We banned a flag not too long ago...HEY what about this one? A very long rant...

[Rotagilla]

If you read history regarding Lincoln, it says he "changed" his focus of the war and made it about slavery only after the proclamation was presented. When you look at the position of the south, they believed in a form of government that surrounded greater state's rights and representation over a Federal Government power that desired to subject IT'S will over the individual states. That Federal Government was viewed as squelching freedom and the rights of those states. Lincoln made things worse by using a union army to further subject his will against them, showing himself as an invader of the south. That only reinforced the confederates desire to have the states be represented over a Fedetal body that's forcing its will upon them to comply. When you look at the exact wording of that proclamation it reads that the Federal Government would issue a proclamation to those STATES IN REBELLION that the President will free slaves in those states that don't comply with the north. The President yet again was using FORCE against those states in succession to force them to end their rebellion.

Read the proclamation carefully:
Lincoln issued a warning that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state that did not end its rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863.

So according to the written proclamation warning of 1862 - IF the south had ended their rebellion against the north, President Lincoln would not end slavery and would not seek to free those slaves from among the states of the south. If these ARE the terms as it was clearly written, there is then NO BASIS to say that the initial Government will over the south had always centered around the need to end slavery.

Read that first proclamation to the south, look carefully to those conditions written regarding "slavery". Had the south ended their rebellion, Lincoln would NOT end slavery in those states. Now tell me again that the preservation of slavery was the reason why the south rejected the proclamation and continued to succeed against the north, when that very same "preservation" was promised to them as a condition by Lincoln himself for returning to the union. End your rebellion, and we will not free those slaves from among your states and thereby not seek to end slavery in this nation.

Interesting thought. We do know slavery is why they started the secession attempt because that is what their declaration of secession says.

It is "believed" to be the reason for secession. However if that's all it was about and that was the "central" issue, (1) the south would have joined the union (2) they would not be in rebellion against the north (3) and according to the proclamation no slaves would have been freed, but the south would have been able to keep their slaves.

However, the south rejected the idea of joining the north despite being told no slaves would be set free as a result. Why did the south reject rejoining the union? Slavery then could not have been the reason the south CHOSE to be driven to the cost of war. The evidence simply doesn't support what many have been told to believe. Also, Lincoln waited over one year to make the proclamation and make slavery the issue. History records Lincoln "changed his focus" (it's those small key words often have Ben overlooked) to then make the issue about slavery ... at a time when the war was already well under way.

I used to think the civil war was strictly and only about slavery, until I did some research of my own and the evidence no longer made that the simple answer. If President Lincoln's first proclamation would have allowed the south to keep their slaves, that would have without doubt have ended their rebellion based on the issue of slavery alone.

Remember now, history records that Lincoln afterwards tells that he changed his focus and made the issue of the war about slavery. (Small details like that raises questions that can lead you to look deeper into the war itself)

Believed HELL. Read the declarations of secession from each of the states. It plainly says why they wanted to seceded. No matter what efforts were later made to try to end the conflict, the reason for it in the first place is and was never in doubt.

You got to look deeper, all the evidence doesn't make it that simple. If it were the rebellious states would have accepted Lincoln's offer and rejoined the union. No one has provided an answer as to why the offer was rejected.

What reason would the south have to reject joining the union and keeping their slaves? Instead they chose to go to war. No one on this thread has offered a reason the south rejected joining the union when they would have kept their slaves if they had. They say it's about slavery, but the south didn't go along with Lincoln's proposal to "end their rebellion with the north", now did they? Even IF in doing so meant keeping their slaves.

The evidence doesn't make it as strong an argument as you would like.

I have no idea why they chose to continue the war, but the reason they started it is unquestionable. The reason was plainly laid our in their declarations. Are you suggesting they didn't list all their grievances for trying to seceded in those documents? Why would they do that?

not every state mentioned slavery in their secession.

The north was purposely trying to agitate and destabilize the south by weaponizing the negroes and that's why some states directly addressed the issue.

Southerners knew slavery was a dying practice and with the industrial revolution underway there was no no need to import any more farm animals when there were machines being developed to do more work, more efficiently..

The south tried to peacefully withdraw from the union.
The north invaded the south and southerners fired on the invaders as all patriots would when their homeland is being attacked. Just simple facts.No spin.

 

[Rotagilla]

No. It's a symbol of patriotism.

Patriots don't rebel against their government because they lost an election.

The word you are looking for is "Traitors". "Traitors" rebel against their government when they lose an election.

They didn't rebel..they tried to peacefully withdraw..the north invaded.

 

[JoeB131]

Vester Flanagan didn't kill his two coworkers because he was gay.

He killed them because they got him fired and he was crazy. And, oh yeah, he was able to get a gun despite being crazy.

He, like you Joey, had serious mental issues and a persecution complex His was brought on by his being gay and black. I'm sure the reasons for the manifestation of your complex is different, but the result are clearly similar.

Ywn, guy, y ou are the one who is terrified of Negros.

 

[JoeB131]

They didn't rebel..they tried to peacefully withdraw..the north invaded.

They attacked a federal facility. That wasn't "Peaceful".

The biggest mistake was after the Civil War, we didn't take Davis and Lee and Forrest and all the other traitors and hang their asses.

 

[Rotagilla]

They didn't rebel..they tried to peacefully withdraw..the north invaded.

They attacked a federal facility. That wasn't "Peaceful".

The north invaded. They fired to repel invaders, like all patriots would. See "1776".

The biggest mistake was after the Civil War, we didn't take Davis and Lee and Forrest and all the other traitors and hang their asses.

Southern patriots, all of them.

Save your fantasies...That was never an option.

 

[JoeB131]

The north invaded. They fired to repel invaders, like all patriots would. See "1776".

Please, guy,

A bunch of rich assholes didn't want to give up owning other people, so they got a bunch of other stupid assholes to die in a pointless war for them so they could feel j ust a little bit better than the Darkies.

Come to think of it, that kind of describes the modern Republican Party.

Southern patriots, all of them.

Save your fantasies...That was never an option.

Well, we can always dig up their graves now and descecrate the shit out of them.

 

[Rotagilla]

The north invaded. They fired to repel invaders, like all patriots would. See "1776".

Please, guy,

A bunch of rich assholes didn't want to give up owning other people, so they got a bunch of other stupid assholes to die in a pointless war for them so they could feel j ust a little bit better than the Darkies.

stick to cartoons..you are way out of your league here.

Come to think of it, that kind of describes the modern Republican Party.

the truth leaks out, hyperpartisan...

Southern patriots, all of them.

Save your fantasies...That was never an option.

Well, we can always dig up their graves now and descecrate the shit out of them.

yeah..right...go ahead...

 

[JoeB131]

Guy, you are going to have to deal with the fact that we are finally going to put the Civil War in the proper prespective...

Stupid racists fighting a stupid war.

Burn their flags and tear down their monuments.

 

[Syriusly]

Interesting thought. We do know slavery is why they started the secession attempt because that is what their declaration of secession says.

It is "believed" to be the reason for secession. However if that's all it was about and that was the "central" issue, (1) the south would have joined the union (2) they would not be in rebellion against the north (3) and according to the proclamation no slaves would have been freed, but the south would have been able to keep their slaves.

However, the south rejected the idea of joining the north despite being told no slaves would be set free as a result. Why did the south reject rejoining the union? Slavery then could not have been the reason the south CHOSE to be driven to the cost of war. The evidence simply doesn't support what many have been told to believe. Also, Lincoln waited over one year to make the proclamation and make slavery the issue. History records Lincoln "changed his focus" (it's those small key words often have Ben overlooked) to then make the issue about slavery ... at a time when the war was already well under way.

I used to think the civil war was strictly and only about slavery, until I did some research of my own and the evidence no longer made that the simple answer. If President Lincoln's first proclamation would have allowed the south to keep their slaves, that would have without doubt have ended their rebellion based on the issue of slavery alone.

Remember now, history records that Lincoln afterwards tells that he changed his focus and made the issue of the war about slavery. (Small details like that raises questions that can lead you to look deeper into the war itself)

Believed HELL. Read the declarations of secession from each of the states. It plainly says why they wanted to seceded. No matter what efforts were later made to try to end the conflict, the reason for it in the first place is and was never in doubt.

You got to look deeper, all the evidence doesn't make it that simple. If it were the rebellious states would have accepted Lincoln's offer and rejoined the union. No one has provided an answer as to why the offer was rejected.

What reason would the south have to reject joining the union and keeping their slaves? Instead they chose to go to war. No one on this thread has offered a reason the south rejected joining the union when they would have kept their slaves if they had. They say it's about slavery, but the south didn't go along with Lincoln's proposal to "end their rebellion with the north", now did they? Even IF in doing so meant keeping their slaves.

The evidence doesn't make it as strong an argument as you would like.

I have no idea why they chose to continue the war, but the reason they started it is unquestionable. The reason was plainly laid our in their declarations. Are you suggesting they didn't list all their grievances for trying to seceded in those documents? Why would they do that?

not every state mentioned slavery in their secession.

The north was purposely trying to agitate and destabilize the south by weaponizing the negroes and that's why some states directly addressed the issue.

Southerners knew slavery was a dying practice and with the industrial revolution underway there was no no need to import any more farm animals when there were machines being developed to do more work, more efficiently..

The south tried to peacefully withdraw from the union.
The north invaded the south and southerners fired on the invaders as all patriots would when their homeland is being attacked. Just simple facts.No spin.

Wow- that is one of the largest collection of bullshit I have seen posted here.

'weaponizing the negroes'- what the hell does that mean? You think Northern states were going around giving guns to escaped slaves prior to secession?

Many Northern States opposed slavery- and claiming their own states rights- made it difficult for Slave States to recover their escaped human property.

Southerners were looking forward to importing more Slaves after they seceded- far from thinking it was a dying practice- slaves represented the single largest type of asset in the South. Slaves were being sold from the East Coast to the Cotton States- because the huge demand for human labor in cultivating cotton- whole families were being torn apart and Slave owners on the east coast were making fortunes selling their human slaves.

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

Yes- after the rebel slave states fired on American troops- then the United States mobilized to quash the rebellion.

The simple facts are that the rebel slave states rebelled primarily- if not exclusively to protect their interest in owning human beings.

That is no spin- just the facts.

 

[Syriusly]

They didn't rebel..they tried to peacefully withdraw..the north invaded.

They attacked a federal facility. That wasn't "Peaceful".

The north invaded. They fired to repel invaders, like all patriots would. See "1776".
.

The North invaded after your 'patriots' attacked American troops.

Sucked to be them- too bad for the Confederate Troops who died protecting the country created to protect Slavery rights.

 

[gtopa1]

It is "believed" to be the reason for secession. However if that's all it was about and that was the "central" issue, (1) the south would have joined the union (2) they would not be in rebellion against the north (3) and according to the proclamation no slaves would have been freed, but the south would have been able to keep their slaves.

However, the south rejected the idea of joining the north despite being told no slaves would be set free as a result. Why did the south reject rejoining the union? Slavery then could not have been the reason the south CHOSE to be driven to the cost of war. The evidence simply doesn't support what many have been told to believe. Also, Lincoln waited over one year to make the proclamation and make slavery the issue. History records Lincoln "changed his focus" (it's those small key words often have Ben overlooked) to then make the issue about slavery ... at a time when the war was already well under way.

I used to think the civil war was strictly and only about slavery, until I did some research of my own and the evidence no longer made that the simple answer. If President Lincoln's first proclamation would have allowed the south to keep their slaves, that would have without doubt have ended their rebellion based on the issue of slavery alone.

Remember now, history records that Lincoln afterwards tells that he changed his focus and made the issue of the war about slavery. (Small details like that raises questions that can lead you to look deeper into the war itself)

Believed HELL. Read the declarations of secession from each of the states. It plainly says why they wanted to seceded. No matter what efforts were later made to try to end the conflict, the reason for it in the first place is and was never in doubt.

You got to look deeper, all the evidence doesn't make it that simple. If it were the rebellious states would have accepted Lincoln's offer and rejoined the union. No one has provided an answer as to why the offer was rejected.

What reason would the south have to reject joining the union and keeping their slaves? Instead they chose to go to war. No one on this thread has offered a reason the south rejected joining the union when they would have kept their slaves if they had. They say it's about slavery, but the south didn't go along with Lincoln's proposal to "end their rebellion with the north", now did they? Even IF in doing so meant keeping their slaves.

The evidence doesn't make it as strong an argument as you would like.

I have no idea why they chose to continue the war, but the reason they started it is unquestionable. The reason was plainly laid our in their declarations. Are you suggesting they didn't list all their grievances for trying to seceded in those documents? Why would they do that?

not every state mentioned slavery in their secession.

The north was purposely trying to agitate and destabilize the south by weaponizing the negroes and that's why some states directly addressed the issue.

Southerners knew slavery was a dying practice and with the industrial revolution underway there was no no need to import any more farm animals when there were machines being developed to do more work, more efficiently..

The south tried to peacefully withdraw from the union.
The north invaded the south and southerners fired on the invaders as all patriots would when their homeland is being attacked. Just simple facts.No spin.

Wow- that is one of the largest collection of bullshit I have seen posted here.

'weaponizing the negroes'- what the hell does that mean? You think Northern states were going around giving guns to escaped slaves prior to secession?

Many Northern States opposed slavery- and claiming their own states rights- made it difficult for Slave States to recover their escaped human property.

Southerners were looking forward to importing more Slaves after they seceded- far from thinking it was a dying practice- slaves represented the single largest type of asset in the South. Slaves were being sold from the East Coast to the Cotton States- because the huge demand for human labor in cultivating cotton- whole families were being torn apart and Slave owners on the east coast were making fortunes selling their human slaves.

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

Yes- after the rebel slave states fired on American troops- then the United States mobilized to quash the rebellion.

The simple facts are that the rebel slave states rebelled primarily- if not exclusively to protect their interest in owning human beings.

That is no spin- just the facts.

Just a foreigner here who has often wondered:

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

What on earth were Union Troops doing in the South??

Greg

 

[Freewill]

I'm not sure how a functioning person could not be aware of that. The murders did serve to focus the ongoing outrage of a racist symbol with a treasonous past being flown over public property, and the country as a whole just decided it had been long enough.

Of course, but we're missing the bigger picture here. If we're going to display that much outrage over that one flag, why not the gay flag? Hmm? The man claimed to be gay, and that flag is a banner for the LGBT movement. Why this kind of absurdity, why this double standard?

Yes I was for moving it long before those murders. Millions of us were. I guess someone as uninformed as you are has trouble understanding that.

Cute, as much as you like insulting me, I already knew it was a source of contention. I remember well when I was in middle school how our state decided to change the Georgia State flag. Now, as I did then, I didn't think it was a problem. Nor do these people:

Believe me, being a southerner, it's a point to keep up with this kind of thing. I'm in the thick of it. You? You're just thick headed. Excuse me.

What the chart shows is exactly what is happened in the last 20 years, the Democrats have become more and more racist to the point that they see racism in everything.

 

[Freewill]

Believed HELL. Read the declarations of secession from each of the states. It plainly says why they wanted to seceded. No matter what efforts were later made to try to end the conflict, the reason for it in the first place is and was never in doubt.

You got to look deeper, all the evidence doesn't make it that simple. If it were the rebellious states would have accepted Lincoln's offer and rejoined the union. No one has provided an answer as to why the offer was rejected.

What reason would the south have to reject joining the union and keeping their slaves? Instead they chose to go to war. No one on this thread has offered a reason the south rejected joining the union when they would have kept their slaves if they had. They say it's about slavery, but the south didn't go along with Lincoln's proposal to "end their rebellion with the north", now did they? Even IF in doing so meant keeping their slaves.

The evidence doesn't make it as strong an argument as you would like.

I have no idea why they chose to continue the war, but the reason they started it is unquestionable. The reason was plainly laid our in their declarations. Are you suggesting they didn't list all their grievances for trying to seceded in those documents? Why would they do that?

not every state mentioned slavery in their secession.

The north was purposely trying to agitate and destabilize the south by weaponizing the negroes and that's why some states directly addressed the issue.

Southerners knew slavery was a dying practice and with the industrial revolution underway there was no no need to import any more farm animals when there were machines being developed to do more work, more efficiently..

The south tried to peacefully withdraw from the union.
The north invaded the south and southerners fired on the invaders as all patriots would when their homeland is being attacked. Just simple facts.No spin.

Wow- that is one of the largest collection of bullshit I have seen posted here.

'weaponizing the negroes'- what the hell does that mean? You think Northern states were going around giving guns to escaped slaves prior to secession?

Many Northern States opposed slavery- and claiming their own states rights- made it difficult for Slave States to recover their escaped human property.

Southerners were looking forward to importing more Slaves after they seceded- far from thinking it was a dying practice- slaves represented the single largest type of asset in the South. Slaves were being sold from the East Coast to the Cotton States- because the huge demand for human labor in cultivating cotton- whole families were being torn apart and Slave owners on the east coast were making fortunes selling their human slaves.

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

Yes- after the rebel slave states fired on American troops- then the United States mobilized to quash the rebellion.

The simple facts are that the rebel slave states rebelled primarily- if not exclusively to protect their interest in owning human beings.

That is no spin- just the facts.

Just a foreigner here who has often wondered:

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

What on earth were Union Troops doing in the South??

Greg

They were garrisoned in a federal fort.

 

[Katzndogz]

The Confederate flag is banned. Children learn the shahada which is on the isis flag.

Do you see where this is going?

 

[Timmy]

It's the symbol of hate and treason. Those traitors killed more U.S. soildiers than Al queda and ISIS could ever dream of .

It's a disgrace that anyone flies it.

 

[Conservative65]

You are either confused or very stupid. It wasn't banned, it was moved. That flag wasn't moved because a guy shot a bunch of blacks. It was moved because it has been a symbol of oppression since the civil war. It was virtually forgotten until the KKK took it as a symbol, and wasn't displayed on public property until civil rights were granted. Only a racist idiot would say it was banned (again, it was not) because of roof.

It was moved because the state of SC has a bend over and grab her ankles governor who has national political aspirations. It was removed until some nut shot 9 black people.

 

[Conservative65]

It's the symbol of hate and treason. Those traitors killed more U.S. soildiers than Al queda and ISIS could ever dream of .

It's a disgrace that anyone flies it.

How many British soldiers did the traitors the formed the U.S. kill? You do know they were traitors don't you?

 

[Syriusly]

The Confederate flag is banned. Children learn the shahada which is on the isis flag.

Do you see where this is going?

Clearly you are headed towards total lunacy....the Confederate flag is not banned....you can be proudly flying it today.

 

[Syriusly]

You are either confused or very stupid. It wasn't banned, it was moved. That flag wasn't moved because a guy shot a bunch of blacks. It was moved because it has been a symbol of oppression since the civil war. It was virtually forgotten until the KKK took it as a symbol, and wasn't displayed on public property until civil rights were granted. Only a racist idiot would say it was banned (again, it was not) because of roof.

It was moved because the state of SC has a bend over and grab her ankles governor who has national political aspirations. It was removed until some nut shot 9 black people.

Poor, poor Confederate fan boys........

 

[Conservative65]

The Confederate flag is banned. Children learn the shahada which is on the isis flag.

Do you see where this is going?

Clearly you are headed towards total lunacy....the Confederate flag is not banned....you can be proudly flying it today.

You are either confused or very stupid. It wasn't banned, it was moved. That flag wasn't moved because a guy shot a bunch of blacks. It was moved because it has been a symbol of oppression since the civil war. It was virtually forgotten until the KKK took it as a symbol, and wasn't displayed on public property until civil rights were granted. Only a racist idiot would say it was banned (again, it was not) because of roof.

It was moved because the state of SC has a bend over and grab her ankles governor who has national political aspirations. It was removed until some nut shot 9 black people.

Poor, poor Confederate fan boys........

Poor, poor retard Liberal that can't distinguish truth from agenda.