most productive years. Even after the emancipation acts passed, most Northern slaves got release from bondage only by dying or running away. There would also have to be some plan for bringing the former slaves into social equality, or re-settling them out of the state. Virginia could not simply do what many New England states had done: free their slaves and then restrict them and expel them whenever possible.

By dealing conservatively with emancipation in their own states, but putting forth no proposals to accomplish it on a national level, and ignoring the petitions from the Upper South (by Thomas Jefferson, St. George Tucker, Ferdinando Fairfax, and others), the Northern leadership effectively made slavery a state-level problem. They accepted the flaw of slavery into the new nation, even though it was widely recognized as incompatible with true democracy.

In effect, northern gradual-abolition laws have gotten the North off the hook, persuading historians who were educated and who taught in the North for more than a century that slavery was a southern problem rather than a national problem. The regional animosity associated with the Civil War also suffused the consciousness of northern historians, heightening their tendency to ignore the fact that slavery was not simply a southern problem in the post-[Revolutionary]-war era.[4]
So failing to get help from the North, the Upper South leaders turned to waiting for slavery to weaken naturally, to the point where they, too, could end it by state action. But that hope was vain. As early as 1790, there were alarming signs. The first census revealed that the slave population was vigorously increasing. The number of slaves shot up 250 percent in Virginia from 1755 to 1790, despite the widespread disruption of the Revolution and many sales of slaves from that state to the Deep South.
One reason for slavery’s tenacity, of course, was that the importing of Africans to the South was going on more vigorously than it had before. In fact, the slave trade totals were higher in the U.S. in the period 1790-1810 than during any other 20-year period. And the trade at this time was entirely in the hands of Northern merchants. States that had banned the import of slaves into their own borders, for reasons of economics and morality, had no qualms about flooding them into other states.

For an example of the dereliction of the Northern leaders in picking up the emancipation issue, consider the abolition petitions given to Congress by Philadelphia Quakers in 1790. Guided by the Maryland and Virginia representatives, the petitions went to committee, and resulted in a report that seemed to give Congress the power to regulate the institution. Georgia and South Carolina representatives rose to thunder and filibuster against the report, and the Northern representatives quickly caved in to their hectoring. Hamilton's economic program was before Congress at the same time, and the Northern men did not want to alienate Deep South votes and jeopardize the boon being offered to Northern money interests. John Pemberton, the Philadelphia Quaker leader, watched from the gallery in disgust. “The funding system is so much their darling that they want to obtain the favor of those from Carolina and Georgia.” Only Virginia votes kept the resolution from being tabled altogether, and in the end the offending language was changed.

Even without an immediate political need, the North rarely matched its anti-slavery words with deeds. In 1800, still years before "slave power" was whispered in the halls of Congress or there was a political party of Southern sectional interest, free blacks in Philadelphia petitioned Congress to provide for gradual abolition of slavery, among other things. But the House voted 85-1 to not even accept the petition. Only a lone Massachusetts representative opposed the movement to give “no encouragement or countenance” to these petitions and to refuse to even consider them, because of their “tendency to create disquiet and jealousy.”[5] Oliver Wolcott, a Connecticut Federalist, wrote to his son in 1790 that he favored "the white people of this country to the black," and after Congress "have taken care of the former they may amuse themselves with the other people."

There were social considerations behind this attitude. The North found it convenient to not push too hard for a definitive end to slavery in the United States. In part, it did so out of fear. “A general emancipation, northerners had reason to believe, would bring free blacks churning northward in search of economic opportunity and some measure of social justice.”[6] Anthony Benezet, the Pennsylvania Quaker abolitionist and the least prejudiced of men, in his 1767 pamphlet, listed among the evils of slavery, "continual Apprehensions of Dangers, and frequent Alarms, to which the Whites are necessarily exposed from so great an Encrease of a People, that, by their Bondage and Oppressions, become natural Enemies, yet, at the same time, are filling the Places and eating the Bread of those who would be the Support and Security of the Country."

The social fears sharpened with the news of African uprisings elsewhere. St. Domingue, the French sugar-plantation island in the Caribbean, erupted in slave revolts (partially inspired by the American Revolution) in 1791. They lasted till 1803 and degenerated into a vicious race war. French refugees from the island came to America brought hair-raising tales with them. A similar insurrection, with similar results, broke out on Haiti in 1794. That is why the discovery of Gabriel Prosser's intended insurrection in Virginia in 1800 sent a chill through the nation, North and South.

Then in 1793 came the cotton gin, which brought a 50-fold increase in the average daily output of short-staple cotton, promoted the rapid expansion of a "cotton kingdom" across the Deep South, and made large-scale slavery profitable again. U.S. cotton production had been 3,000 bales in 1790; in 1810, it was 178,000 bales. “Slavery would remain a national problem, not a southern problem,” historian Gary Nash wrote, “but northerners, with few exceptions, acknowledged no responsibility for solving the problem.” In such a nation, disunion or civil war was inevitable. Jefferson, by the end, realized it. He wrote that, “if something is not done, and done soon, we shall be the murderers of our own children.” But they rested, and hoped for the long-term death of American slavery by natural causes, and did nothing. It was a grand missed opportunity. And much of the responsibility for missing it can be laid to the blame of the Northern leadership.

And BTW- I have a Masters in history- just sayin'.

[compromise]

And here's the resident troll, here to once again call us racists.



Like it matters. YOu've already decided what you think the message is, and nobody except black people are allowed to celebrate their heritage.




You don't like us. We get that. Go away.

If they were waving an Israeli flag, you'd be all upset about that, too. But it were a Mexican flag? That would probably be alright.

You do know he hates Mexicans too, right?

[devil21]

Stop feeding the troll. JCDenton only posts this drivel because he gets a rise out of you all.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

People need a reason to secede. I know you and others want to ignore that, but that is a fact. The south on balance was not willing secede over high tariffs when fellow southerner Andrew Jackson was president. The south was willing to secede when tariffs were much lower and the expansion of slavery was on the table. And guess what? When the south seceded, some areas in the south (areas with few slaves) seceded from the south. That's why you have West Virginia. A part North Alabama also seceded, although it reunited with Alabama after the war.



Right. And liberty "hero" Andrew Jackson (he killed the national bank) would have done the same fucking thing. He was fully prepared to go to war and hang all secessionists as traitors. Thankfully there were cooler heads on both sides and we got a compromise that lowered tariffs. Andrew Jackson would have been much tougher on South Carolina than Sherman was on Georgia. Torchbearer seems to be the only southern apologist who gets it. The southern elitists who pushed secession were total assholes. They enslaved free white poor men through the initiation of the draft! Jefferson Davis and his whole ilk were total scum. I have nothing against the poor white dirt farmer who saw Sherman burning crops, thought to himself "what the hell" and took up arms. But I will not romanticize gutter slime elite planters who helped bring this nation to a bloody civil war just so they could expand slavery and were even willing to enslave poor whites to die for them. Hate Lincoln all you want. Just hate Jeff Davis along with him.

I'm sorry, but there are a lot of 'southern apologists' as you put it, that have no love for Southern political leaders. The only state that ever was worth its salt in political leadership was Virginia, and it happened to be the state with the most abolitionists in its ranks and also the State who chose to secede because of the demands of Lincoln to raise an army to fight their fellow States from doing the same thing they did in 1776. In Virginia at the time there was still a lot of respect and understanding of the Revolution and its core principles. In no small part due to the sheer number of incredible philosophers and politicians that they produced (of no small part; Patrick Henry, George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Nelson, James Monroe, etc.), and almost all of them were pro-abolition.

Not only that you have to answer the question why Native American's would willingly and voluntary give their allegiance to the Confederacy. Well, as racist as much of the Deep South was, they paled in comparison to the genocidal racists of the North. As someone who is half Cherokee, this is something a lot of the Native American population doesn't forget.

http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/cherokee.html

Anyways, two wrongs don't make a right. While chattel slavery was an abominable institution, it doesn't negate the right of free association and self-determination. Further, while the political institutions of the Deep South maintained slavery as a prime motivator most of the population were more concerned with self-rule and preventing further centralization of the General Government. We see this same dichotomy today. Only the total idiots have any sympathy for the Confederate political leaders of the time. The Flag for us is about our communities, our history and heritage, and our family members who died fighting for independence. Similarly, as bad as the draft and such was, there was still vastly more political and civil liberty in the South during this time than the North. The North resembled North Korea in its actions and responses. It really showed you what the party was all about. That's not to even mention Reconstruction and the carpetbaggers.

WE REMEMBER. As a fellow Southerner you should too.

[Theocrat]

It amazes me how ignorant our media is about history. The Confederate Flag has nothing to do with racism nor slavery. It's about independence from a tyrannical, centralized state. Instead of turning every issue into racism at every chance they can get, perhaps the liberal media pundits should read a book, starting with a nice, easy one like this:

http://www.regnery.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/PIGSouth-202x255.jpg (http://www.regnery.com/books/the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-the-south/)

[Occam's Banana]

And if another "civil war" was fought over such a secession by the "blue states," it would be because the United States federal government refused to allow those states to secede peacefully - NOT because the blue states wanted to preserve "abortion rights" (or whatever). The desire to preserve the institution of abortion would be the reason for secession, but NOT the reason for the war. The same is true of any secessionary war - regardless of any (stated or unstated) reasons or causes for secession.

People need a reason to secede. I know you and others want to ignore that, but that is a fact.

Given that I made reference to "reasons for secession" three times (all bolded above - twice explicitly, once implicitly) just in the paragraph you quoted (not to mention the numeous other references to "reasons for secession" I made later in the very same post - let alone all the other posts I have made on this subject in this thread and others), how in the world do you justify the accusation that I "want to ignore" the glaringly obvious and undeniable fact that "people need a reason to secede." ??? !!! ???

:confused::confused::confused:


The south on balance was not willing secede over high tariffs when fellow southerner Andrew Jackson was president. The south was willing to secede when tariffs were much lower and the expansion of slavery was on the table. And guess what? When the south seceded, some areas in the south (areas with few slaves) seceded from the south. That's why you have West Virginia. A part North Alabama also seceded, although it reunited with Alabama after the war.

Yeah, OK ... but ... so what? What does any of this have to do with anything I said?
How is it relevant to - or how does it rebut - anything I said in the above quote by me?

:confused::confused::confused:



Lincoln did far more than merely "hope to keep the Union together" or "sacrifice his party's position on abolition" - he went to war to forcibly prevent the southern states from seceding.

Right. And liberty "hero" Andrew Jackson (he killed the national bank) would have done the same fucking thing. He was fully prepared to go to war and hang all secessionists as traitors. Thankfully there were cooler heads on both sides and we got a compromise that lowered tariffs. Andrew Jackson would have been much tougher on South Carolina than Sherman was on Georgia. Torchbearer seems to be the only southern apologist who gets it. The southern elitists who pushed secession were total assholes. They enslaved free white poor men through the initiation of the draft! Jefferson Davis and his whole ilk were total scum. I have nothing against the poor white dirt farmer who saw Sherman burning crops, thought to himself "what the hell" and took up arms. But I will not romanticize gutter slime elite planters who helped bring this nation to a bloody civil war just so they could expand slavery and were even willing to enslave poor whites to die for them. Hate Lincoln all you want. Just hate Jeff Davis along with him.

I do not disagree with a single thing you have said here. If you think I am a "southern apologist," then you are very sorely mistaken. In fact, a mere two sentences after the above-quoted line from my post, I said the following (which you seem to have conveniently ignored & elided in your desire to spit venom at me): "As hypocritical as the southern states' were (with respect to liberty, "states' rights," etc.), and regardless of their bombastic declarations of undying devotion to and defense of the despicable institution of human chattel slavery, [...]." The Confederate elites were vile, vicious, evil, scumbag assholes. You'll get NO argument from me on that. I have NEVER said or suggested otherwise - and you have NO business sneering at me for having done so.

And - once again - I do not see how any of this has anything whatsoever to do with anything I said.

:confused::confused::confused:

[bolil]

I see what they did with the title: If government shutdown "unleashes" racism, then government alone restricts it. It seems to me that with all of the boxes regarding race they put on government forms all they do is encourage racism.

[JCDenton0451]

I really hate the new and edited thread title. It just so misses the point. :/