Confederate Flag = TREASON

[timontheleft]

I read somewhere the one of Macaca Allen's quirks is that he has a Confederate Battle flag displayed in his home. If it is true, it is appalling behavior for a man that is a member of the United States Senate. Is his loyalty to the United States of America or to the Confederate States of America? What is his motive for displaying such an artifact?

Treason:

• The crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government - Oxford American Dictionary
  
  
• The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family - Mirriam-Webster
  
  
• Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies - Dictionary.com
  

Did the Confederacy not attempt to overthrow the United States government in the southern states by waging war? Is it not fair to call anyone purposely displaying a emblem representing the Confederacy a sympathizer? Why else would they display it? It seems to me that this is particularly true of the people that refer to it as their "heritage"; what "heritage" are they honoring? Slavery? Hatred? War mongering?

Yes, his first amendment rights allow him express himself in any manner he sees fit, maybe this is a blessing to us as it is a direct indication of his true thoughts. If anyone wishes to display a Confederate flag that is their choice.

The way we react to it is ours.

[hedgehog]

1. I've told this story before, but it's a good one.

Back during the Korean War a US Navy ship went past my Dad's destroyer flying the Confederate battle flag. His captain issued a command to the other ship to take down those enemy colors or be fired upon. Very quickly a US flag went up instead.

Given the fact that the Navy was a notorious bastion of segregation right up to the 50's, I've often wondered who all was involved.

[timontheleft]

2. It's reassuring to know . . .

that I'm not the only one that feels that way.

[Guaranteed]

21. Wow.

That is a striking story. Good for your dad and his captain.

[hedgehog]

41. The captain gets all the credit.

Dad was just a Lt. JG. I suspect that the encounter may have been between an Annapolis man on the other ship and someone who came in through the officer training corps during WWII.

[JHB]

151. Hard to tell...

...there's plenty of Yankee Annapolis grads too.

[mitchum]

53. That is a great story

[Jed Dilligan]

138. I've seen pics of M113s flying Nazi Admiralty flags in Vietnam nt

[pooja]

3. In the south it is heritage... it was standing up to the nation...

it was not agreeing with the status quo... and please do not be misguided enough to believe that the Civil War or in the South the War between the States had much to do with slavery or hate. The abolition of slavery was a kick in the gut to the south implemented by Abe Lincoln. The war was about money and trade worlwide. Slavery would have absolved itself anyway with the invention of the cotton gin. It would have been too expensive to own slaves. Please, educate yourselves beyond the text book. If you visit the south, the flag doesn't represent repression, it represents the last stand. --- it was bigoted people who took the flag and in turn made it represent something horrible----oppression. And yes I grew up in the North thinking these very things... flag bad. But after living in south carolina in college, I realized that the south has a very different way of looking at the war and the flag.

[pooja]

5. I should add I am not defending that asshole... just the heritage

its America's heritage... Why be afraid of a flag.. examine why the war was waged and what brought brother against brother.. and examine if it is time for a similar occurence to regain our nation back.

[timontheleft]

8. I grew up in Tennessee . . .

the Civil War was very much a part of my education as only Virginia had more battles fought within its borders.

Regardless of what it stands for today the Confederate Battle flag is the emblem that was carried by those that no longer wanted to be part of the United States . . . Treason - and very inappropriate for a United States senator - particularly one that was not born in the South.

[pooja]

9. Depends on treason... with that argument, the whole usa is a treason

nation, since we warred against Mother England. So it the US flag treason?

[timontheleft]

11. I suppose it you are a Brit . . .

then yes.

You're asking if the US flag is treason against the US.

[pooja]

13. seeing how we were all British subjects to begin with.. our whole

country is treasonous. and our existence as a nation is unfounded?

[timontheleft]

23. Unless you're over 230 years old . . .

you've never been a British subject. And, not everyone in the US is a descendant of Englishmen.

And the United States won the war - both times.

[Clark2008]

40. And, unless you're more than 130 years old, then the

same applies to the battle flag of the Confederacy.

It's now history. Heritage.

In fact, it's a piece of cloth. People simply should not let it get their dander up, either way (and I'm Southern).

[pooja]

61. exactly.. its a heritage... and hiding it is like people now trying

to say the hollocaust didn't happen..

[timontheleft]

63. I never said we should hide it.

I just don't understand being PROUD of it.

It should be exposed for what it is.

[pooja]

68. Why not address and understand that in those days this country

was a different place. It was evolving. I think what was remarkable was that the North needed the south economically so badly that they weren't going to allow the southern states to leave. Seeing how the states signed allegience, they had every right to unsign allegience. The war defined Govt rights and states rights. the govt established that it was more powerful than the states.

[Clark2008]

70. Lemme explain...

Most of the men who fought for the South were poor and could never have ever owned a slave. Couldn't even imagine owning a slave.

It was sold by the elite, much like today's wars, as a "cause," and it was a cause poor white men and women could get behind: the Yankees were trying to CHANGE us. Not the slavery. These guys didn't own slaves! And, it took on a life of its own.

What people are proud of was that this rinky dink area of the county - more poor, less educated (which, btw, was because of the slave owners, same as it is now) - STILL stood up to "The Man" for YEARS.

That's what they're proud of - fighting a government THEY felt was fascist and demanding. Just the same as we do now.

You have to really just understand how people down here felt about being TOLD what to do as though we were 3-year-olds.

I'm not trying to argue - I'm trying to explain. Please... take it that way.

[malmapus]

141. I'm proud because a good portion of my family at the time died serving it.

My family is lucky enough to have letters written home by a son who went off to war, he was fighting for his family because at the time there were people coming down and burning / razing the area (led by this very nice fellow named W.T. Sherman). Out of 6 brothers, this one buried 3 of them all defending their home and had to write back to their mom and dad telling me they lost another son. He wasn't fighting for slavery. Only mention he even made of slaves was seeing them dig the trenches and defensive works around Atlanta.

[Bake]

120. So if you WON the war, it's not treason?

That's right, the winner DOES get to write the history...

Bake

[Bandit]

143. Except we won our Independence the South did not

We won our battle and Britain signed an agreement granting the USA it's independence so from that time on we were not traitors to the Brittish Crown but on the other hand the South lost it's bid for Independence and so that flag is still considered an enemy flag.

[Brewman_Jax]

10. Here are the Letters of Secession

see http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csapage.htm and scroll down. It was about slavery.

[rug]

73. Hit the nail on the head.

[Lindacooks]

76. You bet it was about slavery.

I am so sick of hearing that the War Between the States was about economic issues. It wasn't, and you just proved it. Thank you.

[VOX]

139. You are correct, although it was about slavery *and* money.

Since in the South, slavery drove the predominately agrarian economy.

Strictly speaking, Southerners were afraid that they were about to lose their "property" (slaves), and to them, that meant cotton, tobacco and other crops would cease production.

[ComerPerro]

22. Wow, you sure are an idealist.

The Civil War wasn't about standing up to an oppressive government.

It was a bunch of southern politicians who wanted their own government, so they used emotion and smooth talk to trick thousands into fighting a war they weren't equipped to fight.


If anything, the Confederate flag is a symbol of how easily manipulated someone is.

[Clark2008]

42. Well, now that I can agree with.

I just know a lot of Southerners who support the last stand and that flag and who don't have a racist bone in their bodies.

But, yes... I can agree with this post.

And, I would add that our own Betsy Ross creation is fast becoming the same thing.

[Virginia Dare]

132. As usual...

it was a war instigated to benefit the rich, fought largely by the poor.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clark2008]

48. No, actually, it's not.

When you consider that black people did not gain true citizenship for a full 100 years after the Civil War, during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

Slavery would have become verboten - financially - whether in trade and/or health care. It would have.

Not that I would have had it any other way - the Emancipation Proclamation needed to happen, but, in all honesty, nothing much changed for a full hundred years.

[Virginian]

155. the Emancipation Proclamation did nothing, Act of congress did.

It's tedious to read, but the Emancipation lists a bunch of counties that are exempted. Most of them are in Maryland, a slave state remaining in the Union.

The document only frees the enslaved in the Confederacy. The Confederacy didn't recognize Union decrees. In today's terms, it would be like the US making laws for Canada. And then for a kicker, saying those same laws don't apply to the US.

[pooja]

72. I did and it did happen with a "serfdom"

[LostInAnomie]

32. I'm pretty sure the invention of the cotton gin led to a steep...

... increase in the demand for slave labor. I'm also pretty sure that the Confederate Constitution guaranteed that slavery could not be abolished. And as I recall Lincoln hadn't abolished slavery when the South seceded and fired on Fort Sumter. That didn't actually happen until quite a bit later.

I'll agree that the Civil War was a huge culture clash between the industrialized North, and the agriculture based South, but the war was still about slavery.

[ComerPerro]

43. you're right about the cotton gin

[Clark2008]

54. Um, no. It was about culture.

Had the North stopped demanding the instant change in the Southern culture and, instead, helped make industrialization so, there would have been no need for the war.

It was about money.

Nearly all wars are about money.

[pooja]

65. I agree it was about the money.. and with the introduction of the

gin... it would have cut down on the need for slaves... so what happened instead. After the war their was this great fuedal institution that was enacted in America.. Just another form of slavery.

[Hard_Work]

131. Please!!!

The cotton gin didn't PICK cotton. It merely separated the cotton fiber from the seeds, a lot faster than slaves could. What this meant in economic terms was more cotton could be processed in the same amount of time. Therefore MORE slaves were required to pick the cotton, which was the truly back breaking work. Because MORE cotton could be processed, MORE slaves were required to pick it. This is the 'economic reason' behind the Civil War. The need for more slaves.

[LostInAnomie]

106. Demanding instant change?

You've got to be kidding me.

With around 90% of their economy based in agriculture, especially very profitable and slave labor intensive cotton crops, the South had no reason to ever accept industrialization. The slavery culture of the South let the landed gentry reap huge profits, and it gave the poor whites a social class that they could look down on no matter how backwards they were themselves.

I will agree with your partly. The war was about money, for the rich whites in the South. They fought to preserve their investment, no matter how immoral it was.

For the poor whites the war was about social class. They fought to preserve to a social structure where no matter how poor, uneducated, and backwards they were they could at least feel superior to slaves.

No matter how you slice it it all go back to the fact that they war was about slavery.

[Spider Jerusalem]

103. Lincoln never abolished slavery.

He certainly didn't abolish slavery in Kentucky, or Maryland, or Delaware; the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to 'those States still in a condition of Rebellion' on the date it was issued (which is to say that it had no real force in fact, because those states were not at the time under the control of the federal government). Lincoln, like most other whites of his generation, subscribed to the ideology of white supremacy, and he was mostly neutral on the issue of slavery except when it could be exploited out of political expediency.

[LostInAnomie]

107. Yeah, I know but I didn't feel like writing that all out.

He even mentioned in his inaugural address that he had no intention of abolishing slavery.

You can't argue with "common knowledge" though.

[fishwax]

109. the cotton gin was invented in the 18th century

70 years before the civil war. And, as you say, it certainly didn't lead towards the extinction of hte institution.

[Skittles]

35. lol

now I have heard it all

[mitchum]

38. WTF???!!! I'm actually from SC and I never believed that nonsense...

read the Letters of Secession. It was CERTAINLY about slavery.

[hedgehog]

39. I'm not sure about some of your assertions.

I read a book about a scandal in the Randolph family of Virginia c 1792 -1815. I wasn't so shocked by the scandal itself as by the letters and actions of the brother who was a congressman at the time. He eagerly discussed secession because he felt the Northern states were interfering with Virginia's right to maintain slavery. He may not have hated Northerners, but he clearly held them in contempt. This was during the administration of Thomas Jefferson. At the time, the product of choice was tobacco, not cotton. The point is that the ink on the Constitution was barely dry and some southern politicians were already pushing for secession. I can't remember how warlike his intentions were, but he did try to provoke a lot of duels.

The planters in Virginia abused their land trying to produce more and more tobacco as the price fell and the cost of imported goods rose. I never understood how Jefferson bankrupted himself until I realized that he mortgaged his land and then saw it become worthless as intensive tobacco cropping let the top soil wash away. As the demand for cotton rose and the demand for tobacco fell, the money crop of Virginia planters became the slaves they could sell to the cotton states.

I think to state the Civil War was over State's rights and deny the role of slavery is wrong. The right to legalize slavery was the pre-eminent state's right involved. At the same time, Southerners may have considered their state to be their country while Northerners considered the abstract Union to be the nation. Treason becomes hard to define until country is defined.What is especially hard for a Northerner to fathom is that Southerners revered patriots such as Washington. Both sides considered their concept to be the real America. The real irony is that if Southern politicians had waited until secession reached the Supreme Court, the Court would have likely ruled in their favor.

[ComerPerro]

50. by the way, I love being told to "get educated" by someone

who I can refute in five seconds on google.

Slavery would have abolished itself?

First off, Whitney filed for a patent before 1800, so if it would have "abolished itself", I guess that would have taken over 60 years.


Moreover, it is well documented that the development of the cotton gin actually increased the value of and demand for slave labor.

[Clark2008]

56. It still took 100 years - so what are you talking about?

Or do you REALLY believe black people were "free" in 1862?

[hedgehog]

58. The freedom of black people was not a simple straight line.

Blacks may have been more free in 1880 than they were in 1920. The end of Reconstruction with the withdrawal of Federal troops to insure the rights of all citizens meant that a lot of progress was lost. In my book, Woodrow Wilson also has a lot to answer for by instituting segregation in the federal civil service and putting a stamp of approval on a lot of mythology used to justify the treatment of blacks as second class citizens.

[ComerPerro]

59. My point is, the cotton did alot to make slavery even more widespread

The idea that it somehow decreased the demand for slaves is just absurd

[Clark2008]

77. I never said it did.

I think economics would have eventually corrected it and that's the tact the North should have taken.

In much the same way that the Iraqi's will not accept American democracy at the barrell of a gun, neither would the South accept the instant change the North imposed. The North needed to put their money where their mouth was and stop trading with Southern slave owners and only with simple farmers. That would have stopped it without a rendering war. As it was, nothing much changed for 100 years, anyway. Serfdom as opposed to slavery to the starving child isn't much difference.

Of course, this is all historic, now, and nothing we say or do or aruge here will change it.

[hedgehog]

82. I was wondering other day what would have happened had slavery been

expanded further West into Arizona and New Mexico. Contrary to our notion of Southerners being tied to the land, the plantation owners were constantly wearing out their fields and moving West to fresh ones. How would they have grown cotton in Arizona with out the massive Federal irrigation projects? What would have happened when the boll weevil hit? What would have happened when the Dust Bowl came? These are worthwhile questions because they shake up our preconceptions.

[Clark2008]

86. Oooohhhh... good question.

I can't answer because I haven't thought about that, but I like where you're going with this.

[RoyGBiv]

112. This was contemplated ...

It was contemplated as early as the 1840's, perhaps earlier, but certainly with some seriousness then. If one gets into studying the causes of the Civil War, i.e. extend their study to something more than a trite summary, it actually pops up as a rather major issue. That is, the proponents of the slave culture were, or were feeling, geographically fenced-in. Attempts were made to move slave-owning families into those areas, but it didn't work quite the way they expected. With Free Soilers and other slavery opponents blocking moves into the North and Midwest, the push among a certain segment the South was to move slavery even farther South, into lands the United States then had no claim to, such as Cuba, other Caribbean Islands, Central America, etc. The Mexican War, the Civil War's little brother, was about that to an extent, but the end result of that war harmed the slave culture more than it helped it because the fertile lands more suited the slave culture's manner of doing things were not captured.

And studies have been done of this, FWIW.

What's also an interesting question, although one not as subject to historical examination as much as speculation of what might have been, would be to examine how the slave culture might have adapted to mining or other industries that developed in the West. It worked for the Romans and Greeks, so why not Americans? The problem with it, from the slave owner's point of view, was that mining played hell with life expectancy. That didn't bother Romans and Greeks as much because wealth was not tied to human ownership, nor was slavery race-based, which ensured slaves were always available, thus the economic incentive to keep those who were slaves at least somewhat healthy was not there. With so much of an American slave owner's assets tied up in human property, these individuals had an interest in keeping them alive. But there's another tangent as well, the one associated with some segment of the South's attempt to reopen the international slave trade, the intent of which was partly to allow expansion of slavery into other industries, such as mining, by making the potential pool of laborers larger. This was opposed primarily by "slave producing" states who had less need for the slave's labor but made ample sums of money with the internal slave trade. It was also opposed by owners of large slave populations who feared the depression of the price of a slave on the market, thus driving down their total wealth.

[Aristus]

62. Huh?

"Slavery would have absolved itself anyway with the invention of the cotton gin."???

The cotton gin was patented in 1794. Slavery in the South continued for a full seventy years afterward. The invention of the gin actually helped prolong and perpetuate the institution of slavery because with the emergence of rapidly de-seeded cotton, the production of cotton skyrocketed in profitability.

Give it up. The Confederate flag is a symbol of hatred, slavery, segregation and defiance toward the United States and its guiding principles. That's it.

[Mr_Spock]

66. Excellent post

Combining facts with the appropriate sentiment that we all know is contained in that symbol of hate.

Don't expect to get any agreement from the emotional ones.

[Lindacooks]

80. Uh huh. Right.

Read this:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and 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."

That's from the Mississippi Letter of Secession. It was slavery. Referring to people as 'products' and stating things like 'none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun' is hardly about money and trade.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/missec.htm

[LastDemocratInSC]

101. Mississippi's Articles of Secession prove that it was all about slavery

I'm a life-long resident of South Carolina and don't subscribe to your "different way of looking at the war and the flag".

I offer, as evidence of the South's true interests, the first two paragraphs of Mississippi's Articles of Secession:

------------------------

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. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and 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.

------------------------

I have ancestors who signed South Carolina's articles of secession. They were, and still are, traitors to the United States. Any attempt to put a blush on evil is evil itself.

[WoodrowFan]

127. here is some more.

You're correct. Of course the Civil War was about slavery. Pasted below are sections from the various articles of secession issued by the various states that made up the CSA. Six of the states specifically mentioned northern attempts to interfere with slavery as a reason for dissolving the Union. The other Southern states, including Florida, North Carolina and Arkansas pretty much said “we’re outta here” and mentioned the election of Lincoln.

While Lincoln did say he would keep slavery to preserve the Union, this really doesn’t help the neo-confederate’s arguments. The point is not Lincoln’s actions, but those of the 11 CSA states. And when Lincoln tried to prevent disunion, what issue did he use to mollify the South? That’s right, protecting their slaves! Had the war been about taxes or tariffs or what have you, then he would have used those issues. The facts that Lincoln used slavery to reassure the South shows just what the primary issue was in their mind.

Finally, consider the phantom 13th Amendment suggested as a peace measure. The real 13th Amendment (ratified in 1865) of course ends slavery. The 13th Amendment called The Crittenden Compromise, would have protected slavery where it existed and enshrined the right to enslave others. The “compromise” met with southern approval, but was rejected by the Republicans. You also have to consider the CSA constitution, which specifically protected slavery, and the words of CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, who indicated that the war was over white supremacy.

Sorry, but there’s really no doubt here. The South succeeded to protect the “right” to enslave others.

Here are what some of the specific states said...

Mississippi

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/missec.htm
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

South Carolina
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

Georgia
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/geosec.htm
Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable.

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

Texas
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/texsec.htm
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?
The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.


the following are from.. http://www.americancivilwar.info/pages/ordinances_seces...


Alabama

Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security, therefore:

And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,


Virginia

The people of Virginia in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States:


The other Southern states, including Florida, North Carolina and Arkansas pretty much said “we’re outta here” and mentioned the election of Lincoln.


Section 9.4 of the CSA Constitution…

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

From the “Cornerstone Speech” delivered by CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, March 21, 1861.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/corner.html
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.{emphasis added} Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."


and last but not least, a good Civil War quiz… http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/e/mebuckner/civwarquiz.htm

[fishwax]

111. the state's rights bullshit doesn't wash

slavery was the root cause of the dispute between the southern states and the northern states and the root cause of the ensuing civil war. The declarations of secession offered by states in the deep south make it clear that slavery was at the heart of their struggle. Not only did they want to have slavery in their own state, but they also wanted slavery in the territories and in newly admitted states.

The letter of secession for (I think) Georgia (and maybe other states as well) makes it explicit that not having access to new states and territories was a central offense of the federal government, which doesn't seem like a state's rights argument. Further, the southern states were also outraged that the federal government wasn't coming down harder on northern states that weren't vigorously enforcing runaway slave laws. It gives the lie to the state's rights argument that one of the central complaints of southern states was the lack of federal control over northern states. The southern states weren't opposed to federal power, they were just opposed to anything which interfered with slavery, which was central to the economy.

The cotton gin was invented in 1792, seventy years before the civil war started. It did not weaken but rather strengthened the institution of slavery.

It's worth discussing another statement that often comes up, and that's the assertion that most southerners and most confederate soldiers didn't own slaves and therefore slavery couldn't have been the real cause. But this ignores the degree to which all white southerners, whether they owned slaves or not, were incorporated into and reliant upon the economic and social structures which revolved around slavery. Most people in the north didn't own factories, either, but if factories had suddenly been outlawed, everyone in the north would have felt the financial ramifications.

[MadHound]

116. Give me a fucking break, you're spouting bullshit and you know it

I'm sick and fucking tired of Southern apologists trying to cram the whole canard that the Civil War(oh, excuse me, War of Northern Aggression:eyes:) wasn't about slavery, but instead involved States Rights, or economic reasons. That's utter bull and you know it, even though you are reluctant to admit it.

In every southern state's declaration of seccession, within the first paragraph, where they would state the reason for their wanting to secceed, the reason mentioned first and foremost was slavery, or as that would euphimistically put it, their pecurliar institution. This isn't textbook learning friend, these are the original word, written by the people who were in charge themselves.

Yes, there were economic reasons, most of which were based on hanging onto their slaves, which were the economic foundation of the South. Yes, states' rights also played a part in the decision, and the foremost right that they were wishing to protect was their "right" to keep slaves.

Sorry, but despite all of the revisionist bullshit history put out by the Southern apologists down through the years, if you go back and examine the source documents, the original words, you will find that without a doubt the main factor in the South's seccession and the start of the Civil War was indeed slavery.

Oh, by the way, the invention of the cotton gin actually brought slavery back from the brink of oblivion. You see, slaves were getting to be an economic drag on the South in the late 18th century. However with the invention of the cotton gin, cotton actually became a wildly profitable crop, and since it was also labor intensive, it revived slavery and made in more popular than every before. If you wish to learn more about the cotton gin, you can go here<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin>

And while the Confederate flag represents heritage to many Southerners, to the rest of us it is the flag of a bigoted, backwards, repressive, treasonous group of people. And this is a fact that even the Southern States tacitly acknowledged back in the fifties. You see, until the Civil Rights movement started, states like Georgia had an entirely different state flag, one that didn't incorporate the Stars and Bars. But as a bigoted reaction to the Civil Rights movement, state legislatures across the south passed legislation doing just that, incorporating the Stars and Bars into the design of their state's flag.

[wicket]

121. Amen!!!!

:kick: :kick:

[Jamastiene]

126. Telling it like it is.

Excellent rebuttal to those who claim the Civil War was not about slavery. :thumbsup:

[datasuspect]

118. the most intriguing aspect of the south for me

is the endemic, generational, seemingly endless poverty.

the way poverty is woven so tightly into the social fabric there. oh, and the mistrust of "book learnin'" as opposed to hardscrabble "common sense."

[wicket]

123. BS - it's a traitor flag plain and simple

n/t

[Guaranteed]

144. Damn. It's about time people said this.

Too much bullshit on DU sometimes.

[wicket]

145. Damn right!

:D

[Beelzebud]

125. If my heritage involved holding slaves and nailing black people to trees

I'd distance myself from that "heritage".

It's a flag of treason, and those who look at and get all teary eyed are just jonesing for the days when the racist south decided it didn't want to be a part of the U.S. anymore.

I guess I've just had too much book-learnin, and haven't spent enough time with some good ole boys to be re-educated about how great the "heritage" was.

[Virginia Dare]

137. I guess it's not as black and white as all that Beelzebud...

Let me preface this by saying I am the descendant of Virginia slaveholders, and believe me I'm not at all proud of that. But how do you distance yourself from your heritage? You can't, it's part of who you are, and I think it's better to accept it, try the best you can to understand it. I'm just lucky that my branch of the family escaped from the "old southern" mentality, and I'm comfortable with the fact that I'm what I consider a very tolerant person, and I believe in dignity and respect for people of all colors, creeds and nationalities.

The fact is that here in Virginia, the North was viewed as the aggressor, and in reality you could argue that Virginia was the victim of an invading and occupying army, and suffered the consequences of such. Was it justified? No question, but of course those who lived through it never saw it that way. Imagine watching the flag of your own country, a country you had learned to love and defend your whole life suddenly marching against you. Bear in mind that the vast majority of the population before the occupation held no slaves and had no beef against the U.S. Government, they merely wanted to live their lives in peace and really had no interest in politics. Mere survival wasn't an easy thing back then, so there wasn't much time for things such as politics unless you were rich.

Another important point is that you cannot assume that every Southerner was a racist and every Northerner was an abolitionist, that simply wasn't the case. Back in those days there was plenty of racism to go around on both sides, and many of the Union soldiers were very angry at the prospect of fighting to free the slaves. There was a large population of Quakers in Virginia at that time and they neither believed in war or slavery. They were terrorized by both sides just the same.

So, you see you can't paint the Civil War with a broad brush.

[IdaBriggs]

129. Yeah, that's always the argument. Too bad that each state put "slavery"

as the reason they were leaving the union. And I'm confident you won't find many descendents of slaves who find that flag to be representative of "standing up to the nation." :eyes:

[The Straight Story]

4. I was trying to get a hold of nazi flag for years

I can now, but back in the early 90's I had problems finding one.

I studied a lot of the Nazi regime and hitler (including Mein Kampf) and wanted to start collecting hardware to go with the software (so to speak). I had hoped to have a small room dedicated to the history of the time period, to educate others and myself.

Some people love history and don't view it as taking sides. It is just as it is - information about a fascinating time in history. My wife is a civil war buff, and I can see her flying both flags from the period - as a reminder to others that things were at one time different then they are now. Some people have a love of history, and pick a time period they like (a friend who majored in history has an old english flag in his computer room).

I think it is judgemental to guess how someone believes by what flag they have hanging about. Does an American flag show you support the war, or the opposite? If you walk into someone's house and they have miniatures of the confederates and a flag or two hanging in the house, are they pro slavery or just a major history buff?

I knew a guy from LA when I worked in manufacturing with a confederate flag. He was black. We got to talking about LA one night (I had never been there) and I joked about the flag in his chevy (I had a ford...). His view was that it was a 3rd party symbol against the new slave holders in power - he saw it as a rebel symbol, not a racist one.

[pooja]

6. Exactly... same reaction that I got from southern people...

its about the rebel.

[The Straight Story]

16. Back in the 90's when I worked at a gun reloading company

We had milita folks in all the time to buy surplus goods which we also sold. They had american flags, did not trust clinton or the repubs, and also sold and displayed confederate flags. Same deal to them, was a rebel symbol. They did not support slavery and such, were more opposed to too much federal power and saw it as corrupt. Skin color was the last thing on their mind.

We talk about how evil the bush admin is, how bad america sucks, how terrorists are justified because we made em and had it coming, and so on and so forth on the left at times - and then turn around and say a confederate flag means someone is racist or unamerican? The folks I have known with such flags love this country, hate the facists in power (on both aisles) and just want us to get back to sane government. Never known one who used it as a symbol of racism or anti-americanism.

Just because some do, does not mean all do. I live in a mostly african american area of town. Crime rates are higher here. That does not mean that each time I see a person who is of color I think they are a criminal. And if folks think that is bad analogy, think again about the core of it - you see something, judge it based on your personal experience, then make assumptions about the person related to it.

I guess I should hide my copy of mein kampf should anyone come over to visit....

[timontheleft]

19. Unfortunately . . .

I AM basing it on my personal experience.

[The Straight Story]

29. So how does that compute to you?

Example, my grandpa was a repub mayor, but closer to dems than some dems I see nowadays. He built a park for the kids, tried to help the less fortunate, and even gave his own daughter a ticket for running a stop sign because he felt wrong was wrong. But since he was a repub and some here have only had a bad experience with them he might be seen as an evil war mongering hater.

I have heard african american kids on the left side of the hood here tell white kids not to ride their bikes there because it is the black area and to keep away (comprimises about 25 houses in the hood here, a 'U' shaped area we live in) but I don't think most the folks living on that part of the street are like that. These same kids ride their bikes near my part of the hood, and I have even helped them fixed their bikes - because I see showing love and understanding as better then taking bad experiences and clinging to them.

My mom and dad were christians, republicans on some things (they didn't vote party line ever), raised in a mostly all white small town, yet were staunch fighters against racism and treating people based on anything other than character. Here they might be viewed as mentally ill for believing in fairy tales, hate mongers for voting for grandpa, and racists because they grew up in small white towns.

Labels hurt imho. Judging people based on our own experiences is like telling the right they are right about being scared of muslims because their main experience with them was 9/11. Just my humble opinion.

[timontheleft]

36. Good point . . . well said

[hedgehog]

44. I have a question

How many militia members were not white?

[mitchum]

49. A very good question

[The Straight Story]

75. see #57, etc (nt)

[The Straight Story]

57. Out of the 20+ I met over 2 years (at shows and the store)

4 were african american, rest were white. The regulars to our store were 7 people locally, one of which was african american.

What was really odd to me: One was asian. I met a lot of people in the gun business, I worked directly with people in africa, australia, UK (yes, you can have guns there in some cases), italy, and germany. Of all the people I ever interacted with only one was asian
that I can recall. Up until late 90's there weren't many latinos in this area, though there are now. We did have a large group of laotians here at the time in central ohio region though.

I mention the latter because when I was a cop I was a partner with a fellow named (and I won't spell this right) pookham chaukbanbahn. He helped others to immigrate here (was president of a local organization) and we spent our nights shooting the shit (as it were). We discussed american history one night and he said that the confederates were more american than the people in the north because they stood for the constitution and seperation of powers just like some today (today being back in the day) stood against church and state. He would have fought for the north only to get rid of slavery, but agreed with the south on the principle. It was a divise war then and is now.

Symbols mean different things to different people. If we try to enforce our view on it, I see that as unfair. I used to have a cross necklace, some might see that as evil and wrong on DU (citing the bad christians over the years) whereas some could see it as caring and loving (but, like everything else in the news and here, the negative views on things get all the press). I saw it as a symbol of love and peace towards others, and as an anti-war symbol to boot. But some folks who may have had a bad experience with christianity could see it as though I was promoting a theocracy, which I sure as hell don't.

[hedgehog]

60. Black survivalists. Who knew?

Thank you for answering my question and broadening my knowledge tonight.

[The Straight Story]

69. Have you seen this guy? I used to know him as he stopped into the store:

http://www.sierratimes.com/

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=252

'I Don't Want To Be Black'
Edgerton is almost unique, but not entirely so. The other prominent black figure on the Confederate flag rally circuit is a former militiaman who recently proclaimed: "I am hereby resigning myself from the black race."

J.J. Johnson, once a leading militia figure in Ohio, offers running commentary on the Confederate flag issue in his Internet publication, the Sierra Times.

"I hope some black person is reading this right now and fuming," he writes in one editorial. "If you think the Confederate flag is insulting to you, you are being used, or as we say it in the hood, you bein' played — for a fool."

In "I Don't Want to be Black Anymore," Johnson's most controversial installment to date, he lambastes the NAACP tourism boycott of South Carolina — a measure that helped get the Confederate flag taken down from that state's Capitol building.

[pooja]

78. And now instead of sitting on top of the state capital building where

it was barely visible, it sits out front... also, a law still on the books.. it is ok to bring your wife and beat her on sunday on the steps of the capital building.

[The Straight Story]

74. Also, check out this book sometime:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1888118040/103-4176849-0330244?v=glance&n=283155

Unintended Consequences, by John Ross. I have a signed copy by him and my old boss is the basis of one of his characters. Though I never asked John directly I am pretty sure JJ johnson was also used in one of his character creations in the book. Our attorney at the time was also the basis for one of his characters (and, a sad side note, his daughter was killed two weeks after a gun show where I met her when an electric 50bmg rifle came undone from it's mounts when she was firing it. Randy was never the same, but he still works, as far as I know, in the area of constitutional law).

[The Straight Story]

95. Lastly, not sure you remember the days of weaver, waco,okie city and

spotlight magazine. This was food for the militia and independent minded people who did not like the government in toto. Did not matter if it was clinton or bush 1, there was a large distrust of government from some groups.

The things I read back then remind me of what I see here now - no one trusted the government, distractions, taking control, chip implants and tracking you, and so on. The same arguments in core, just different terms (like outcome based education versus no child left behind).

Man, I am getting old....

[mitchum]

46. Just what is rebellious about dying for the economic interests of...

a handful of rich landowners?
Cracker confederacy apologists can never answer that question for me.

[hedgehog]

47. We're discussing cracker on another thread.

Sorry , it's getting late and I'm getting punchy.

[mitchum]

55. Unfortunately, the white southern prole has always been a servile dog...

licking the boots of the landowners, cotton mill owners, textile mill owners, German and Japanese manufacturing overlords, etc...
That is why the rebellion myth is so important. And it is a myth.

[Clark2008]

83. Some of us don't, dear.

Some of us don't.

Of course, I'm white, Southern, a woman and a landowner. But the only thing that licks my boots are my three dogs.

[Clark2008]

64. Cracker?!

You DO realize that's as derogatory as the "N" word, don't you.

I'm Southern, but I'm not (pick one or two or three): stupid, backward, redneck, racist, a bimbo, a hick, a cracker, a bubble-headed, bleach-blonde.

Why is it STILL OK to be biased against Southerners?

Stop it! It's just as biased and racist as you allege WE are!

[hedgehog]

79. On the other thread, some folks made proud claim to the name

Cracker. Apparently it refers to white people in parts of Florida and Georgia. Until I read that thread, I always had thought that is was solely used as a derogatory term.

[Clark2008]

81. I guess they've tried to reclaim it like that stupid "Redneck

Woman" song or like black folks call one another "nigger."

I dunno.

I'm in Tennessee and I think it's racist.

[hedgehog]

84. I think it's the other way around.

I think it was a good name first and later turned into a bad name.

[Clark2008]

88. Possibly - like redneck meant a farmer, but to me, it means

a person of regressive nature.

Of course, I'm 36 and my experience with both those terms are as negatives.

[IdaBriggs]

135. About fifteen years ago I was sent "to the South" to investigate two

companies who were applying to be vendors for my company. Both were competing for our business, and both knew our team was going to be looking at both of them.

The first company seemed pretty normal to me -- racially diverse, well organized, good computer back up systems, nice labeling, good systems, etc. The thing that seemed kind of odd to me was that they were all on the "young" side -- as in, I don't think I saw one person who was over forty the entire time I was there. The people we talked to were very dynamic, interested in answering our questions, and if one person didn't know the answer, "someone" had it before we left the building. They were very impressive, and they kept us hopping as they toured pretty much their entire LARGE facility. Women and minorities were extremely well represented as a population in the management people we met, which frankly didn't even seem like something to think about -- until AFTER we visited the second company.

We joined the second company at lunch time, and they immediately took us to a beautiful conference room with a catered lunch. Every single person in the room was white, male, and older EXCEPT FOR THE SERVING STAFF who were ALL male African-Americans. The food was quite good, but the lunch seemed to take forever. At one point I excused myself to use the restroom, and got slightly turned around (maybe a little on purpose) heading back, which brought me to an "employee" area which was filled with white women of all ages sitting at desks in a classic secretarial pool type setting. There were no other "ethnicities" represented.

When we were finally able to "tour" some parts of the facility (very limited, with a lot of "you can't go in there!" type comments), I found their facilities to be extremely unimpressive. At no point were we *EVER* introduced to any person in a position of power who wasn't a white male. As a female, both myself and a high ranking Marketing Manager (who was both African-American and female) I kept noticing looks that I can only describe as "shocked" when either of us asked technical questions. Most of our questions couldn't be answered (and usually weren't before we left), and there was much dismay when I insisted on seeing their switching facilities, which made sense after I saw the disaster that included A LEAKING WATER PIPE splashing some of their computer equipment, and no visible back-up power generator.

I later found out the second company had been started by "defecting" young people from the first company who had discovered they weren't going to be promoted EVER because of the "old boy's network" that was so strongly in place.

I came back, wrote up a fair review of what I had seen at both companies, and ended it with a personal note that I didn't think a company that was so obviously uncomfortable with women and minorities in decision making roles was going to be able to partner with us effectively, especially if they weren't taking advantage of getting a diverse range of opinions in their decision making processes. (Political correctness was/is not what I was known for, but honest assessments of reality ARE.)

The second company ended up getting our business after they "promised" to spend a million dollars on a 24 hour response center (which the first company already had in place). I guess the lunch was better than I thought. :shrug:

[mitchum]

148. Uh, you better include me in your "WE"...

since I am a white native of the south. That makes it a little bit tricky, doesn't it?

It is patent nonsense that "cracker" is as derogatory as the "N" word. It just does not carry the same baggage.
Answer me this:
How many southern whites were lynched to a crowd's chorus of "Kill the cracker"?
I await your answer.

[The Straight Story]

98. We could claim the same for dems if you want to

Just what is good about supporting war supporters, parrots of the bush admin, and backing folks that ignore vote rigging? We can find folks on here who see supporting dems in power nearly equal to backing bush, but still many claim to be dems proudly as they see it as rebelling against repubs.

You see the rebellion as one thing, others see it as something more. Whites and blacks owned slaves in the south, but population wise not that many in the overall scheme. So some fought against an ideal, while some did fight for the land owner/slave holders.

I see dems today as being a similar position - some fight against the elite across the board, some fight only for our elite cause they are 'better', and some fight based mainly on principle and thus, at times, fight against some of our own (is that treason, or good judgement?).

There are always divisions, and to simply rewrite those divisions to one thing seems counter productive. Rebels were not all fighting/dying for the economic interests of a handful of rich landowners - to believe so seems to be narrowminded and grasping for straws on a broader issue (in hopes of supporting a singular view).

There are many diaries and books out there from southerners, worth a read imho.

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. Whether or not it's treason is questionable;

there was an influential school of Constitutional thought in the first half of the 19th century that the right of secession was among the powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment (this view was actually taught at West Point for a time). This was one of the reasons that Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, et al were never tried for treason after the Civil War; it was thought that conviction would be near-impossible to secure, and that the possibility of affirmation of a right to secession in any court decision would undermine the decision that had already been made on the battlefield.

This argument of 'treason' ALSO ignores the fact that, especially in the South at the time, states were considered sovereign entities which had freely entered into the Union, and might freely leave it if they so wished (and it wasn't only the South; New York and other states made their ratification of the Constitution conditional upon the ability to in future withdraw from the Union if they so desired). Also, in the prevailing view at the time, the state to which a Virginian, for instance, owed allegiance was Virginia; the United States was, in the Southern view, a body composed of sovereign states. The Civil War decided which view prevailed, but the absolutist argument you're making is very much grounded in historical ignorance and an oversimplified understanding of the complex issues that formed the political reality of the mid-nineteenth century.

[billbuckhead]

14. Liberals have made a terrible mistake not standing against the CON flag

Think of the endless teaching experience endlessly fighting the confederacy would be? Want to give liberal a positive meaning? I've been thinking about burning Confederate battle flags. If liberals aren't militantly against what the old Confederacy represented, how can they fight new slicker versions of it?

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. Somehow I don't think you meant to reply here....

since you fail utterly to address anything in the post you're replying to.

Not to mention that there doesn't seem much 'positive meaning' in taking a stand against an historical irrelevancy that has no real bearing on the present political situation instead of engaging in POSITIVE actions in favour of equality and social justice. (Similarities between secessionist Southern ideas, such as belief in classically liberal economics and free trade, and modern conservative beliefs are only that; a similarity, not an identity. But, hey, if you want to waste your time in the quixotic pursuit of slaying the demons of the past instead of looking to the future, go right ahead.)

[Clark2008]

85. Mighty "tolerant" of you.

:eyes:

Honestly, when does the tolerance of one person's heritage become more important than the tolerance of anothers?

[Robeson]

67. Nice post Spider Jerusalem, ...

...given the context of the time, it was believed by many that states had a right to succeed. That is just an historical fact. It is, indeed, debated to this day by such Liberals as Gore Vidal, who maintains that states have the constitutional right to withdraw from the Union, if they so desire.

Though I may personally dislike the the "Confederate Flag", or the ideas the Confederacy represented, you are correct, in that to have proven they were "traitorous", would have been tenuous, at best.

[Clark2008]

91. Thus, to a Virginian, the "commonwealth," not a "state."

Excellent point.

[Solo_in_MD]

12. You left out the sarcasm tag

[Zomby Woof]

15. Lots of people have them

Not all who do are racists or traitors. Some are family heirlooms, or some are just because people like history and collecting its artifacts. No different than a museum harboring one.

It's belaboring the obvious that George Allen is a racist and a douchebag. But the generalization about what possession of the Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia means just doesn't hold water.

[Clark2008]

92. Exactly. My father has one - and he's racist against Arabs

and a real nutbag on that issue - but not against black people or anyone else.

Something wrong with his hard-wiring, I suppose, since he raised me not to be racist against anyone - that is until I married an Arab... and, then divorced him... and then married a Jewish man. Um... my father thinks I'm insane. :)

[spacelady]

17. OK, Christian Cross = Treason. When you let groups who corrupt

symbols that are sacred to your beliefs, they have won, right?

[timontheleft]

31. You've made the best point so far nt

[genie_weenie]

18. Treason is a made up crime.

Watch out because official government documents during the Age of Terror classify those who foment discontent in the Government (your rulers and betters) as Terrorism and Treason...

[Glorfindel]

20. Your opinion is just that (and you know what they say about opinions)

My ancestors who fought (yes, and died) for the Confederacy were not engaged in treason. There are enough divisions amongst Democrats without mindless posts like yours seeking to create more. What is served by such drivel? Don't we southern liberals have to bear enough abuse from the Repukes without hearing from "Democrats" like you? :puke:

[spacelady]

26. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one & sometimes they

stink. I am just clarifying here, I had to speak up for those who are unfamiliar with the sentiment!

[timontheleft]

28. um, I think we got it nt

[timontheleft]

27. I seem to have hit a nerve . . .

It just seems to me that we can express "rebellion" and honor our heritage without using something that is so offensive to so many people.

[spacelady]

30. What "heritage" would that be and what "rebellion" would that espouse?

[timontheleft]

34. The "rebellion" is in reference . . .

to the (inner) rebel spoken of in some of the prevous posts. And the heritage would depend on the individual; which leads me back to part of my original point. Why is a man not from the South expressing his "Southern" heritage?

[spacelady]

45. You are correct - he must think it is "cool". In other words "pandering".

That does not make a blanket statement of Confederate Flag = Treason a valid viewpoint, IMO.

[5thGenDemocrat]

105. I was born and raised and still live in Saginaw, Michigan

My gr2-grandfather served in the Confederate Army for a bit under two months in early 1862 for the sole reason that the Union troops were marching across his neck of the woods in Kentucky and Tennessee. He was in the garrison at Fort Donelson when it was captured and spent the next three years as a prisoner of war at Rock Island, Illinois.
There he and his comrades were treated like less than animals by the morally superior Yankees -- allowed to either starve or die of dysentery or simply freeze to death in their cotton uniforms (if, indeed, g'pa even had a uniform). Somehow, he survived. An awful lot of his fellow prisoners did not. And, after the war, my "traitorous" ancestor, sick of the supposed "glory" of war and all the attendant waste, destruction and killing, went to seminary and became a Presbyterian minister. He lived into the 1920s and died as the oldest Presbyterian minister in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. He was an honorable man of his time -- though probably still just a Neanderthalic monster to the oh-so-intelligent, transcendentally-enlightened and morally purer-than-thou 21st Century types here.
That's why a man not from the South might express his Southern heritage. Any other questions?
John
And, no -- I don't own a Confederate flag, don't watch NASCAR and could give a shit less if you call me a cracker or not. But maybe you should wonder why folks who like NASCAR, drink sweet tea and think the world of their Southern ancestors might resent the insinuations and the insults liberals just love to condescendingly sneer at them.
I figure the Dems will continue lose the South for another 40 or 50 years. Jim Crow, Strom Thurmond and George Wallace are all dead, but the carpetbaggers just seem to live on forever. Let's discuss THAT sometime.

[FUGW]

37. Your ancestors fought and died fighting the U.S. Government

but weren't treasonous? I guess the people they fought and killed were.

[ThomCat]

52. Nice response.

:)

Of course the rebel flag represents treason. They were rebelling against the US. They were trying to overthrow the authority of the US Government, and they went to war against the US government to do it. They set up a replacement government. If all of that isn't treason then there is no such thing as treason.

"Heritage" is just a way of saying that they're proud that their ancestors were traitors.

[eleny]

71. And we can't forget the mantra...

"The South shall rise again"

Rise to do what? Maybe just rise from the ashes but I always read more into it. Rise to demonstrate states rights. And in the South, states rights meant the right to keep slaves. Nuts to that.

[eShirl]

146. to drown the (U.S.) government in a bathtub

[Yupster]

113. If his ancestors were members of a country

other than the United States, then of course his ancestors wouldn't be traitors for fighting against the United States.

So were his ancestors US citizens or citizens of the CSA?

That depends on whether you think the right to secession was Constitutional or not.

That legal question should have been answered by the Supreme Court after President Davis's trial, but oops, the US government was too cowardly to test the question by trying Davis. Instead they denied him his right to trial and just called him a traitor without having to go through the trouble of a trial.

So back to the question of whether the poster's ancestors were traitors.

I'd say no of course. His state voted to leave the union, and join another country. He either volunteered or was drafted to defend that country against an invading neighboring nation. How would that make him a traitor? Was he supposed to resolve the Constitutional issue as an individual citizen against the voters of his own state and the government his fellow citizens elected? I think that's an awful lot to expect from an individual.

[citizen snips]

87. You can find some other to way to express your heritage.

And my ancestors fought for the confederacy but I do not honor them by flying a Confederate flag.

[mitchum]

33. Confederate Flag = Loser Rag

[hedgehog]

51. Here's a question - what's happened to America that the American

flag is not a sufficient symbol of liberty and freedom. If this is a government of the people, by the people, for the people, why isn't the American flag the most kick-ass flag in the world?

[citizen snips]

89. That settles it.

Allen is a racist.

[Clark2008]

93. He is, but his having that flag has little to do with it.

[citizen snips]

96. . . .

not everybody who flys that flag is a racist but there are a lot of them who are.

[Cobalt-60]

90. That war is over

The confederacy is history. Outside of some more remote beer halls in Alabama, there are no plans to break up the Union. That was settled in 1865.
It is used today as a political statement.
No matter how distasteful we may find that statement, they have the right to make it.
I don't think it's actually treason, unless hes advocating the reformation of the confederacy..
Incidentally there were many Confederate flags. The stars and bars got more Daguerreotype time.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Yupster]

114. What about the Sons of Confederate Veterans

Organization which tends to the cemeteries and monuments of their ancestors?

They should all be hanged?

[Jamastiene]

115. Oh yeah, the Sons of Confederate Veterans...

You portray them as sweet little innocent good ol' boys, when really they are led by racist hate mongers.

Here are some links to the actual truth about SCV and what they really stand for:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=637

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=550

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=61

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=382

Some of the members of the SCV should be prosecuted. That's for sure. That's a bad bunch. A tiny bit of research about the Neo-confederacy movement might do you some good if you don't believe what the Southern Poverty Law Center says.

[Yupster]

117. I only know the ones I know

They hate the klan worse than anyone else I know because they feel like they have had their history stolen from them.

I was very good friends with the General out here until he was tragically killed in a car crash while visiting his triplet grandchildren. There wasn't a racist bone in his body, and he was a very brave man. He's been a Republican precinct chairman for thrity years and was the most vocal in town fighting against the takeover of the Republican Party by the religious right. He knew it doomed him politically, but he didn't care.

His family had been military for generations, and his son had his picture taken in Saddam's spider-hole a day after Saddam's capture.

I got to know his group through him over the years as I'm an old history teacher. So think what you want, but when someone says people like him should be hanged, I'm going to think what an ignorant and wicked asshole they are.

[Bake]

124. How progressive!

I guess free speech only applies to YOU. And we're against the death penalty, except for those cases where we WANT to use it on people who disagree with us.

Honestly, sometimes this place make me want to :puke:

Bake

[barb162]

97. I don't know anything about this guy other than he has a

loose stupid lip as demonstrated by that remark a few days ago. Anyway, my neighbor displays proudly her and her husband's ancestors' medals from the Confederate side of the Civil War. Her husband was a Navy Captain , now in the Reserve. Being a Navy captain is hard to do; those guys can run aircraft carriers. Neither are into treason. They are proud of their ancestors is all and there is a big military tradition in the South. BTW, I am not into people displaying the Confederate flag; it just seems to smack of being against black people.

[hedgehog]

99. Hmmm....

Was he a captain back during the Korean War? See post # 2.

[barb162]

102. No, he was a captain during the Vietnam war

My cousin who was also in the Navy nearly fell over when I told him the neighbor was a captain. He was IMPRESSED. These neighbors didn't display a flag though. But they had these relatives' Confederate medals and swords displayed like precious artifacts, which I guess they are (if you watch "Antique Roadshow")

[RoyGBiv]

100. I love these threads ...

They reveal so much, albeit revelations that are largely unintended.

I particularly like the suggestions (or outright declarations) that people who display (I'm assuming here) some form of Confederate battle flag should be or at least deserve to be murdered...beaten to death, tried for treason, shot, hung, whatever. Liberals saying this. Fascinating stuff, really. Gives a new perspective on that flag burning amendment.

Sarcasm aside, such threads would be more interesting if the instigators displayed even a casual knowledge of what they're talking about by avoiding the use of such phrases as "the Confederate flag." What I assume is meant, based on context and long experience with this, is the Confederate Naval Jack, which is what most people actually display. It's the pattern, of course, the St. Andrews Cross colored in a specific manner and adorned with stars representing states of the Confederacy, and one can see that in a lot of different manifestations. I rarely see people get worked up about (or even recognize for the most part) the various Confederate national flags, which would seem to be more in line with an association with treason. But what do I know.

Whatever the case, remember this. The various flags representing the United States of America is a symbol of treason, seen from a certain perspective, and by the logic used so often when the "treason" word is escorted out, we all deserve to be beaten to death, tried for treason, shot, hung, whatever. So be it.

And, no, I'm not ignoring the racial issue, nor denying the point that a certain segment of the population has every right to be highly offended by the display of a certain kind of flag if they choose to be and are entirely justified in their being offended, given a certain context. I'm simply addressing a certain line of thought, running rampant here, that seems more intended to fling venom, regardless of the soundness of the proposition.

Flame on...

[The Straight Story]

104. As I think I touched on earlier

If I display an american flag thesedays some people might see me as supporting bush and the war, imperialism, etc and so on.

It is bigotry based on symbolism to me. Symbols mean different things to different people, and there is no harm in respecting that.

It is best to judge based on content of character and not race, symbols, religion, etc. If I display a cross, does that mean I want to stone adulterers, hate gays etc? Or does it mean I believe in the golden rule, peace, love, and taking care of the poor?

I think how one interprets something without knowing the person says more about them than the person they are judging :)

[RoyGBiv]

108. Well said ...

I have various representations of the St. Andrews cross all over my apartment, mostly in paintings depicting some historical event or individual, but also a few artifacts. If anyone wants to accuse me of being a racist, traitor, idiot ... whatever, they are free to make the accusation. I am free to ignore it and let them wallow in their willfull ignorance of me. I don't tend to have much in common with people who make snap judgements anyway.

I always hesitate to tell this story because it has the potential to come across as a "some of my best friends are <insert minority group here" type of thing, but I'll do it anyway.

I once had a faithful replica of the battleflag carried by a certain Confederate brigade. I didn't have it out anywhere at the time because it didn't fit with the other stuff I had on my walls, but I've always collected Civil War type stuff and found this in a shop near Shiloh once and decided to get it. (It wasn't the battle flag most people associate with the Confederacy, which is mostly beside the point of this story, but I thought I'd mention it.) My roommate, who happened to be black and with whom I shared a dwelling for about 5 years total, stole it from me one day and tacked it up on his wall, right above his bed, with no attempt to hide it. I asked him what that was all about, and he told me one of his ancestors fought with a US colored regiment and from his casual reading through some of my books trying to learn about that ancestor had discovered the army of which that regiment was a part had captured that flag in a battle somewhere. So, he was capturing it too. I thought it was perfect irony and so let him have it.

[Yupster]

110. Were Confederates traitors?

The original poster's definition gets it about right

"Treason:

The crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government - Oxford American Dictionary


The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family - Mirriam-Webster


Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies - Dictionary.com"

So were the Confederates traitors?

The orginial poster said yes -- they said no. I say no also.

Did the Confederates betray their country? They'd say no, they just left the United States by vote the same way they joined it. The government derives its power from the consent of the governed and those states withdrew their consent by election, some states by 80-20 votes.

Did the Confederates wage war against their country? They'd say no. Once they left the United States and set up a government of their own, they were of course not waging war against their country, but instead against a hostile neighboring country invadng theirs.

Did the Confederates overthrow the governments of the states in which they resided? They'd argue no - they elected their leaders just like they always did before.

The best argument though that the Confederates were not traitors is that their leaders were not found guilty of treason. At the end of the war the leaders of the Confederacy were indicted for treason. If convicted they would be traitors.

Imprisoned Confederate President Davis took his indictment as the next battle in his war. He hired a high priced legal team from the north financed by some rich abolitionists, Cornelius Vanderbilt and Horace Greeley. His defense was a simple one. Secession was legal, and was accomplished legally. Therefore the Confederate States was a foreign nation, and the US invasion and conquest of it was illegal, and would the federal army kindly leave so the elected president could get back to work rebuilding the shatered Confederacy.

Rather than prosecute the Confederate President, the US government started asking for extensions of the trial date, and kept doing that for years. While Davis was demanding either his indictment dropped or his right to a speedy trial, the US governmnet had a problem. The Constitution was silent on whether secession was legal or not. Some of the ratification debates reserved the right to leave should the Constitution not work out well. The Tenth Amendment reserved to the states rights which weren't specifically given to the federal government.

So what would happen if the case went to the Supreme Court and the Court ruled secession was indeed legal? Was the federal government supposed to release Davis, apologize to him and withdraw the army from the Confederacy?

The government came up with a better solution. Just leave Davis indicted and never give him his trial. That way the legal issue would remain settled on the battlefield. Vanderbilt and Greeley eventually bailed him out of jail, and he never did get his trial.

It was a pretty outrageuous solution in my opinion. How would any of us like being arrested for child molestation? What if the government then never put you on trial? What if they just held you in jail a few years, then released you on bail, and left you indicted while they publicly called you a child molestor in press conferences and in the newspapers? I think we'd all call that an outrageous abuse of power.

Yet here we are 130 years later, and there are guys on the internet calling him a triator though he was never convicted, and in fact demanded a trial to defend his innocence which was denied him. The government refused him his right to trial, and many of us seem to decide he's guilty anyway. I think we'd all consider it pretty outrageous if it was done to any of us.

[quiet.american]

119. A confederate flag in Allen's hands does not conjure an image of honor

I've read most of the posts here, and some are very well-reasoned, but I guess the bottom line is, given how Allen conducts himself, a confederate flag in his possession doesn't bring up an image of prideful heritage or rebel yells for me, but only images of the worst of the South.

[Bake]

122. Can we drop the "treason" shit?

None of us were around in the 1860s. Honest to god, you all sound like a bunch of damn freepers throwing out this treason shit over something that, like it or not, is a part of US history, a painful part, but a part nonetheless.

You all hate it when the Coulters/Freeps/etc. call any dissent treason and attempt to label us with it. But that's exactly what you sound like -- a bunch of damn freepers. TREASON! TREASON!

Give me a fucking break. I don't think anybody in the South wants to overthrow the US. Nor do they want to secede. Nor are they taking up arms or giving aid and comfort to "the enemy." So can we please just drop the treason bullshit?

Unless, of course, you just get a boner over bashing the South.

Bake

[onenote]

150. Well said!

:applause:

[frustrated_lefty]

128. Flags, symbols and heritage

Yet another one of those damnable threads asking if the confederate flag is a symbol of “racism” or “heritage” has percolated its way to the surface, like a noxious fart bubbling up to disturb the placid serenity of our beloved DU. It’s almost enough to make you wonder if there isn’t a group of monkeys tapping away at their keyboards in a room somewhere, trying desperately to write a sonnet, but mysteriously arriving at the words “racist,” “racist heritage,” “heritage of racism,” “swastika,” “traitor,” “loser” and “unpatriotic” far more often than is statistically likely. Or, maybe those threads are like tribbles in the DU archives where, left alone for too long, they propagate like bunnies and finally spill over into your lap. Cute enough initially, but eventually you start looking for innovative ways to get rid of the little bastards. A butcher knife, a shotgun, a microwave…hell, even a weedwhacker, any tool will do.

There are a couple of statements that are oft repeated in these threads which I’d like to dispense with at the outset before raising a few points and asking a few questions. Read on if you like, or not, as you see fit.

The first statement which is invariably made is formulaic. The confederate flag is: a) a symbol of racism; b) the chosen emblem of traitors (and is hence unpatriotic); c) the southern version of the swastika; d) a worn out symbol for a whacked out people too stupid to realize their team lost. Don’t worry, this isn’t multiple choice, you can mix and match to personalize your very own condemnation. While making your selection, though, you might recall that the American flag is the same flag which was flying in Tuskegee not so very long ago; it’s the same flag which was flying when Fat Man and Little Boy made their presence known to the world; and it’s the same flag which is flying now while thousands of innocents are being tortured in Guantanamo Bay and throughout the Middle East. And, here’s the nifty part: it’s being done in your name whether or not you’ve given it your personal stamp of approval.

The second statement which pops up routinely is an extension or the “traitor” label. It runs something like “those stupid southerners need to realize they lost, they’re part of the United States, they’re just going to have to get over their isolationism.” I’ve pondered this, and agree with it on some level. Due to recent events, though, a thought nags at the back of my mind, makes me wonder why the hell the South should feel all warm and cuddly with the rest of the nation. Katrina. New Orleans. Would the response time be the same if this happened in New York or Los Angeles or Seattle? Would there be mobile homes sitting unused in parking lots? Would basic power still not be working 1 year later? Would the nation tolerate it if that devastation happened anywhere but in the South? If your answer to that is “no,” then please explain why exactly southerners are supposed to perceive themselves as equal partners in this wonderful union of ours?

All of that aside, I’ve given some thought to exactly why southern pride is the way it is and why so many southerners take pride in things that might leave a northerner aghast or, at the very best, indifferent. I’ve started with the premise that just about every individual goes through this life with their own personal yardstick for measuring its success. And, although what that yardstick measures varies from person to person, there are some common themes and most of themes are tangible in some way. Material wealth, philanthropy, providing for your family, raising a not-too-screwed-up kid, etc. In doing some state by state comparisons, though, it becomes apparent that the South is a pretty sucky place to be if you base your sense of self worth on these measures. One statistical study found there to be a direct correlation between red vs. blue states and infant mortality, with infant mortality being twice as likely in red states, primarily due to the South. Poverty is rampant everywhere, but what northern city can boast that 50% of its working age population is unemployed? Quality education for your kids or yourself in the South? That’s a hard thing to come by, and generally costs too much to be accessible to most families. Income is lower in the South, total mortality higher, health care quality significantly lower, rate of teen death by suicide, homicide and accident are all higher. By virtually any tangible index you care to measure, the South is the idiot stepchild of the nation. I think when you take away the ability of people to care for the needs of their families, their children and even themselves, you end up with a bunch of people who start to measure their sense of self worth based on less tangible things like Christian morals and “family values” and a gungho, untamed rebel spirit which is embodied (for some) in an unfortunate piece of cloth. Not that any of these things are necessarily bad. But, when they’re all that you have, you cling to them too tightly and may even get a bit overbearing and fanatical about it.

Of course, this is not to say that there aren’t a lot of racist assholes who fly the Confederate flag. I just don’t think the labels, name-calling and self-righteous condemnations that fly around here when the topic comes up really quite address the issue.

[Lars39]

130. Excellent post!

Really deserves its own thread. :thumbsup:

on edit: You need a journal! :hi:

[Bake]

133. Great post and a voice of reason!

I'd K&R this post alone if I could.

Bake

[Lone_Star_Dem]

136. You need to get on your soapbox more often!

I heartily agreed with what you said and enjoyed the way you said it.

That was a beautiful example of positive channeling of frustration. :toast:

[frustrated_lefty]

142. Lars, Bake, Lone_Dem

Thanks for the positive feedback. :) I do have a journal, there's only 4 or 5 posts on it. ;) Most of what I say is drivel. Occasionally, an issue strikes me as important, and this is one of them.

This "issue," this internal division between democrats, is one which needs to be resolved before '08.

It's easy to call names. It's more difficult to find common understanding.

[Jo March]

134. Let them fly the flag - as long as...

...they only drive on roads that have been paid for and built by the Confederate States of America (CSA). They must only use public services that are paid for by the CSA.

Oh, yeah. I forget. The CSA does not exist. :eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

140. Technically, so is the American flag.

But more importantly, the confederate flag is about racism.

People who fly it should be ashamed of themselves, not proud.

[Alameda]

147. the Confederate flag display

<< 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. >>

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/geosec.htm

I find the display of the Confederate Flag very annoying and it certainly seems treasons to me. They did want to succeed from the Union, after all. This led to the death of thousands and untold catastrophe we are still recovering from. The promise of those lost lives will never be realized and the reason they lost their promise is because of the Confederacy.

I may remind people of the annoyance over the recent display of the Mexican flag....let's remember at least a third of the US was formerly part of Mexico.

[mitchum]

149. Should Germans be proud of their Nazi "heritage" just as...

southerner's are proud of their confederate "heritage"? They could actually point to more "achievements"
There were many technological innovations under the Nazis. The confederacy developed a submarine...that sank.
Hitler's army changed the map of Europe. The confederacy couldn't even conquer...I dunno...Ohio.

[KingFlorez]

152. You are absolutely correct

And let's remember most who fly the flag are neo-confederates, who hold seperatist beliefs and want a revival of the confederacy.

[Stand and Fight]

153. Excellent thread....

Not necessarily because of the OP -- although s/he brings up excellent points -- but because of the largely civil DISCUSSIONS that are occurring. All very informative.

Kicked and recommended.

[timontheleft]

154. I suppose it was very naive of me to think . .. .

that this wouldn't be such a hot button issue. It was originally intended to point out the questionable behavior of the Republican running for Senate from the great state of Virginia, but it seems to have taken on an entirely different life.

I've learned a few things in this thread; there are some excellent posts. We have a very intelligent group of people here.

A couple of people seem to be stressing over the fact that there is such disagreement among the posters. IMHO that is our strength. The debate is the whole point; that IS what democracy in America is all about. We are allowed to disagree. History tells us that there was considerable debate when the founding fathers gathered to form this great nation. I am proud to continue in this great tradition.

:dem: