Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => Haley Center Basement => Topic started by: Saniflush on April 28, 2009, 07:25:47 AM
-
http://www.wrbl.com/rbl/news/local/article/confederate_flag_controversy_at_an_auburn_cemetery/69824/ (http://www.wrbl.com/rbl/news/local/article/confederate_flag_controversy_at_an_auburn_cemetery/69824/)
An acquaintance of mine sent out an email concerning the situation and I could say it no better. If you are proud of your Southern heritage, please take a moment to read this.
Gentlemen,
I am sure many of you are aware of the situation in Auburn, AL. For those who might not have heard, City Councilman Authur Dowdell, a self proclaimed civil rights activist, went to Auburn's Pine Hill cemetery and removed Confederate Battle flags placed their by the local UDC in honor of Confederate Memorial Day. Not only did he remove the flags, but he broke several and threw them in his car.
This is an outrage to say the least, and in my opinion a hate crime. There has been media coverage across the nation. The desecration of graves should never be overlooked and swept under the carpet. That is why I am requesting that each of you write a letter to the Mayor, City Council members, and the District Attorney's office. I am attaching the email and snail mail addresses for each of those people. Please remember to make your letter professional with no expletives. One suggestion is that you demand the resignation of Authur Dowdell for his hate crime against a soldier who fought on American soil for freedom.
If we allow this to go unchallenged, we are opening the doors to endless possibilities of atrocities that the politically correct crowd will do - like spray paint our monuments. Please join me in speaking out against such hateful conduct for an elected representative.
Mayor Bill Ham, Jr.
1846 Hayden Avenue
Auburn, AL 36830
334.501.7259
bham@auburnalabama.org
The City Council's email is: coagbemail@auburnalabama.org (Will go to all council members with the one email)
Here are the Auburn, Alabama city council members:
Mayor - Mr. Bill Ham, Jr.
Ward 1 - Mr. Arthur L. Dowdell
Ward 2 - Ms. Sheila Eckman
Ward 3 - Mr. Tom Worden
Ward 4 - Mr. Brent Beard
Ward 5 - Mr. Robin Kelley
Ward 6 - Mr. Dick Phelan
Ward 7 - Mr. Gene Dulaney
Ward 8 - Mr. Bob Norman
Ward 1
Arthur L. Dowdell
909 Pleasant Avenue
Auburn, AL 36832
334.524.2074
bishopdowdellministries@yahoo.com
District Attorney's Office
37th Judicial Circuit of Alabama
Nick Abbett
2311 Gateway Drive, Suite 111
Opelika, Alabama 36801-6889
334-737-3446
-
I have had the honor and privilege of participating in several Confederate Memorial Services this month (April is Confederate Heritage Month in Georgia) with the Sons of Confederate Veterans most of which take place in cemeteries where Confederate Veteran's are buried.
This is offensive beyond the pale; Confederate Veterans are part of American History too; they deserve to be respected and honored. I can't honor my own ancestor who lies in a mass grave somewhere in a damn yankee prison camp in Maryland but I honor him by honoring those who did make it back home.
Some of you locals in the Auburn area ought to write to these officials and demand some kind of action be taken to at least censure this city councilman. I intend to write but someone out of state will not carry as much weight with these folk as a local area person will.
SOUTHERN HISTORY IS SOUTHERN HERITAGE, NOT HATE.
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
-
My opinion on this matter, is the exact opposite of you guys. I feel that running around, hanging Confederate Flags, is a sign of ignorance and fulfills every stereotype that people try to push on the south. Also, the Civil War was almost 150 years ago, its over, the North won... To me, hanging a Confederate Flag is similar to Germans trying to hang the Nazi flag on local graves/monuments and explaining that its "National Socialist Party heritage month." The German's lost, many of their friends and families died, but they realize it is not ok to bring back up a War that was wrong in the first place. To say, "But, no, no AWK, we did not commit genocide and try to eliminate an entire race." Um...Slavery?
However, let me make this clear. I don't give a fuck what people want to do on their own time. If people want to hang confederate flags all over their cars and what not, go ahead. As long as no one personally screws with my property, I have no problems. Public Property, well, that is another story...
-
One suggestion is that you demand the resignation of Authur Dowdell for his hate crime against a soldier who fought against America on American soil for the exact opposite of freedom (slavery).
FTFY
-
My opinion on this matter, is the exact opposite of you guys. I feel that running around, hanging Confederate Flags, is a sign of ignorance and fulfills every stereotype that people try to push on the south. Also, the Civil War was almost 150 years ago, its over, the North won... To me, hanging a Confederate Flag is similar to Germans trying to hang the Nazi flag on local graves/monuments and explaining that its "National Socialist Party heritage month." The German's lost, many of their friends and families died, but they realize it is not ok to bring back up a War that was wrong in the first place. To say, "But, no, no AWK, we did not commit genocide and try to eliminate an entire race." Um...Slavery?
However, let me make this clear. I don't give a fuck what people want to do on their own time. If people want to hang confederate flags all over their cars and what not, go ahead. As long as no one personally screws with my property, I have no problems. Public Property, well, that is another story...
Obviously a graduate of the public indoctrination centers.
It's ALL about slavery.
That's the true sign of ignorance.
-
Obviously a graduate of the public indoctrination centers.
It's ALL about slavery.
That's the true sign of ignorance.
True, it was about more than just slavery, but to pretend it wasn't a HUGE part of it, is either ignorance or dishonesty.
Either way, it was a now defunct organization that declared war AGAINST the United States and lost.
-
True, it was about more than just slavery, but to pretend it wasn't a HUGE part of it, is either ignorance or dishonesty.
Either way, it was a now defunct organization that declared war AGAINST the United States and lost.
So you would not honor the men who died then?
The South did not declare war against the Federalists because there was no need to. States HAD the unalienable right to succeed from a a Union that they themselves created so there was no need to declare war. Much like now some just want to be left the fuck alone.
-
Obviously a graduate of the public indoctrination centers.
It's ALL about slavery.
That's the true sign of ignorance.
Dude, whatever. To say it was only about state's rights is 1/516 of the truth. They were angry, because the North was trying to take away their primary method of physical labor, slavery.
The true sign of ignorance is the person that calls someone ignorant just because they do not agree with them.
-
True, it was about more than just slavery, but to pretend it wasn't a HUGE part of it, is either ignorance or dishonesty.
Either way, it was a now defunct organization that declared war AGAINST the United States and lost.
I did not claim that slavery was NOT a part of that war, AUChizad. But that was NOT the ONLY reason for the conflict either and it certainly wasn't the main reason. But, you are right in that looking at the reasons blindly either way is ignorant and/or dishonest.
And, by the way, some Confederates, like my Thrice-Great Grandfather for example, never took the Oath of Allegiance to the United States. That being the case it is entirely appropriate to use the Confederate Flag for such occasions for such veterans.
Further, the Confederate States of America had every constitutional right to succeed from the union. The real tyrant in that war was Lincoln. To deny that is to be ignorant.
Dude, whatever. To say it was only about state's rights is 1/516 of the truth. They were angry, because the North was trying to take away their primary method of physical labor, slavery.
The true sign of ignorance is the person that calls someone ignorant just because they do not agree with them.
They were angry because the Federal Government was over-stepping it's constitutionally defined authority.
And I wrote ignorant; not stupid; there's a difference. I didn't mean it to read like I was 'calling you a name'. If you want to learn more please do read a book called "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo; no offense but you might learn something that they didn't teach you in school about what was really going on that bought about the American Civil War.
See above for the rest.
-
So you would not honor the men who died then?
The South did not declare war against the Federalists because there was no need to. States HAD the unalienable right to succeed from a a Union that they themselves created so there was no need to declare war. Much like now some just want to be left the fuck alone.
Sani, the more I ruminate on that ideal as I get older the more I am moving towards becoming a political atheist.
-
Arguing over remembrance of the Civil War (almost always by Southerners, natch) makes me think of this joke:
Q: Knock knock.
A: Who's there?
Q: 9/11.
A: 9/11 who?
Q: Aw, man, you said you'd never forget.
-
If you want to learn more please do read a book called "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo; no offense but you might learn something that they didn't teach you in school about what was really going on that bought about the American Civil War.
here is another good one.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0874850851/theamericanre-20 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0874850851/theamericanre-20)
-
I'm not arguing over it, I just think that it is history. That is the past, and it should be left there. Read about it, learn from it, and move on.
-
here is another good one.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0874850851/theamericanre-20 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0874850851/theamericanre-20)
As my ex-pat, Russian banker (now an American) has sternly told me before: 'If you are ignorant about something you must educate yourself!'
Another great book recommendation, Sani.
-
I'm not arguing over it, I just think that it is history. That is the past, and it should be left there. Read about it, learn from it, and move on.
If it is left there then how is one to learn from it?
-
Sorry, but Mr. Dowdell's action were irresponsible for a councilman. He showed his ass plain and simple and should suffer any and all consequences of his actions.
<Side note>Lincoln was a racist, hypocrite, and tyrant.....just my honest observation after much reading and studying.
-
I thought some bammers got rolled when I read the headline.
-
If it is left there then how is one to learn from it?
Books, there are quite a few. "Left there" was a phrase meaniing not to dwell on this shit like it happened 10 years ago, to our generation...
-
Books, there are quite a few. "Left there" was a phrase meaniing not to dwell on this shit like it happened 10 years ago, to our generation...
To those of us who memorialize the 700,000 men who fought and died in that war on BOTH sides it is not 'shit'. That is the whole point of putting flags on their graves and tending to cemeteries so they don't fall into disrepair and get forgotten. I even do that for my Grandfathers and Uncles who fought for the U. S. in WWII and Vietnam (U. S. flags obviously). I suppose that is shit too! If the younger generation doesn't do these things who will? Obviously not the self-centered current crop of yutes who care more about what's on their fucking iPod or who is picked on signing day. No personal offense intended.
I was very happy last weekend to see some young folk at the Confederate Memorial Service that I helped with show some interest in history and ask questions of me and others. That's how you learn (in addition to reading) rather than wallow in ignorance. Again, no personal offense.
-
To those of us who memorialize the 700,000 men who fought and died in that war on BOTH sides it is not 'shit'. That is the whole point of putting flags on their graves and tending to cemeteries so they don't fall into disrepair and get forgotten. I even do that for my Grandfathers and Uncles who fought for the U. S. in WWII and Vietnam (U. S. flags obviously). I suppose that is shit too! If the younger generation doesn't do these things who will? Obviously not the self-centered current crop of yutes who care more about what's on their fucking iPod or who is picked on signing day. No personal offense intended.
I was very happy last weekend to see some young folk at the Confederate Memorial Service that I helped with show some interest in history and ask questions of me and others. That's how you learn (in addition to reading) rather than wallow in ignorance. Again, no personal offense.
And don't answer that question with 'FedGov'; they've done such a fine job taking care of The Wilderness Battlefield that three different areas of it have been sold off and leveled to build Wal-Mart stores! The Civil War Preservation Trust is doing they're best to protect these sites (with the help of members like me) but they can only do so much; that's where volunteer groups like the SCV step in to help.
Anyway, just another old rant for the day from an old fart.
-
It's bad karma to be fucking around in a cemetary.
-
To those of us who memorialize the 700,000 men who fought and died in that war on BOTH sides it is not 'shit'. That is the whole point of putting flags on their graves and tending to cemeteries so they don't fall into disrepair and get forgotten. I even do that for my Grandfathers and Uncles who fought for the U. S. in WWII and Vietnam (U. S. flags obviously). I suppose that is shit too! If the younger generation doesn't do these things who will? Obviously not the self-centered current crop of yutes who care more about what's on their fucking iPod or who is picked on signing day. No personal offense intended.
I was very happy last weekend to see some young folk at the Confederate Memorial Service that I helped with show some interest in history and ask questions of me and others. That's how you learn (in addition to reading) rather than wallow in ignorance. Again, no personal offense.
Um, no one alive today personally knew anyone that had to do anything with the civil war. I understand your point, to honor those who fought and died. However, at the same time and in the same context, you have to realize that this might be offensive to some people. You are memorializing your great grandfather, but others think of it as demoralizing their ancestors/relatives because of the slavery issue.
-
Um, no one alive today personally knew anyone that had to do anything with the civil war. I understand your point, to honor those who fought and died. However, at the same time and in the same context, you have to realize that this might be offensive to some people. You are memorializing your great grandfather, but others think of it as demoralizing their ancestors/relatives because of the slavery issue.
Others? As in the 10% of the blacks in America who believe that it reminds them of slavery? You know, the one's who know no one from that era either.
Screw them and anyone else who is offended. Americans fought and died for states' rights. Slavery was of the smallest reason until the north had to have something to give their soldiers to believe in, then it became a war to save the darkies. Slavery was on its way out. Industrialization and mechanization was much cheaper than slavery. The south did not fight for slavery, the north were fed a load of bull in thinking that they were fighting against it. The north armies were ready to just quit until they were convinced they wre holier than thou and saving the darkies for the ignorant southerners.
Our heritage is that of brave young men and women who answered the call to fight against an oppressive federal government controlled by those who knew nothing about rural life. Unfortunately we have spawned a generation of government educated folks who have no idea what it is to be part of any heritage.
If I went to a black graveyard and so much as took a piss on the outer edge, I would be excoriated by the likes of those who do not understand heritage. The young people of today have been duped into thinking everything is about race. But the only race that matters is the black race.
To ignore this guys obvious racial hate toward anything dealing with the civil war is to buy into the lie that blacks own all types of discrimination while everyone else can just suck it.
-
Others? As in the 10% of the blacks in America who believe that it reminds them of slavery? You know, the one's who know no one from that era either.
Screw them and anyone else who is offended. Americans fought and died for states' rights. Slavery was of the smallest reason until the north had to have something to give their soldiers to believe in, then it became a war to save the darkies. Slavery was on its way out. Industrialization and mechanization was much cheaper than slavery. The south did not fight for slavery, the north were fed a load of bull in thinking that they were fighting against it. The north armies were ready to just quit until they were convinced they wre holier than thou and saving the darkies for the ignorant southerners.
Our heritage is that of brave young men and women who answered the call to fight against an oppressive federal government controlled by those who knew nothing about rural life. Unfortunately we have spawned a generation of government educated folks who have no idea what it is to be part of any heritage.
If I went to a black graveyard and so much as took a piss on the outer edge, I would be excoriated by the likes of those who do not understand heritage. The young people of today have been duped into thinking everything is about race. But the only race that matters is the black race.
To ignore this guys obvious racial hate toward anything dealing with the civil war is to buy into the lie that blacks own all types of discrimination while everyone else can just suck it.
See, that is the problem. I usually don't give a fuck about what people think, but sometimes you need to consider the other side of the situation.
-
See, that is the problem. I usually don't give a fuck about what people think, but sometimes you need to consider the other side of the situation.
Let alone, it's not just that 10%, but the majority of Americans' ancestors who fought for the United States of America.
-
Let alone, it's not just that 10%, but the majority of Americans' ancestors who fought for the United States of America.
Yes, and the SCV works hand in hand with that MAJORITY organization to preserve, honor, and tribute all of them. What I am hearing you say is that someone who fought for the Federalists is more deserving of being honored than someone who fought for the confederacy? It's not about who was on what side, it is about preserving a history that will no doubt be lost if ignored.
-
Um, no one alive today personally knew anyone that had to do anything with the civil war. I understand your point, to honor those who fought and died. However, at the same time and in the same context, you have to realize that this might be offensive to some people. You are memorializing your great grandfather, but others think of it as demoralizing their ancestors/relatives because of the slavery issue.
Fair enough to say. However these the councilman (and others) also have to realize that the Civil War IS part of American History and a very real heritage of at least 35,000 plus Southerners who are members of the SCV.
I understand that these people find the Confederate Flag offensive due to their ignorance and, yes, hate. However the same people who find the Confederate flag offensive because of the slavery issue usually point to groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and Neo-Confederates who have and do use that flag. They conveniently forget that the same groups also carry the U. S. Flag (the stars and stripes/ Old Glory) especially the KKK, skinheads, and Neo-Nazis. I ask rhetorically is the U. S. Flag also a racist symbol of hate? Maybe these same people ought to be offended by it to especially since slavery did happen under that flag prior to the American Civil War. But they chose to remain blinded by their own ignorance.
More to the point of this topic; what Councilman Dowdle did is offensive to me and my group and the living descendants who placed those flags on the graves to honor the Confederate dead.
My group (the SCV) always obtains permission from municipal authorities, private owners, or family members before we place flags on any graves. If the folk who placed the flags in Auburn did not get permission from the appropriate city officials (I understand it's a city cemetery) then the councilman probably has the authority to remove them. But my understanding is that the groups and families did obtain permission from the appropriate people.
The flags should not have been removed; offensive or not.
On a more personal note my family has photos and still tells stories of our Confederate ancestors to this day; and we still talk about those people today. That's how you keep the memory alive of your ancestors. To me they are every bit as real and deserving of respect as my Grandfathers and Uncles who fought in WWII and Vietnam (who I did personally know) even though I didn't personally know my Gr-Great Grandfather. These stories enriched my life as a child and still do to this day which is why I have been an aficionado of Civil War politics and military history for more than 30 years now.
-
Desecration of anything left on a grave, regardless of the sentiment attached, is vandalism. The personal opinions of others hold no sway over freedom of speech, which is what the placing of Confederate flags on these graves amounts to. If someone had torn up KKK flags that were left on the graves of some Grand Dragon, I would say the same thing. You may not agree with the politics behind it, but people still have the right to express themselves. Y'all are letting the sentiments cloud the issue.
-
Desecration of anything left on a grave, regardless of the sentiment attached, is vandalism. The personal opinions of others hold no sway over freedom of speech, which is what the placing of Confederate flags on these graves amounts to. If someone had torn up KKK flags that were left on the graves of some Grand Dragon, I would say the same thing. You may not agree with the politics behind it, but people still have the right to express themselves. Y'all are letting the sentiments cloud the issue.
That was my fault because I take issue with the waiving and flying of the confederate flag itself. If you want my opinion on the councilman's actions, I think he is a retard and should not have torn up the flags. Free speech, etc... However, nothing will happen to the guy...as sad as it is.
-
That was my fault because I take issue with the waiving and flying of the confederate flag itself. If you want my opinion on the councilman's actions, I think he is a retard and should not have torn up the flags. Free speech, etc... However, nothing will happen to the guy...as sad as it is.
Partially my fault too for getting off-topic.
Good discussion anyway.
-
Your both racist bastards.
Heel hates Duke and Taylor hates the women.
-
I'm late to this fight but wanted to throw in my $.02 worth. Numerous relatives of mine fought (and 3 died) for their country - the Confederate States of America. I am a proud member of SCV Camp 308 and I am extremely proud not only of my heritage, but for my ancestors who stood up and fought for something they believed in - states rights.
That being said, I would like to add this to the discussion:
In broad outline, the Confederate Constitution is an amended U.S. Constitution. Even on slavery, there is little difference. Whereas the U.S. Constitution ended the importation of slaves after 1808, the Confederate Constitution simply forbade it. Both constitutions allowed slave ownership, of course.
In fact, slavery only became a constitutional issue after the war had begun. In his 1861 inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln said, "Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican administration their property [is] to be endangered.... I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the United States where it exists.... I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=353 (http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=353)
This myth that the War Between the States came about largely because of the slavery issue reeks of ignorance. The fact is that most southern whites did not own slaves - only about 400,000 out of 9 million in 1860 (http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_overview.htm) (http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_overview.htm)).
At the onset of the war, Lincoln's foremost goals had been to preserve the Union, to bring the war to an end with a minimum of bloodshed, and to avoid lingering animosity between Northern and Southern whites. If that could best be achieved by preserving slavery, he said, he would do so. Lincoln despised slavery, but he, like Thomas Jefferson and many others before him, doubted that blacks and whites could ever live in America in a condition of equality. For this reason, he wanted to deport those who had been brought to the states as slaves. The problem here is that he couldn't find a place to send the black population.
Lincoln's problem during this conflict was twofold; he was confronted at home by abolitionists who insisted that the war should be one for emancipation. Abroad, he was faced with growing skepticism about Northern war aims. If the Union goal was simply to reunite the country and preserve slavery, then the North was undertaking a war of aggression. The South's claim that it was fighting for its independence, just as the United States had done during the Revolution, was therefore valid, and foreign powers had the right to intervene as the French had done in 1778. All these pressures forced Lincoln to conclude that emancipation would have to become a Union war goal. This didn't happen until the war was well underway (after the Battle of Antietam) and only affected slaves held in states or territories still in rebellion against the United States. Didn't help those still indentured in northern households. Their freedom came with the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865 - the year the war ended.
Those men that fought and died for their country deserve as much respect as any other fallen soldier. What this councilman in Auburn did, desecration of their graves, is abominable and can best be described as a hate crime. He should be made to apologize, then personally replace every flag he removed.
-
As my ex-pat, Russian banker (now an American) has sternly told me before: 'If you are ignorant about something you must educate yourself!'
Another great book recommendation, Sani.
Here's another recommendation for you
http://www.amazon.com/South-Right-James-Ronald-Kennedy/dp/1565540247 (http://www.amazon.com/South-Right-James-Ronald-Kennedy/dp/1565540247)
-
C.S.A.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/)
-
C.S.A.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/)
One of the largest wastes of my time that I have ever viewed. I would expect nothing less from the closed mind of Spike Lee.
-
One of the largest wastes of my time that I have ever viewed. I would expect nothing less from the closed mind of Spike Lee.
Thanks for the heads up. I have this on the DVR and haven't watched it yet. I don't think I will now. I got the brief synopsis that directtv gives you and didn't know anything about it.
-
Thanks for the heads up. I have this on the DVR and haven't watched it yet. I don't think I will now. I got the brief synopsis that directtv gives you and didn't know anything about it.
There are actually a couple of interesting parts to it but then it goes off the deep end. in regards to the CSA aligning themselves with the Nazis and the like.
-
There are actually a couple of interesting parts to it but then it goes off the deep end. in regards to the CSA aligning themselves with the Nazis and the like.
Which is what would piss me off royally. The way I have it figured is that most people in the South were and still are pretty conservative. The Nazis were as left wing as it got, but you have those out there that will label them as right-wingers. I will assume that is why they took the angle of the South aligning themselves with the Nazi's? Of course I have heard LBJ defined as right-wing for his part in the Vietnam War.
-
Maybe Spike's Bamboozled would be more to your liking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C45g3YP7JOk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C45g3YP7JOk)
-
Maybe Spike's Bamboozled would be more to your liking.
I would contend that like many other self proclaimed rights activists he has gotten rich by encouraging hate and mistrust.
-
I would contend that like many other self proclaimed rights activists he has gotten rich by encouraging hate and mistrust.
I agree. Just not to the level a white man would get if he released stuff like this now.
-
My opinion on this matter, is the exact opposite of you guys. I feel that running around, hanging Confederate Flags, is a sign of ignorance and fulfills every stereotype that people try to push on the south. Also, the Civil War was almost 150 years ago, its over, the North won... To me, hanging a Confederate Flag is similar to Germans trying to hang the Nazi flag on local graves/monuments and explaining that its "National Socialist Party heritage month." The German's lost, many of their friends and families died, but they realize it is not ok to bring back up a War that was wrong in the first place. To say, "But, no, no AWK, we did not commit genocide and try to eliminate an entire race." Um...Slavery?
However, let me make this clear. I don't give a fuck what people want to do on their own time. If people want to hang confederate flags all over their cars and what not, go ahead. As long as no one personally screws with my property, I have no problems. Public Property, well, that is another story...
Blah, blah, blah. Fucking communist hippie fuck.
Please, for God's sake learn some actual history and not just what you get from the back of bubblegum cards.
-
Dude, whatever. To say it was only about state's rights is 1/516 of the truth. They were angry, because the North was trying to take away their primary method of physical labor, slavery.
The true sign of ignorance is the person that calls someone ignorant just because they do not agree with them.
This isn't a matter of agreeance or disagreeance. This is a simple matter of you not having the slightest fucking idea what you're talking about.
Your understanding of the war and its reasons is surface at best.
-
I'm late to this fight but wanted to throw in my $.02 worth. Numerous relatives of mine fought (and 3 died) for their country - the Confederate States of America. I am a proud member of SCV Camp 308 and I am extremely proud not only of my heritage, but for my ancestors who stood up and fought for something they believed in - states rights.
That being said, I would like to add this to the discussion:
This myth that the War Between the States came about largely because of the slavery issue reeks of ignorance. The fact is that most southern whites did not own slaves - only about 400,000 out of 9 million in 1860 (http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_overview.htm) (http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_overview.htm)).
At the onset of the war, Lincoln's foremost goals had been to preserve the Union, to bring the war to an end with a minimum of bloodshed, and to avoid lingering animosity between Northern and Southern whites. If that could best be achieved by preserving slavery, he said, he would do so. Lincoln despised slavery, but he, like Thomas Jefferson and many others before him, doubted that blacks and whites could ever live in America in a condition of equality. For this reason, he wanted to deport those who had been brought to the states as slaves. The problem here is that he couldn't find a place to send the black population.
Lincoln's problem during this conflict was twofold; he was confronted at home by abolitionists who insisted that the war should be one for emancipation. Abroad, he was faced with growing skepticism about Northern war aims. If the Union goal was simply to reunite the country and preserve slavery, then the North was undertaking a war of aggression. The South's claim that it was fighting for its independence, just as the United States had done during the Revolution, was therefore valid, and foreign powers had the right to intervene as the French had done in 1778. All these pressures forced Lincoln to conclude that emancipation would have to become a Union war goal. This didn't happen until the war was well underway (after the Battle of Antietam) and only affected slaves held in states or territories still in rebellion against the United States. Didn't help those still indentured in northern households. Their freedom came with the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865 - the year the war ended.
Those men that fought and died for their country deserve as much respect as any other fallen soldier. What this councilman in Auburn did, desecration of their graves, is abominable and can best be described as a hate crime. He should be made to apologize, then personally replace every flag he removed.
Well said, PCT.
I didn't know that you were an SCV member. I am the 1st Lt. Commander of Camp 1239 Forrest's Escort.
C.S.A.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/)
Appalling garbage. I sat through this mock-umentary just to give it a fair airing but it truly is not worth watching. Especially, as Sani alluded to, the idea of a victorious South aligning itself with Nazi Germany. I also thought that the debate over religious freedom portrayed in that movie was utterly ridiculous and as offensive as anything else.
-
This isn't a matter of agreeance or disagreeance. This is a simple matter of you not having the slightest fucking idea what you're talking about.
Your understanding of the war and its reasons is surface at best.
This party was a week ago, which you missed out on. Once again though Kaos, your opinion on the matter and the facts are two completely different things. If you honestly think the war had nothing to do with slavery, well, you are an ardtard.
-
This party was a week ago, which you missed out on. Once again though Kaos, your opinion on the matter and the facts are two completely different things. If you honestly think the war had nothing to do with slavery, well, you are an ardtard.
Sorry. I've been busy. I was prowling.
The war is over when I say it's over, dammit. And it ain't over.
I never said the war had nothing to do with slavery. But if you'd do your research you'd find that slavery was a very minor part of the motives behind the war. Yes there were objections to certain states which had no need for slave labor dictating regulations and rules to those states which did have that need, but the actual disagreement was over the right to legislate, not over the moral implications of slavery.
Slavery became an issue when -- and only when -- the passion for the war in the northern states had all but abated, the Confederate Army was on the verge of winning (due to that lack of passion) and the public sentiment in the Union States had turned to "ahhh, fuck 'em. Let them have their own shit country, who gives a fuck."
Lincoln realized that he needed something to energize the flagging Union passions. The people couldn't be convinced to fight -- or at least fight well -- for a political cause, particularly against their own countrymen. He needed a moral standard to ignite the flame. Slavery was the issue he chose. Not out of some deep moral obligation, but in order to give his war a cause.
For you, or anyone else, to say "the war was about slavery" shows a tremendous lack of understanding.
If the war was about slavery, why didn't Lincoln free the slaves? Read the emancipation proclamation. He freed no one. That document was nothing but posturing/grandstanding.
-
Sorry. I've been busy. I was prowling.
The war is over when I say it's over, dammit. And it ain't over.
I never said the war had nothing to do with slavery. But if you'd do your research you'd find that slavery was a very minor part of the motives behind the war. Yes there were objections to certain states which had no need for slave labor dictating regulations and rules to those states which did have that need, but the actual disagreement was over the right to legislate, not over the moral implications of slavery.
Slavery became an issue when -- and only when -- the passion for the war in the northern states had all but abated, the Confederate Army was on the verge of winning (due to that lack of passion) and the public sentiment in the Union States had turned to "ahhh, fuck 'em. Let them have their own shit country, who gives a fuck."
Lincoln realized that he needed something to energize the flagging Union passions. The people couldn't be convinced to fight -- or at least fight well -- for a political cause, particularly against their own countrymen. He needed a moral standard to ignite the flame. Slavery was the issue he chose. Not out of some deep moral obligation, but in order to give his war a cause.
For you, or anyone else, to say "the war was about slavery" shows a tremendous lack of understanding.
If the war was about slavery, why didn't Lincoln free the slaves? Read the emancipation proclamation. He freed no one. That document was nothing but posturing/grandstanding.
I can't quit you.
-
This party was a week ago, which you missed out on. Once again though Kaos, your opinion on the matter and the facts are two completely different things. If you honestly think the war had nothing to do with slavery, well, you are an ardtard.
I don't think that anyone is disagreeing about slavery being a cause to a greater or lesser extent of the American Civil War, AWK.
But it was not the one and only reason for the war; it was about state's rights (rights to allow slavery being part of that issue). PCT explained it well in his post above. That is a matter of historical fact; it is not a matter of agreeing (or not) about it.
No personal offense but you are misguided if you think that slavery was the ONLY reason for the war.
As to having an opinion about the appropriateness of displaying the Confederate flag, that is a subjective matter, generally, and you are entitled to have an opinion (in my opinion); but as it specifically relates to placing those flag types on the Confederate Veteran's graves in Auburn it was entirely appropriate to do so (given the group that did it got the appropriate permission) and it was an act of vandalism to remove them.
-
I can't find a link verifying this,yet, but I remember a professor in a college history class saying that the south had black troops fighting before there were any on the union side.
The northern blacks enlisted/were drafted after slavery became a northern rallying cry.
There are several sites mentioning blacks on our side of the war. The south was their country, too.
-
I can't find a link verifying this,yet, but I remember a professor in a college history class saying that the south had black troops fighting before there were any on the union side.
The northern blacks enlisted/were drafted after slavery became a northern rallying cry.
There are several sites mentioning blacks on our side of the war. The south was their country, too.
I've posted a good article by Walter Williams below. it does not verify that there were blacks fighting for the South before they were allowed to fight with the Northern troops but it's still a good article:
Blacks Who Fought For the South
[Walter Williams]
Most historical accounts portray Southern blacks as anxiously awaiting President Abraham Lincoln's "liberty-dispensing troops" marching south in the War Between the States. But there's more to the story; let's look at it.
Black Confederate military units, both as freemen and slaves, fought federal troops. Louisiana free blacks gave their reason for fighting in a letter written to New Orleans' Daily Delta: "The free colored population love their home, their property, their own slaves and recognize no other country than Louisiana, and are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for Abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana. They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought in 1814-15." As to bravery, one black scolded the commanding general of the state militia, saying, "Pardon me, general, but the only cowardly blood we have got in our veins is the white blood."
Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest had slaves and freemen serving in units under his command. After the war, Forrest said of the black men who served under him, "These boys stayed with me.. - and better Confederates did not live." Articles in "Black Southerners in Gray," edited by Richard Rollins, gives numerous accounts of blacks serving as fighting men or servants in every battle from Gettysburg to Vicksburg.
Professor Ed Smith, director of American Studies at American University, says Stonewall Jackson had 3,000 fully equipped black troops scattered throughout his corps at Antietam - the war's bloodiest battle. Mr. Smith calculates that between 60,000 and 93,000 blacks served the Confederacy in some capacity. They fought for the same reason they fought in previous wars and wars afterward: "to position themselves. They had to prove they were patriots in the hope the future would be better ... they hoped to be rewarded."
Many knew Lincoln had little love for enslaved blacks and didn't wage war against the South for their benefit. Lincoln made that plain, saying, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ... I am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." The very words of his 1863 Emancipation Proclamation revealed his deceit and cunning; it freed those slaves held "within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States." It didn't apply to slaves in West Virginia and areas and states not in rebellion. Like Gen. Ulysses Grant's slaves, they had to wait for the 13th Amendment, Grant explained why he didn't free his slaves earlier, saying, "Good help is so hard to come by these days."
Lincoln waged war to "preserve the Union". The 1783 peace agreement with England (Treaty of Paris] left 13 sovereign nations. They came together in 1787, as principals, to create a federal government, as their agent, giving it specific delegated authority -specified in our Constitution. Principals always retain the right to fire their agent. The South acted on that right when it seceded. Its firing on Fort Sumter, federal property, gave Lincoln the pretext needed for the war.
The War Between the States, through force of arms, settled the question of secession, enabling the federal government to run roughshod over states' rights specified by the Constitution's 10th Amendment.
Sons of Confederate Veterans is a group dedicated to giving a truer account of the War Between the States. I'd like to see it erect on Richmond's Monument Avenue a statue of one of the thousands of black Confederate soldiers.
The Link:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/blacks.htm (http://www.civilwarhome.com/blacks.htm)
-
I want a rematch.
-
I can't find a link verifying this,yet, but I remember a professor in a college history class saying that the south had black troops fighting before there were any on the union side.
The northern blacks enlisted/were drafted after slavery became a northern rallying cry.
There are several sites mentioning blacks on our side of the war. The south was their country, too.
Here's a link to another (lengthy) article entitled "The Role of Blacks in the Confederate Army" by SSG Harry W. Tison, II; it's up on the SCV national website:
http://www.scv.org/documents/genworks/RoleofBlacksConfederateArmy.pdf (http://www.scv.org/documents/genworks/RoleofBlacksConfederateArmy.pdf)
To quote from a portion of the article in response to your immediate question:
...
Although the Confederates did not officially enlist blacks until March 1865, some
states allowed them to serve on a local level as early as 1861. Nobody really knows how
many blacks actually served in the Confederacy; some estimates go as high as 50,000.
...
-
Here's a link to another (lengthy) article entitled "The Role of Blacks in the Confederate Army" by SSG Harry W. Tison, II; it's up on the SCV national website:
http://www.scv.org/documents/genworks/RoleofBlacksConfederateArmy.pdf (http://www.scv.org/documents/genworks/RoleofBlacksConfederateArmy.pdf)
To quote from a portion of the article in response to your immediate question:
http://www.cyberessays.com/History/60.htm (http://www.cyberessays.com/History/60.htm)
A very important aspect of Blacks proving themselves was
that of the Black Man acting as a soldier in the Civil War. During
the Civil War the official decision to use Blacks as soldiers in the
Union Army was a slow gradual process and a series of strategic
political decisions. The actual use of Blacks as soldiers in the
Union Army was completed by a series of actions the Black Man
performed that won him the respect of becoming a soldier. The
two differ in that it was to President Lincoln's benefit to enlist
Blacks as soldiers when he did. Whereas the later was the Black
Man's will to fight for his freedom and prove himself as an equal
human being. However, because the Black population was barred
from entering the army under a 1792 law(4) the Black Man
becoming a soldier was not officially recognized until late 1862.
-
Good God, guys... Nevermind, I am not going to stir this hornet's nest. They were fighting Northern aggression? They were fighting for state's rights? What right in particular? What was the north forcing the south to do with their aggression?
All leads back to one issue, but whatever... I'm done.
-
Good God, guys... Nevermind, I am not going to stir this hornet's nest. They were fighting Northern aggression? They were fighting for state's rights? What right in particular? What was the north forcing the south to do with their aggression?
All leads back to one issue, but whatever... I'm done.
Modern government education. My kids come home and discuss the issues. Then they go back to school and ask the tough questions. The teacher pulls them to the side ans says you are correct but we have to teach what is in the book.
The victor always rewrites history.
-
All leads back to one issue, but whatever... I'm done.
You are WRONG. Period.
Your understanding of historical context is about as solid as your understanding of the eating habits of toucans you gleaned from your cereal box this morning.
For the record, AWK, toucans actually DON'T follow their nose to find the delicious flavor of froot loops.
-
Good God, guys... Nevermind, I am not going to stir this hornet's nest. They were fighting Northern aggression? They were fighting for state's rights? What right in particular? What was the north forcing the south to do with their aggression?
All leads back to one issue, but whatever... I'm done.
I am reminded of a quote from Maj. Gen. John B. Gordon, CSA (and a former Governor of Georgia):
"The argument is exhausted! We stand to our guns!"
-
Your both racist bastards.
Heel hates Duke and Taylor hates the women.
I couldn't let that pass after all; when it comes to the subject of Carolina versus Duke I am a bigot.
-
Good God, guys... Nevermind, I am not going to stir this hornet's nest. They were fighting Northern aggression? They were fighting for state's rights? What right in particular? What was the north forcing the south to do with their aggression?
All leads back to one issue, but whatever... I'm done.
We didn't like the way yankees were doing things. Much like today.
As bad as I hated Texan presidents, I really don't like one from Illinois either.
-
You are WRONG. Period.
Your understanding of historical context is about as solid as your understanding of the eating habits of toucans you gleaned from your cereal box this morning.
For the record, AWK, toucans actually DON'T follow their nose to find the delicious flavor of froot loops.
Right, I'm uneducated. I'm about to graduate with a doctrate...and I wrote a thesis on American Government to graduate undergrad. Not only did you not refute anything I said, you referred to a fucking cereal box for an analogy. I'm perplexed...
-
Fine... First off, never once did I say that the Civil War was 100% about slavery. However, It was one of the major factors causing the Civil War. If you don't believe that, well... Take a look at this:
Top 5 Causes for the Civil War
1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
With Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture. In fact, the northern industries were purchasing the raw cotton and turning it into finished goods. This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitudes. The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. On the other hand, the South continued to hold onto an antiquated social order.
2. States versus federal rights.
Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and those arguing that the federal government needed to have more control. The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weakness of this form of government caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution. Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.
3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.
As America began to expand, first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War, the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free. The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen with the new territories that the US expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in the new lands. However, this was shot down to much debate. The Compromise of 1850 was created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests. One of the provisions was the fugitive slave act that was discussed in number one above. Another issue that further increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where proslavery Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave. They were called “Border Ruffians.” Problems came to a head in violence at Lawrence Kansas. The fighting that occurred caused it to be called “Bleeding Kansas.” The fight even erupted on the floor of the senate when antislavery proponent Charles Sumner was beat over the head by South Carolina’s Senator Preston Brooks.
4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.
Increasingly, the northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for abolitionists and against slavery and slaveholders. This occurred especially after some major events including: the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown’s Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act that held individuals responsible for harboring fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states.
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.
Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its “Declaration of the Causes of Secession.” They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.
Now, Jesus H. Christ, every one of those topics deal with slavery. If not directly, then indirectly to a large degree.
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm (http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm)
-
Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.
This. The states entered a Union where they all had a voice on how things would be carried out. The centralized Federal government got too powerful.
It was taxation without representation all over again, only this time with our own countrymen. Them fuckers from the northeast who are still a thorn in our sides.
-
Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.
This. The states entered a Union where they all had a voice on how things would be carried out. The centralized Federal government got too powerful.
It was taxation without representation all over again, only this time with our own countrymen. Them fuckers from the northeast who are still a thorn in our sides.
Ohhh, but what about those other four reasons? And what about the fact that the specific paragraph you are talking about indirectly is referring the the right to have slaves?
-
Ohhh, but what about those other four reasons? And what about the fact that the specific paragraph you are talking about indirectly is referring the the right to have slaves?
This was a hundred years before the Civil War. Slaves were legal then. So were indentured servants which was a PC way of saying white slaves. Some of my Irish ancestors came to this country under these terms. Slavery was not a black issue only. It was a vestige of the English mentality that lingered after their defeat in the war of independence. The wealthy minority of the north and south maintained slavery. The common folk did not own slaves, no matter their geographic location.
There were a great many northerners in the textile industry who kept farms/plantations in the south for their raw materials.
-
Right, I'm uneducated. I'm about to graduate with a doctrate...and I wrote a thesis on American Government to graduate undergrad. Not only did you not refute anything I said, you referred to a fucking cereal box for an analogy. I'm perplexed...
Remain perplexed.
Total refutation.
I will also add that some of the least cognizant people I've ever met in my life had doctorate degrees. If it helps any, I have three people who have doctorates working for me now.
Do not mistake a piece of paper for education, tobe-san.
-
Fine... First off, never once did I say that the Civil War was 100% about slavery. However, It was one of the major factors causing the Civil War. If you don't believe that, well... Take a look at this:
Now, Jesus H. Christ, every one of those topics deal with slavery. If not directly, then indirectly to a large degree.
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm (http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm)
Dear Dr. Awk:
You used as your "irrefutable source" the ridiculous website about.com. Enough said.
Those "top five" causes are the elementary school version and a far cry from the deeper realities. It's been a while but most of my work was in history and I had the pleasure of studying under a well-reknowned (sp) Civil War historian, who -- if I'm not mistaken -- won a Pulitzer or some such shit for his work on General Sherman.
If you keep saying something often enough you can convince yourself it's true.
Alabama has 12 national championships
Ole Miss has 3 national championships
Global warming is super real and super scary
Dave Matthews is a great artist
The Civil War was about slavery.
Yes, yes... it's all there.
-
Remain perplexed.
Total refutation.
I will also add that some of the least cognizant people I've ever met in my life had doctorate degrees. If it helps any, I have three people who have doctorates working for me now.
Do not mistake a piece of paper for education, tobe-san.
You knead to get offen your pedal stool. This man is boneified.
-
You knead to get offen your pedal stool. This man is boneified.
He's a suitor.
Alabama has 12 national championships
Ole Miss has 3 national championships
Global warming is super real and super scary
Dave Matthews is a great artist
The Civil War was about slavery.
Grizzly Adams had a beard.
-
Ohhh, but what about those other four reasons? And what about the fact that the specific paragraph you are talking about indirectly is referring the the right to have slaves?
There were slaves in the northern states and it was legal to own slaves there until 1865. If the war was about slavery, why was the union fighting the confederacy over something that was occurring in the United States? Your argument doesn't hold water.
Slavery became an issue when -- and only when -- the passion for the war in the northern states had all but abated, the Confederate Army was on the verge of winning (due to that lack of passion) and the public sentiment in the Union States had turned to "ahhh, fuck 'em. Let them have their own shit country, who gives a fuck."
Lincoln realized that he needed something to energize the flagging Union passions. The people couldn't be convinced to fight -- or at least fight well -- for a political cause, particularly against their own countrymen. He needed a moral standard to ignite the flame. Slavery was the issue he chose. Not out of some deep moral obligation, but in order to give his war a cause.
Kaos is dead on correct here. Up until 1863, the Union was getting their asses handed to them on the battlefield and the army was losing men way faster than they could be replaced. Sentiment in the north towards the war was slumping faster than Rosie O'Donnell going through an all you can eat buffet. There was an extremely violent wave of protests against the war and Lincoln's decision to implement a draft in north during the later part of 1862 and carried over into the summer of 1863. The most famous of these protests occurred in New York City in July 1863. The city was damn near burned to the ground by the ant-war/anti-draft protesters. Lincoln had to recall troops from George Meade's army (who were in pursuit of Lee's forces retreating from Gettysburg) to help the police quell the insurrection. Even after the huge military victory at Gettysburg, support for the war was in a steady nose dive. A large portion of the northern population just didn't want to fight anymore. Lincoln realized that he had best do something and do it quick or all was lost. With the losses his armies were suffering on the battlefield, he couldn't replace the casualties fast enough to keep a formidable army - or one that could at least kind of keep Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia in check. His first rallying cry (at the onset of the war) to the people was to the need to preserve the Union. This worked for a while (until shortly after Bull Run). After numerous Southern victories on the battlefield, with heavy Union casualties, he found that the people weren't buying it anymore. The people were no longer convinced that a political need to preserve the union existed. The majority of the population were content with allowing the south to remain its own independent republic. Having lost this reasoning, the moral issue of freeing the slaves came to be (in late 1863). Even then - and remaining so through the end of the war, public sentiment was still lacking. A lot of northerners just didn't think their lives were worth risking over the freedom of black people.
-
Kaos is dead on correct here.
FWIW, I was right about the toucans, too.
-
FWIW, I was right about the toucans, too.
You sir, are full of shiot. I have irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ee4zmJmAao (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ee4zmJmAao)
-
You sir, are full of shiot. I have irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ee4zmJmAao (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ee4zmJmAao)
Ah. Video evidence is hard to overcome. I stand corrected.
-
**Update**
Auburn councilman apologizes in rebel flag flap
AUBURN -- An Auburn city councilman has apologized for pulling up small Confederate flags from four graves, but he said he still doesn't "feel bad" about what he did.
Arthur Dowdell, who is black, read a statement at Tuesday night's council meeting apologizing for what he said was a misunderstanding about the flags that had been placed in honor of Confederate Memorial Day.
The apology was made to members of the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
"If I as a city councilman I had known that the Daughters of the Confederacy had put those flags out, maybe we would have a different outcome," he said. "As far as feeling sorry about that flag and if I feel that I did something remiss, I do not feel bad."
The city council passed a resolution at the start of the meeting denouncing his actions at Pine Hill Cemetery and urging him to make a public apology. Dowdell opposed the resolution, saying he had not seen it, but agreed to voice his opinion to the council and citizens later in the meeting.
Dowdell was criticized for removing the flags at the cemetery on April 23. He defended his actions, saying he thought the flags were placed at the cemetery by the Ku Klux Klan and did not know about the Confederate ceremony.
But Councilman Robin Kelley, who represents the ward that include Pine Hill, said he would have told him what the flags were for if he had called.
"It's desecration what you did," Kelley said. "End of discussion."
(http://[IMG]http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g242/glenn1964/medium_ArthurDowdell.jpg)[/img]