You'd be wrong. Abolition in the sense of that conflict wasn't ambiguous. Neither were the quotes. Why you're dedicated to masking and blurring what you can of that odious business I'm sure I don't know, but it's wrong headed.
Shooting at SC Church During Bible Study - Suspect still at large
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
Because my point was and remains to underscore the reason for the conflict, not set out a chronology of events. Though I think your description is mistaken.
I've told you why. You're arguing mechanics, methodology and chronology else.
The parallels and why we wouldn't think of using one flag/why we shouldn't think of flying the other are sound.
No, it was an elected government.
No, it's like a state promoting and existing in large part to promote an evil and succeeding until forces are marshaled against it and it is overthrown by an act of war.
And then it's like a large number of morally impaired doofi later attempting to "honor" the flag that flew over that disgrace.
I agree. You don't see a lot of important things.
Only to you, with your eyes shut.
Which flag? You seem confused. Your speech is, but I'm not. We're addressing the Confederate battle flag and your odious defense of it, attempt to make it in some way a noble and defensible expression. It wasn't and isn't.
I know, but it adds nothing to the discussion and changes nothing in it.
Again, because it doesn't change anything and isn't remotely related to the point, which is the undisputed fact that we're talking about the battle flag of a nation predicted upon the enslavement of human beings.
Oh, you're a peach all right. But there's a worm in its reasoning and it corrupts the whole bit.
rainee
New member
Town, I'd love to say I'm not the one masking and blurring that it's you doing that.
But I don't know that you are... I still think half the time I'm bringing up things you may have been protected from.
You say odious business, and so it is.
I was going to remind you how abolition of slavery played hand in hand with money making endeavors for some others. Maybe I still am. But I'd be tempted now to say even if you were lied to, or even if you were deceived or even if the complexity of the truth was lost - it still would be very good that slavery was abolished. I'm sorry for those who did not see that action should have been taken by themselves as sovereign states before - before - history could think that is why the North went to war.
Last edited:
rainee
New member
One thing, if it had not played out the way it did with the lies and false ideas put forward that you are more than willing to not only pelt at me and propagate but even expand upon - if had not been for those lies - the Northern common people might not have
thought themselves the saviors of the freed slaves. And then where would the people of color in Chicago be today? And here we are with President Obama after he sat
under a preacher who preached the damning of America for years and years and years.
Here is a little about the Eastern terminus problem which is perfectly done here, I just love it.
www.education.ne.gov/assessment/.../8_J_The_Transcontinental_Railroad.p...
Grade 8 -- Informational
The Transcontinental Railroad
The first railroads in the United States were built in the East during the 1820s. By 1850,
railroads connected many cities east of the Mississippi River, but railroads were still a dream for frontier places.
After California became a state in 1849, a growing number of people wanted to connect the West Coast with the rest of the country. For many years, people had traveled across the Nebraska Territory, and soon a railroad would cross it, too.
Agreeing on a Route
Building a transcontinental railway required vast stretches of land. An act of Congress was needed to obtain the land.
In the years leading up to the Civil War, sectional differences between the North and the South made Congressional agreements rare.
Senator Stephen Douglas wanted a new railroad built west through Nebraska to the West Coast. He first introduced a bill to build a railroad in 1844.
That plan was not acceptable to southern interests, which wanted a transcontinental railroad line to go west from New Orleans.
Sectional conflicts made an agreement about a transcontinental route impossible.
In 1859, Abraham Lincoln, who was then an attorney with the Rock Island Railroad, met with railroad surveyor Grenville Dodge in Council Bluffs, Iowa. They planned to make Council Bluffs the eastern terminus of the transcontinental railroad.
When the Civil War erupted two years later, southern representatives stopped attending Congress.
As a result, southern opposition to the proposed railroad route was removed. The Pacific Railway Act of 1862 cleared the way for railroad construction to begin.
....
thought themselves the saviors of the freed slaves. And then where would the people of color in Chicago be today? And here we are with President Obama after he sat
under a preacher who preached the damning of America for years and years and years.
Here is a little about the Eastern terminus problem which is perfectly done here, I just love it.
www.education.ne.gov/assessment/.../8_J_The_Transcontinental_Railroad.p...
Grade 8 -- Informational
The Transcontinental Railroad
The first railroads in the United States were built in the East during the 1820s. By 1850,
railroads connected many cities east of the Mississippi River, but railroads were still a dream for frontier places.
After California became a state in 1849, a growing number of people wanted to connect the West Coast with the rest of the country. For many years, people had traveled across the Nebraska Territory, and soon a railroad would cross it, too.
Agreeing on a Route
Building a transcontinental railway required vast stretches of land. An act of Congress was needed to obtain the land.
In the years leading up to the Civil War, sectional differences between the North and the South made Congressional agreements rare.
Senator Stephen Douglas wanted a new railroad built west through Nebraska to the West Coast. He first introduced a bill to build a railroad in 1844.
That plan was not acceptable to southern interests, which wanted a transcontinental railroad line to go west from New Orleans.
Sectional conflicts made an agreement about a transcontinental route impossible.
In 1859, Abraham Lincoln, who was then an attorney with the Rock Island Railroad, met with railroad surveyor Grenville Dodge in Council Bluffs, Iowa. They planned to make Council Bluffs the eastern terminus of the transcontinental railroad.
When the Civil War erupted two years later, southern representatives stopped attending Congress.
As a result, southern opposition to the proposed railroad route was removed. The Pacific Railway Act of 1862 cleared the way for railroad construction to begin.
....
rainee
New member
I am doubting this argument is worth any further attention, and you are responding like there's nothing worthwhile to say either.
So just remember when a Moslem shot people at a military base it was work place violence and not an act of fundamental
Islamic terrorism.
When young men took guns and either shot people at the mall or schools it was because we didn't have enough gun control laws.
And when this twenty year old went and killed Christians in their church -- it was evidence the Confederate Flag needed to come down.
rainee
New member
I said I would post something about the "free" states, those states that were not going to allow anyone with slaves to horn in and hog up land and wealth...
Although "slave" states were continuing to come into the Union at the same time it was with the agreement(s) made that they would be below a certain line, which left some Southerners angry and feeling increasingly like they were being cheated increasingly more often.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Belt
Although "slave" states were continuing to come into the Union at the same time it was with the agreement(s) made that they would be below a certain line, which left some Southerners angry and feeling increasingly like they were being cheated increasingly more often.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Belt
No, it was radical Islam, but it has nothing to do with the wrong headed notion at hand, which is the lamentable flag that flew in defense of the preservation and expansion of slavery.
No, it was because they were either a) evil of b) crazy, but it has nothing to do with the wrong headed notion at hand, which is the lamentable flag that flew in defense of the preservation and expansion of slavery.
No, the flag needed to come down because it flew in defense of the preservation and expansion of slavery. It's a shame it took that nutjob to drive home the point and consideration.
No, I'm staying on issue while you do your best to muddle, enoble and excuse the clear, ignoble and inexcusable.
And that's all that really matters here. That South and its battle flag belong in the history books, not flying over government property like something that should be honored.
rainee
New member
It's funny how you disagree with everything but the one idea that requires ignoring sovereign states coming from independent colonies...
and their objections as the centralized, bigger, self serving, North Eastern Government seeking to control everything for the benefit of their own...
Instead of being for just one big bully government why not push on through the socialism and straight onto communism?
Your approach sounds like you might like it.
I don't know what you mean by any of that. I disagree with everything? I disagree with one thing, which is trying to paint that war as being about anything other than what actually was at the heart of it and honoring a symbol of what was.
See, that's whitewash. What was it that they controlled or threatened control of...that'st the question and the answer is as clear as the words of its proponents, which I set out at length earlier: slavery.
Instead of making this about something it isn't why not face the sad fact of what it is?
That's because your approach is mostly irrationality dipped in denial and tap dancing.
More like you were constructing one.
I'm not unclear on Lincoln's willingness to accommodate the slave trade, to an extent, to preserve the Union. But his aim in the long run was clear to the slave states as it is to anyone today who isn't invested in a fantasy version of the South from that time, which is why you have Southern papers mocking people who tried to make the war about anything else. Which is why you have delegations writing letters and states proclaiming the truth of what the war was about.
The only mystery here is why otherwise rational people would attempt to paint it any other way.
rainee
New member
Then let's change this a little and instead of focusing on the South, let's look at what you accused it of :
First Claim: "The flag flew for the preservation and expansion of slavery."
So Southerners, even plantation owners, did not speak of the freeing slaves?
Here is one letter from Lincoln:
I'm giving this to show the end of slavery was Not foreign to the Southern mind.
What is evident in this letter from Lincoln, however, is that he could not see it happening - in the physical world...
Now whether the South could've or would've done away with slavery may be moot, but the question is whether you and others in agreement with you are right - that the Flag stood for what you say it did to the people who flew it?
rainee
New member
See Town?
I don't whitewash.
I even show a lawyer like you friendship letters of Lincoln to Men of the South.
I see how he challenges them. Calls them to something higher and harder for them to reach for...
But now I warn you - after this comes Reconstruction - where the world and the
Union still wanted the South to produce cotton. And how was that to be done, sir? By Magic? With Well Wishers?
Poor share croppers.
And after that I'm going on to poor migrant workers...
You think All is Well?
Would Lincoln have been proud at what he accomplished?
I don't whitewash.
I even show a lawyer like you friendship letters of Lincoln to Men of the South.
I see how he challenges them. Calls them to something higher and harder for them to reach for...
But now I warn you - after this comes Reconstruction - where the world and the
Union still wanted the South to produce cotton. And how was that to be done, sir? By Magic? With Well Wishers?
Poor share croppers.
And after that I'm going on to poor migrant workers...
You think All is Well?
Would Lincoln have been proud at what he accomplished?
It's not an accusation, its the fact of the matter and one to feel a measure of shame and sorrow over.
Why does it matter? The South fought to preserve and expand the institution. That's, again, clear in the states individual declarations and it's clear among the letters written binding those states together by various ambassadors.
From some and yet, as Lincoln notes, the actions of those in a position to do anything do much the same thing they always have.
