This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

South Carolina Senate speaks loud and clear

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

They voted to take the terrorist flag down.  Small steps.  We will see what the SC house does, but these people may not have died without purpose.  The hate must stop.  The symbols of hate have no place on state property.

View user profile
Well here's the thing for those of you ignorant of history .... the civil war was not, in fact, fought over slavery.   It was a fight over the issue of whether States had the right to secede from the Union, for whatever reason, slavery just happened to be the reason that set it off  

Slavery was not illegal under Federal Law in those States it existed. Although there were strong abolitionist movement's in the north (& some in the South) Lincoln himself had no plans to end slavery in those States it was allowed.

The controversy was over new States being admitted as "slave" or "free."   Southern slave States, fearing too many new States being admitted as free would tip the balance of political power in the central government & lead eventually to abolitionist legislation, which would devastate certain portions of the South economically, and certain Southern aristocrat families in particular.   Families that so happened to be in control of many of the political processes in southern States.

Secession was a much debated legal concept prior to the civil war.   There had been no legal ruling as to whether States could secede or not ... it was not finally settled until  A. the civil war, and B. as a legal matter, by the Supreme Court in Texas v. White in 1869 ... 4 years after the war.


When trying to understand the mindset of the average Southerner who went to war in the south, it must be remembered that the Federal government was not much present in the States & in local communities as it is today.  People considered themselves as much or more a citizen of their State as of the union of States.   Mississippi and Alabama had not been States for no more than a little over 40 years at the time ... and not much settled for a little over 20 years.   My caucasian ancestors arrived in east central Mississippi in 1842 originally from Baltimore but most recently from North Carolina ... and they were some of the earlier white settlers in that particular county.   Excepting the Choctaw villages, it was still pretty much a wilderness at that time ... nobody lived there previous but the Choctaws.   The big slave plantations were over on the Mississippi river and had been established mostly by English & French immigrants many decades before.  The people who established the big slave plantations decades previous to settlement of the interior of the South were not, by and large, the same people who primarily populated the South later ... Americans who migrated down from northern States.   Slavery in the part of east central Mississippi where I am from had existed there less than 20 years at the time of the Civil War.

When the southern States seceded and were subsequently invaded by the northern Army, most Southerners (who did not even own slaves & had no stake in slavery) viewed it as an illegal invasion of their sovereign state ... and that's what they went to war & fought & died for.  The right of a State to secede.  Not slavery, per se.

View user profile
Sorry, I could listen to your revisionist history, or I could listen to the Vice President of the Confederacy speak clearly what the flag represents:

On March 21, 1861, Stephens gave his famous Cornerstone Speech in Savannah, Georgia. In it he declared that slavery was the natural condition of blacks and the foundation of the Confederacy. He declared, "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:Sorry, I could listen to your revisionist history, or I could listen to the Vice President of the Confederacy speak clearly what the flag represents:

On March 21, 1861, Stephens gave his famous Cornerstone Speech in Savannah, Georgia. In it he declared that slavery was the natural condition of blacks and the foundation of the Confederacy. He declared, "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."

I was speaking as to the mindset/view of the average Southerner who went to fight in the Confederate army.   Not the speeches of politicians.   That's who we honor in the various civil war memorials around the country ... and why it's the military flag is sometimes a part of that, rather than the offiicla Confederate government flag.  It's about the courage and honor of the soldiers from whom 80 million Americans today are directly descended or related.   Not the politicians or the wrongness of slavery.


(btw ... what part of my so-called "revisionist" history do you say is incorrect?)




*

View user profile
Ever hear of the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and of 1850?

It was both Federal law and the official policy of the United States government to support slavery in those States where it existed.   (Backed up by Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution which was in force until rendered moot by the 13th Amendment in 1865.)

To say the northern invasion of the south was about slavery is just historical nonsense ... it was about secession.  The north supported & benefited from the institution of slavery as much as the south.

So if you wanna ban a flag because it represents a government's official policy of supporting slavery & racism ... maybe ya oughta think about banning the United States flag first? (even Malcom X & Louis Farakhan understood that)

South Carolina Senate speaks loud and clear Kkkdc3

View user profile
The common man believed the black man was inferior.  Suggesting that the common man did not is absurd.  100 years after the Civil War the common man still felt the black man was inferior.  It had NOTHING to do with States Rights as the primary reason for the terrorist to attack this great nation.  It was not a politician speaking for politicians when the confederacy was born......as if a black man and white woman could marry, but for states rights.  Your analysis is sophomoric, unrealistic, and revisionist.  How does talking about other regions of this nation sharing in the hateful thoughts of the terrorists change the fact that no other states left the Union and attacked this great country.   Vice President Stephens spoke lucidly about the central tenets of the terrorist, and now you want to revise history and make this about dog whistle state's rights......so consistent that you were the person who started the thread on commissioner Mays......and the mob followed.....were they too concerned about States rights, or was I right?

