I'll believe that when you start crusading against "reconstruction". Until then your geographical prejudice is showing and it's not any more sightly than the one you rail against.
Shooting at SC Church During Bible Study - Suspect still at large
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
I'll believe that when you start crusading against "reconstruction". Until then your geographical prejudice is showing and it's not any more sightly than the one you rail against.
You just don't get it. Anyone that "venerated" it heretofore still does. In fact, probably even more now.
Good Job :thumb:
IMJerusha
New member
With over 400,000 slaves required to farm estates and which were not required to cease their slaving action as they were loyal to the North.
They maintained their slaves for a fairly long time following the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863; West Virginia and Kentucky for instance held slaves until 1865.
Why not erect monuments to fallen and loyal subjects to the British Empire in Boston while you're at it?lain:
Okay.
The above at the bridge at Lexington-Concord. And in 2009, a mass grave memorial of British Grenadiers was proposed near Bunker Hill.
Last edited:
With over 400,000 slaves required to farm estates and which were not required to cease their slaving action as they were loyal to the North.
They maintained their slaves for a fairly long time following the Emancipation Proclamation.
Okay.
The above at the bridge at Lexington-Concord. And in 2009, a mass grave memorial of British Grenadiers was proposed near Bunker Hill.
Touche
I get that a lot ...:chuckle:
IMJerusha
New member
Yeah, I have problems with Huskies and snow....
Not in decent company, in fewer places publicly, and it's held in contempt as a symbol of racism and treason.
It belongs in a fire pit or museum.
You little fascists just really don't see where this is all headed, do you? When you do it will be too late.
Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" ... he also said, "Only the dead have seen the end of war".
Oh grow up, why don'tcha. Bartlett's Familiar and canned little potshots about "fascism"? Ridiculous.
When a symbol of treason and racism finally gets unfashionable it's a sign of progress, regardless of whatever nincompoops and philistines happen to be upset.
Who's arguing that there weren't slave states in the Union prior to the amendment passed by that same Union to end slavery everywhere?
:idunno:
I wrote: Why not erect monuments to fallen and loyal subjects to the British Empire in Boston while you're at it?
Okay, not my best attempt at underscoring a point, though I don't see that plaque as being on par or contrary to my point about what you don't see much of in those states closely tied to that war.
Now fly the flag of that foe over the capital in Boston and you're making a similar mistake.
Now we're talkin' ...
(caution, potty words in the comment section but not the article.)
Edit:
here's a cleaner link:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...nbow-striped-us-flag-at-arizon/#ixzz3fPBGF8fE
(caution, potty words in the comment section but not the article.)
Edit:
here's a cleaner link:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...nbow-striped-us-flag-at-arizon/#ixzz3fPBGF8fE
How about this for a symbol?
http://www.barnhardt.biz/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/0709-f553140dca38.jpg
http://www.barnhardt.biz/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/0709-f553140dca38.jpg
So what's the argument, one dose of stupidity excuses the inexcusable? :idunno: The only flag that should fly over a capital is the state and national flag and neither should ever incorporate the Confederate flag or the Union Jack. I don't think the rainbow flag has ever flown over a country.
I take it the Bolivian gentleman (okay, President) is a fan of liberation theology. More seriously, it's an uneven yoking, but then the President of Bolivia has an uneven history with the Christian church, moving hard to secularize his nation, but apparently has some genuine appreciation of this Pope's stance and work in relation to the poor.
No, it didn't. First, my remark should have been read to mean no rainbow flag was ever the standard of a nation, so it differs in that respect. Second and to your point, no, it didn't if that's your example. Rather, some doofus on an air force base flew a rainbow/American flag hybrid in front of his house.
If that meets your litmus for flying over a nation you're either Asperger's literal or having a go.
I don't think they're compatible, if you understand Marx. Once you divorce Marx from the mix then you have to set out what you mean by it. No private ownership of property? A government of economic equality? That never seemed to actually work out for anyone who claimed to try it. Didn't line up with human motivation and didn't play out in the equality end of it either, as those with power did what those with power always do and those without it suffered needlessly.
I think an intelligently regulated market is the best solution, with government doing what can be done for those who are incapable of providing for themselves.
IMJerusha
New member
My point was that the Civil War didn't start out to be about slavery. It started out to be about states rights and Lincoln, seeing that he couldn't really start and win a war over that issue, manipulated the issue of slavery into the mix. Unfortunately for Lincoln and his integrity, slavery was present in northern states and he needed the support of as many states and territories as possible to win the war so he allowed states to pledge loyalty to the North and keep their slaves. I do not have much respect for the man. He sacrificed his integrity for the sake of his politic.
I proved your statement wrong. As they say, close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades.
Because it utterly refuted your statement.
Really!!!??? To what end then the need for the Civil Rights Movement in those states?
The states of the South weren't "foe". They were legitimate states demanding their rights under the framework of their Government; rights which were denied them and are still being denied them. The Civil War didn't resolve that issue just as the Emancipation Proclamation didn't really get the black community of America what they needed. A whole lot of people died so Lincoln could force states to knuckle under to his politic. The Hall of Flags at the Boston Statehouse contains the flag of the original thirteen colonies which included states which fought for the South. Should they pull that one down, too? It represents all thirteen states holding with slavery. That same flag flies over other state capitols. Maybe it should come down also? Let's be sure, too, to deface all the Confederate gravestones bearing the flag they fought for and reference to the CSA! And we'll need to take down the Confederate Memorial at Arlington Cemetery. That's just too much incentive to go out and and shoot black people and it's a memorial to the institution of slavery! What a crock!
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/Explore-the-Cemetery/Monuments-and-Memorials/Confederate-Memorial
Last edited:
Not so fast darlin' ... the Air force backed his play and it was on a base which land we both know is ceded to Uncle Sugar regardless of the state, so ...
So, should we make those two knock it off?
Are you Aspie? Serious question.
It was a flag flown by one person outside his residence and I thought your own article said the matter was still being considered.
Which two? Knock off how? The Pope got a gift. It was in the form of a similar and smaller version held by a Catholic clergyman who was killed by the military of Bolivia once upon a time. I'm betting it isn't on display in the Vatican.
Then you're wrong. The Southern states, by their own public declarations, left the Union over slavery.
No, that was the mechanism, as expressed in the legal right to withdraw from the Union, by which those protecting the long term slave interest attempted to forge a new association. The reason they did so was slavery.
Just contrary to the facts. Lincoln, as many in the South noted, had a public opinion that the Union would survive and slavery wouldn't. He was simply willing to accommodate a political necessity in the moment with an eye to holding the practice in check until it could die by a less violent means.
The amendment that ended slavery was unnecessary if all he wanted was to preserve the Union and was ultimately indifferent to the institution.
No, you didn't. I didn't say there was no monument, IMJ. Read it again. I was trying to make a point of consideration that you decided to make a literal point for a win that wasn't.
Of course they were. There was a war, you know. The guy on the other side of the war is your foe.
I actually agree with that. Many who are glad the South lost the war will be among those to say that secession was likely legal.
Yeah, secession pretty much went off the table with that war. As did slavery, thankfully.
The Civil War preserved the Union and ended slavery. So it was a pretty good day, all things considered. Sadly, it took another hundred years or so to seriously address full equality, a thing fought by most of the South, the South that trotted the old Confederate flag out to defy it.
No one should deface a grave, but if they drop every Confederate monument into the sea I'll only feel sorry for the sea.
Last edited: