A bunch of states seceded from the U.S. because they wanted to own human beings.
They lost the war.
I think we can stop flying it.
Will Ole Miss drop the Confederate flag
- Thread starter demziah_01
- Start date
They lost the war.
I think we can stop flying it.
I don't believe you can legislate the ignorance out of people. We live in the south which believes in gun ownership for personal protection and hunting. You should move to NYC or LA and you could find more people to agree with you.Background checks should be in place to keep the crazies from owning a gun but you have to change people to lower the violence.
Chicago has had tough gun laws in the past. They have been forced to loosen them recently. The rest of Illinois does not have very tough gun laws. I believe Illinois was 9th according to the Brady Campaign in 2014. Illinois is not even close to places like California or New York on tough gun laws. It isn't exactly difficult to get a gun outside of Chicago and bring it into the city. You can't change things like this city by city or even state by state. If you want to see real results then there will have to be changes made at the federal level.
This country is obsessed with guns. If you can't see a correlation between that and the excessive gun violence then I don't really know what to say.
I live in San Francisco. I have no issue with people owning guns for hunting. However, it is way to easy to get guns in this country. It isn't necessary to own assault weapons or magazines that hold excessive ammo. There should be stricter background checks on ALL gun transactions.
Not to confuse the issue with facts but...the Stars & Bars was not the "country flag" of the confederate states, it was a battle flag and nothing more.
Do you even know your history. The civil war had nothing to do with slavery.
That is not how it happened, not even close. You might want to read this if you think that. http://chronicle.augusta.com/opinion/letters/2010-04-27/know-real-cause-civil-war
If the war started in early 1861 the n why did Lincoln sign the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863? You would think the freeing of the slaves started the war by your comments. Instead it was a Hail Mary attempt to try to win the war by the north.
I'm not taking sides, I'm just pointing out facts. I was a history major before I switched to science.
Last edited:
The civil war started over state versus federal rights. The slavery was a political platform by Luncoln so he could have a moral reason for declaring war on the south. The federal government did not want the southern states to succeed. The main reason why because a divided nation would have caused chaos and the south could have charged northern textiles anything they wanted for cotton and other products grown in the south. So therefore the existence of a central government that controls the whole nation would not have existed.
A quote from Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the confederate states, in 1861:
"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."
In addition to adding in language about states rights, the constitution of the Confederate States of America mentioned slavery several times and much more directly than the United States Constitution. Below is a link to an article that goes over some of the differences between how the Confederacy addressed slavery in their constitution.
https://cwemancipation.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/slavery-in-the-permanent-constitution/
Any way you cut it, it was 100% slavery.
State's rights? Yeah, the right to own slaves.
Money? Yeah, the economy driven by slaves that would collapse if abolished.
State's rights? Yeah, the right to own slaves.
Money? Yeah, the economy driven by slaves that would collapse if abolished.
I appreciate your providing some sources and the post you did showing the actual national flag of the Confederacy.
However this does leave out that at the time of the Civil War there were four slave holding states that declined to join the Confederacy (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware). Lincoln and other northerners feared that if they moved too aggressively against slavery that they would push those states to join the Confederacy.
Also the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't a Hail Mary. It came at a time when the US felt that they had turned the tide enough to pass an act that addressed slavery. Even then they left the four states that didn't join the Confederacy out of the proclamation so as to not instigate rebellion from them. The 13th amendment picked them up after the war.
You hate admitting you're in your 40's? Really? Why?
I remember the hoopla about the Razorback band playing Dixie. I think I was in school then. I graduated in 1974.
I'm 61 and proud of it.
Is that why the emancipation proclamation only freed the slaves in the southern states but allowed any Union states that had slaves were allowed to keep their slaves?
You really should read about it a little more. It is not the good versus evil scenario we are fed. It was more of a power grab by the northern states that got most of their federal funds from taxing the crap out of the southern states.
The beauty of the Internet is you can pull up anything very quickly. Here are some states declaration of secession. In the first sentence or two, the states make it incredibly clear why they seceded from the union
Georgia:
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
Mississippi:
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
South Carolina:
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right.
Texas:
The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof.
The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
Georgia:
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
Mississippi:
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
South Carolina:
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right.
Texas:
The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof.
The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
Mike every war requires a moral justification in order to get men to continue to do horrific acts on one another. In the first gulf war we were fed that we had to protect the poor innocent citizens of Kuwait from Iraq. We all know that it was about oil.
Was slavery an issue? Yes it was. The Union trying to expand control and power was the bigger issue. The fact is the North was not a friendly place for Africans even after the war...that is why 1964 and MLK was needed to address the situation should make it pretty clear the North didn't really care about the treatment of the slaves and certainly did not treat them as equals. The 13th amendment didn't come along until well after the war. Like another poster pointed out all slaves were not freed for political reasons.
You have a position and don't really come across as being open to any other possibilities. I've posted links and information that does not fit your narrative and I'm willing to leave it there.
Was slavery an issue? Yes it was. The Union trying to expand control and power was the bigger issue. The fact is the North was not a friendly place for Africans even after the war...that is why 1964 and MLK was needed to address the situation should make it pretty clear the North didn't really care about the treatment of the slaves and certainly did not treat them as equals. The 13th amendment didn't come along until well after the war. Like another poster pointed out all slaves were not freed for political reasons.
You have a position and don't really come across as being open to any other possibilities. I've posted links and information that does not fit your narrative and I'm willing to leave it there.
You are right. But I think statistics show that most gun deaths are not the result of criminal activity.
They are because people get in drunken fights, spouses get jealous and angry, kids play with guns parents have left loaded.
The Second Amendment has an introductory clause that reads "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
It says nothing about any Tom, Dick or Harry being allowed to own an automatic weapon.
It refers to the "security of a free State" not your personal security.
How do we accomplish "well-regulated?"
I don't know, but if the NRA and gun enthusiasts would stop fighting it, maybe a solution could be found.
Maybe an IQ test and certification from a psychologist that you are not a nutcase.
Personally, I am fine with people who want guns to hunt. Or even for home security.
But I do think it is out of control.
My father won lots of marksmanship trophies when he was in the military. I never saw a gun in our house.
Here is part of a letter Lincoln wrote concerning the war and slavery. This is one major reason people say the war wasn't about slavery until late in the war. I'm just posting this to add to the discussion.
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
I don't believe the North was some great moral compass, but the South seceded because they (rightly) feared losing slaves. That was 100% it.
On top of that, they lost. Losers (and traitors) don't get to fly flags.
Good post Luke. It is just another example of how the Union would have made the Emancipation Proclamation move earlier in the war if that had been the driving issue. The point about waiting for a point in the war when the "tide had turned" never held much water with me because if it were truly about slavery why not just kick the slave states out of the union? Because, they wanted to control those states and their economic production.
I was a history major, and completed all the course work for my M.A.
On any historic issue, professional historans will disagree. There are revisionists, economists, and other "ists."
They can all quote primary sources to support their theories.
Just like people do with the Bible.
On any historic issue, professional historans will disagree. There are revisionists, economists, and other "ists."
They can all quote primary sources to support their theories.
Just like people do with the Bible.
My great grandfather fought for the north...but let's not make it out as the north was innocent. Slavery was a 200 year old institution in the U.S....under the U.S. flag...from the time we were colonies and it started up north and spread south. Even though many of the northern colonies "outlawed" slavery in the late 1700's to early 1800's...most of those states did not enforce those laws until the mid 1800's...with NJ not enforcing the end of slavery until 1865. Of course, there weren't as many slaves in the north because they did not possess an agrarian society...but they still had slaves...some even up to the end of the war.
That is in no way me trying to justify southern slavery...as it is abhorrent and unGodly. I'm just reminding all of us that the U.S. flag actually stood for slavery as well. This entire nation from the beginning until 1865 was guilty of this...not just the south. The south was just the last to let it go and the one stubborn enough to fight to hold onto it.
The confederate flag should definitely go...but what about the U.S. flag? Because the federal government finally got it right...does that wash away the stain on the flag?
That is in no way me trying to justify southern slavery...as it is abhorrent and unGodly. I'm just reminding all of us that the U.S. flag actually stood for slavery as well. This entire nation from the beginning until 1865 was guilty of this...not just the south. The south was just the last to let it go and the one stubborn enough to fight to hold onto it.
The confederate flag should definitely go...but what about the U.S. flag? Because the federal government finally got it right...does that wash away the stain on the flag?
Mike, Seems like you are defending Ole Miss and that is fine. But I have been to 4 games in Oxford and have seen plenty of Dixie Flags and the students end one song every time I've been there including the last game in Oxford with the chant "and the South will rise again". I know that there may be no more people in MS that are racist than in Arkansas, but I think it is disingenuous to state there are not more racial overtones in Oxford than in other SEC schools.
So let's run that out to it's logical conclusion. So every country that ever had a slave in it needs a new flag?!?!
Titan with all due respect...give me a break! I have defended you many times for your beliefs but that is some bs right there. Sorry
Titan with all due respect...give me a break! I have defended you many times for your beliefs but that is some bs right there. Sorry
I don't understand the question or even the option you are giving. The United States is the nation we live in. That's why the flag flies.
Even if you changed it(which has happened multiple times since then) it's still the same nation.
The reason the South fought the Civil War had everything to do with preserving slavery.
The reason the North fought the Civil War mostly had to do with preserving the Union, with the ending of slavery being a secondary cause.
I don't see why these can't both be true.
The North was no great center of morality. Treatment of workers, immigrants and free blacks in the northern states left a lot to be desired. Many in the North opposed slavery on religious or ethical grounds but many opposed it out of their own economic interests. Life is full of shades of gray. I still believe though that the side that went to war to support slavery was a darker shade of gray.
The reason the North fought the Civil War mostly had to do with preserving the Union, with the ending of slavery being a secondary cause.
I don't see why these can't both be true.
The North was no great center of morality. Treatment of workers, immigrants and free blacks in the northern states left a lot to be desired. Many in the North opposed slavery on religious or ethical grounds but many opposed it out of their own economic interests. Life is full of shades of gray. I still believe though that the side that went to war to support slavery was a darker shade of gray.
I actually don't need...nor care, if you defend me.
My point is that we as a society have become deeply "knee-jerk." A senseless, horrific young man killed 9 people last week because of the color of their skin. Immediately, people demand the confederate flag be taken down (which should have never been up in all of these places in the first place)...states are talking about taking down all confederate statues...and people want guns banned...and most of this is focused on the south, because it happened in the south.
Fine...all of the emblems should have not been erected or displayed publicly in the first place. No loss if they go away. But...what does it cure? It doesn't cure anything...but it's nothing but "feel good" gestures. We need to get to the root of issues...and racism is not JUST a southern thing. It is rooted in our nation from the beginning...NORTH and SOUTH. That's the point I'm making. This isn't a CONFEDERATE issue...this is an AMERICAN issue.
There is definitely more Old South symbolism there than at other SEC schools. What we were saying is that there has been a dramatic decline in the last 20 years. Robert Kayat started making changes several years ago that have made the school more friendly to African Americans. I hate Ole Miss but having lived here as long as I have, having spent a lot of time in Oxford, and some of my best friends are Ole Miss alumni I can vouch for the changes that have been made. That doesn't mean all symbolism is gone.
Last edited:
I'm trying to make the point that racism is not just a southern..or confederate issue. It's an entire U.S. issue. Sorry if I made the post confusing...as I'm apt to do.
Basically, I'm saying the confederate flag is definitely something that should go...and it's stained with racism. But...so is the American flag. (not saying it should go)
The north are the ones that went to war to prevent the south from leaving. The Union could have said "fine, go, see ya" but instead they decided to force the south to do as they say...and the federal government has never given the states their rights since.
I didn't interpret Titan's post as saying we should change the American flag.
Definitley. The south, at the time, was the worse of the two. But many think all blacks in the north were free...which they weren't.
Obviously, I'm glad the north won and that slavery was abolished.
Glad we're on the same page about the reason the North went to war (preserving the Union).
I guess the only thing we disagree with is the South's reason (slavery).
That speech was less than one month before the Civil War began. But of course, the war had nothing to do with slavery. smh
I just don't like the "stain" comment when talking about the one nation that has done more and sacrificed more for the cause of freedom for millions of human beings around the world than any nation in the history of the earth.
I tried to temper my remarks by pointing out I have stuck up for her when she was attacked pretty harshly (and unfairly in my opinion for her beliefs) and I got a snide "I don't need or care" response out her. I won't make that mistake again.
I tried to temper my remarks by pointing out I have stuck up for her when she was attacked pretty harshly (and unfairly in my opinion for her beliefs) and I got a snide "I don't need or care" response out her. I won't make that mistake again.
Thanks Lolly. I was just making the point that we can get rid of these few emblems of the Civil War (as we should have a LONG time ago)...and it will make some people feel better for a while. But...this issue is deep rooted in America...not just the south. There have been race riots all over this nation for decades (many up north and out west)...and the true stain of racism and slavery is bigger than just the south.
Similar threads