It's rationally unquestionable. I gave you the declarations of the states themselves as they exited, of their ambassadors and noted the foundation of the war itself, a thing largely understood in its day.
And from my earlier and uncontested note with a bit of emphasis this time:
Here's South Carolina, the lead state in withdrawing from the Union:
...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
Mississippi:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world....a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin…
Louisiana:
As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.
Alabama:
Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war—for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and. her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans.
Texas:
...in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states....
In 1860 Alabama sent men to other slave states do advocate secession. This from the pen of one of them, Stephen Hale in his letter to the Governor of Kentucky:
…African slavery has not only become one of the fixed domestic institutions of the Southern states, but forms an important element of their political power, and constitutes the most valuable species of their property…forming, in fact, the basis upon which rests the prosperity and wealth of most of these states…
It is upon this gigantic interest, this peculiar institution of the South, that the Northern states and their people have been waging an unrelenting and fanatical war for the last quarter of a century. An institution with which is bound up, not only the wealth and prosperity of the Southern people, but their very existence as a political community…
...Will the people of the North cease to make war upon the institution of slavery, and award to it the protection guaranteed by the Constitution? The accumulated wrongs of many years, the late action of the members of Congress in refusing every measure of justice to the South, as well as the experience of all the past, answers, No, never!
They weren't confused and you shouldn't be either.
This from Southern Punch in 1864, Richmond:
‘The people of the South,’ says a contemporary, ‘are not fighting for slavery but for independence.’ Let us look into this matter. It is an easy task, we think, to show up this new-fangled heresy — a heresy calculated to do us no good, for it cannot deceive foreign statesmen nor peoples, nor mislead any one here nor in Yankeeland. . . Our doctrine is this: WE ARE FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE THAT OUR GREAT AND NECESSARY DOMESTIC INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY SHALL BE PRESERVED, and for the preservation of other institutions of which slavery is the groundwork.
rainee
New member
Ok, I appreciate you going out of your way to quote...
And this topic is too sad for all for me to stay with it much longer but I have to ask you, who was king?
Or rather what was king?
If you say cotton then you already know - try as they could to mechanize the hand labor it required, they could not at that time replace the labor intensive positions of people.
So the war came. The Slaves were emancipated.
Promises were made about forty acres and a mule...
Promises were broken - and cotton was still as demanding a king as it ever was.
Land was returned to plantation owners and share croppers picked cotton.
I did not know several things until I started trying to straighten out the ridiculous accusations about the flag - and this was one of the saddest one.
Cotton would not just keep many often black families working and living poorly after the war in the south, but it would also bankrupt the large farm or plantation owners. And many write about the great migration of blacks going north..But who explains cotton was such a driving force for the South, and also for the Union.
And look how strangely it went when technology finally came through:
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/machines_15.html
To say the Confederate Flag was for the preservation and expansion of slavery is the same, Town, as saying the Union Victory was for breaking their promises of forty acres and a mule to new
freedmen.
And this topic is too sad for all for me to stay with it much longer but I have to ask you, who was king?
Or rather what was king?
If you say cotton then you already know - try as they could to mechanize the hand labor it required, they could not at that time replace the labor intensive positions of people.
So the war came. The Slaves were emancipated.
Promises were made about forty acres and a mule...
Promises were broken - and cotton was still as demanding a king as it ever was.
Land was returned to plantation owners and share croppers picked cotton.
I did not know several things until I started trying to straighten out the ridiculous accusations about the flag - and this was one of the saddest one.
Cotton would not just keep many often black families working and living poorly after the war in the south, but it would also bankrupt the large farm or plantation owners. And many write about the great migration of blacks going north..But who explains cotton was such a driving force for the South, and also for the Union.
And look how strangely it went when technology finally came through:
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/machines_15.html
To say the Confederate Flag was for the preservation and expansion of slavery is the same, Town, as saying the Union Victory was for breaking their promises of forty acres and a mule to new
freedmen.
Last edited:
Racism.
lain:No one is confused about what crop was the cornerstone of the Southern economic engine of slavery.
No, Cleopatra, it isn't. It's to take the masters of their day at their word and history as the record.
I've set out what the states had to say about their own motivation. The rest is sound and fury.
I think to deny the plain face of history or to attempt to make of it something more noble than it warrants invites the sort of foolishness that saw Confederate battle flags atop government institutions and otherwise rational and decent people ennobling the ignoble.
Many men had their own reasons for fighting in that conflict, but the war was for the preservation of an evil and the continued enslavement of a people for economic gain. That is as clear as the proud professions of its movers transformed by time into confessions of a shameful nature summed neatly:
"Our doctrine is this: WE ARE FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE THAT OUR GREAT AND NECESSARY DOMESTIC INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY SHALL BE PRESERVED, and for the preservation of other institutions of which slavery is the groundwork." Southern Punch, Richmond 1864
:nono:
You wish ... and I'm not real sure why. You normally go to great lengths to water an idea with words ... why the sudden interest in brevity when we both know a small forest of trees have been harvested to flesh out this subject?
So the Stars and Stripes stands for the deliberate economic decimation of the South that accompanied "reconstruction"?