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:The common man believed the black man was inferior.  Suggesting that the common man did not is absurd.  100 years after the Civil War the common man still felt the black man was inferior.  It had NOTHING to do with States Rights as the primary reason for the terrorist to attack this great nation.  It was not a politician speaking for politicians when the confederacy was born......as if a black man and white woman could marry, but for states rights.  Your analysis is sophomoric, unrealistic, and revisionist.  How does talking about other regions of this nation sharing in the hateful thoughts of the terrorists change the fact that no other states left the Union and attacked this great country.   Vice President Stephens spoke lucidly about the central tenets of the terrorist, and now you want to revise history and make this about dog whistle state's rights......so consistent that you were the person who started the thread on commissioner Mays......and the mob followed.....were they too concerned about States rights, or was I right?



And once again, you can't argue the message so you attack the messenger. Predictable. Rolling Eyes

View user profile

Guest


Guest
South Carolina Senate speaks loud and clear Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKmRmyzV5W0tC3YJXobHPPdBUTOixj05ubwcykvH8GdFkxuPum

Perhaps the United States flag and the Democratic party should be banned and sent down an Orwellian black hole for what was done to the US-Japanese during World War II... After all progressivism should be progressive and recognize the abuses perpetrated to all peoples no matter what.

*****FART*****
IN ALL PROGRESSIVE's GENERAL DIRECTION

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldsJ0laYn6s

Smile

And once again, you can't argue the message so you attack the messenger. Predictable. South Carolina Senate speaks loud and clear Icon_rolleyes

The message and the messenger are the same, and just because you are blowing the dog whistle does not mean you are not being heard loud and clear.  The confederacy was about Slavery.  Certainly, there were other ancillary issues, but Vice President Stephens summed it up best, and certainly would not be so foolish to ignore his words and have a modern revisionist talking smack like that dog whistle is not heard.....your thread brought them out of the woodwork on Mr. Mays.

View user profile
Perhaps the United States flag and the Democratic party should be banned and sent down an Orwellian black hole for what was done to the US-Japanese during World War II... After all progressivism should be progressive and recognize the abuses perpetrated to all peoples no matter what.

another random non sequential thought which kills threads......As my daughter sometimes says......random......random......get it why people do not bother to interact with you.  I could be like Dreams and start attacking you, but that seldom is fruitful and it brings all discussions to a lower level.  I suggest you elevate your game.  You are capable.

View user profile
South Carolina Senate speaks loud and clear Dogwhi10

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:

 ...  The confederacy was about Slavery.  ....

As was the government of the United States of America.

Slavery in designated States was the official policy and the law of the land of the United States of America.  

Did you not read any of the facts I posted above?   You certainly haven't been able to effectively dispute any of them.  Or maybe you are not so much concerned with historical fact as you are with some "dog-whistle" agenda of your own?

View user profile

Guest


Guest
2seaoat wrote:Perhaps the United States flag and the Democratic party should be banned and sent down an Orwellian black hole for what was done to the US-Japanese during World War II... After all progressivism should be progressive and recognize the abuses perpetrated to all peoples no matter what.

another random non sequential thought which kills threads......As my daughter sometimes says......random......random......get it why people do not bother to interact with you.  I could be like Dreams and start attacking you, but that seldom is fruitful and it brings all discussions to a lower level.  I suggest you elevate your game.  You are capable.

South Carolina Senate speaks loud and clear Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1dDZjz3yOkzMSGSKb_PtmmEstPBT-5z44eSBlph3WMie5iNuu

I see... So your outrage about racism only applies to an approved agenda set by your masters. However when confronted by racism of a more recent nature you want to selectively ignore it. I could site the oppression and abuse the United States targeted against the Native Americans for most of it's history as yet another reason to put the current National Ensign down the Orwellian black hole you love but would most probably get yet another deflective response attempting to negate what I post. Why? Because you wish to be catered too in being selective in your feigned outrage. Personally I think you need to elevate your own game but I'm not sure you're able since you appear incapable of thinking it through.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEIjw4ljz28

Smile

Lincoln determined to invade the South to preserve the Union ... not to end slavery.

"....

The southerner to whom Mr. Lincoln had the greatest affinity was Georgian Alexander H. Stephens, an old Whig congressional colleague who would become the Confederacy’s vice president in February 1861. After requesting a copy of a Stephens speech against secession delivered in early November 1860, Lincoln sought to reassure Stephens: “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be no more danger in this respect, than it was in the days of Washington. I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us. ...."


http://abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/abraham-lincoln-in-depth/abraham-lincoln-and-secession/

Now I'm not here trying to defend slavery or racism ... I'm just sayin the Confederate battle flag represents slavery & racism no more nor less than the flag of the United States of America.

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:I'm just sayin the Confederate battle flag represents slavery & racism no more nor less than the flag of the United States of America.

That's because you're an idiot.

View user profile
Sal wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:I'm just sayin the Confederate battle flag represents slavery & racism no more nor less than the flag of the United States of America.

That's because you're an idiot.

Ah .... another well-thought out argument.  Rolling Eyes

Is that all ya got, Sal?  Name calling?

(I must say I'm a bit surprised you didn't use the word "bigot" or "racist" instead  .... or did you decide to hold back the race-card because you became aware that I'm bi-racial ... and of course it's leftist gospel that only white people can be racist, right?   Perhaps you need to go back & re-read your "progressive" talking-points manual ... I'm sure there's something in there that covers this situation.)

View user profile
Let's play a little "what if" here.  

There are a few people prone to neo-Confederate thinking who like to fantasize about "what if" the Confederacy had won the civil war.

In the alternative, I like to pose the question "what if" the Southern States had never seceded?  What would have happened with slavery?  

My guess is that abolition legislation would have eventually come about sometime by the early 1870's for a gradual emancipation that would have led to full emancipation by sometime in the mid-1880's.  An apartheid type country may have developed. As part of that process, Federal programs to send American blacks to Liberia, the Caribbean, South America, and elsewhere may have come to fruition .... and the Federal government may have even created a territory for former slaves somewhere in the American west.

What say the rest of the board?

View user profile

Guest


Guest
The uk, france, europe etc had only abolished slavery in the few decades before... without war I might add.

And anyone who thinks there is no racism or de facto segregation there is willfully ignorant.

PkrBum wrote:   ....
And anyone who thinks there is no racism or de facto segregation there is willfully ignorant.

Just as there is, and always has been, in the States outside of the south.   Most particularly in the northeast & midwest. Illinois was once a bastion of the KKK.

View user profile

That one particular confederate flag has long been a symbol to me of ignorance. It wasn't the flag of the Confederacy; it was resurrected during the middle of the last century as a symbol of white supremacy, as evidenced by its wide usage by hate groups like the KKK.

View user profile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[2][3] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved African American man who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court denied Scott's request. For only the second time in its history the Supreme Court ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.[4]

Although Taney hoped that his ruling would finally settle the slavery question, the decision immediately spurred vehement dissent from anti-slavery elements in the North, especially Republicans. Many contemporary lawyers, and most modern legal scholars, consider the ruling regarding slavery in the territories to be dictum, not binding precedent. The decision proved to be an indirect catalyst for the American Civil War. It was functionally superseded by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gave African Americans full citizenship.

It is universally denounced by scholars. Bernard Schwartz says it, "stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions — Chief Justice C.E. Hughes called it the Court's greatest self-inflicted wound."[5] Junius P. Rodriguez says it is "universally condemned as the U.S. Supreme Court's worst decision."[6] Konig et al. say it was "unquestionably, our court's worst decision ever."[7][8][3]

...

View user profile
South Carolina Senate speaks loud and clear Black-people-lynched

View user profile
South Carolina Senate speaks loud and clear Map-Educational_separation_in_the_US_prior_to_Brown_Map.svg

View user profile
Uh, huh.  

And what was the percentage of African-American population vs whites in those States at that time? No doubt things would have been different were it as high as in the Southern States.   Goes for lynchings and other racially discriminatory acts & policies as well.

But since this thread has now been reduced to just throwing out pictures, out-of-context statistics, & partisan talking points in lieu of real discussion ..... here ya go:


Duluth, Minnesota ... 1920


South Carolina Senate speaks loud and clear Duluth-lynching-postcard



Last edited by EmeraldGhost on 7/7/2015, 1:38 pm; edited 4 times in total

View user profile


South Carolina Senate speaks loud and clear MYYBT4pktGhVQX6wpQ-sS4A

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum