Correction, there...BOTH sides won. The United States preserved the Union; the Confederates preserved the rights of the States within that Union.
As to the "colors", whether Continental, Union, Confederate or modern...they are a part of OUR history (yes, that means ALL of us); and try to show some respect for those who fought and died so that YOU can enjoy the liberty of "baiting" people in this Forum.
Question....and not intended to offend anyone
Moderator: S2k Moderators
-
streetsoldier
- Retired Staff
- Posts: 9705
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:33 pm
- Location: Under the rainbow
Exactly Bill!! Some people pass judgement on the flag and do not even know it's history. It is the flag the soldiers went to battle under. Another example of stereotyping us here in the South by someone from Pennsylvania. I highly doubt he ever sees a Confederate Flag on the side of a pick up truck.
0 likes
-
stormchazer
- Category 5
- Posts: 2462
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 12:00 pm
- Location: Lakeland, Florida
- Contact:
Sorry to Disagree..Civil War main cuase was Slave Issue
Source:
http://www.swcivilwar.com/cw_causes.html
The Civil War was caused by a myriad of conflicting pressures, principles, and prejudices, fueled by sectional differences and pride, and set into motion by a most unlikely set of political events.
At the root of all of the problems was the institution of slavery, which had been introduced into North America in early colonial times. The American Revolution had been fought to validate the idea that all men were created equal, yet slavery was legal in all of the thirteen colonies throughout the revolutionary period. Although it was largely gone from the northern states by 1787, it was still enshrined in the new Constitution of the United States, not only at the behest of the Southern ones, but also with the approval of many of the Northern delegates who saw that there was still much money to be made in the slave trade by the Yankee shipping industry. Eventually its existence came to color every aspect of American life.
At the Constitutional Convention there were arguments over slavery. Representatives of the Northern states claimed that if the Southern slaves were mere property, then they should not be counted toward voting representation in Congress. Southerners, placed in the difficult position of trying to argue, at least in this case, that the slaves were human beings, eventually came to accept the three-fifths compromise, by which five slaves counted as three free men toward that representation. By the end of the convention the institution of slavery itself, though never specifically mentioned, was well protected within the body of the Constitution.
It seemed to Thomas Jefferson and many others that slavery was on its way out, doomed to die a natural death. It was becoming increasingly expensive to keep slaves in the agrarian society of the south. Northern and Southern members of Congress voted together to abolish the importation of slaves from overseas in 1808, but the domestic slave trade continued to flourish. The invention of the cotton gin made the cultivation of cotton on large plantations using slave labor a profitable enterprise in the deep South. The slave became an ever more important element of the southern economy, and so the debate about slavery, for the southerner, gradually evolved into an economically based question of money and power, and ceased to be a theoretical or ideological issue at all. It became an institution that southerners felt bound to protect.
But even as the need to protect it grew, the ability, or at least the perceived ability of the South to do so was waning. Southern leaders grew progressively more sensitive to this condition. In 1800 half of the population of the United States had lived in the South. But by 1850 only a third lived there and the disparity continued to widen. While northern industrial opportunity attracted scores of immigrants from Europe in search of freedom the South's population stagnated. Even as slave states were added to the Union to balance the number of free ones, the South found that its representatives in the House had been overwhelmed by the North’s explosive growth. More and more emphasis was now placed on maintaining parity in the Senate. Failing this, the paranoid theory went, the South would find itself at the mercy of a government in which it no longer had an effective voice. Never mind that slavery was protected under the constitution, and that it would have been impossible to make amendments to abolish it. Jefferson Davis, at the time a Senator from Mississippi, summed up the sectionalist argument himself. Speaking, in effect, to the people of the North concerning slavery, “It is not humanity that influences you… it is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the Government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement… you want by an unjust system of legislation to promote the industry of the United States at the expense of the people of the South.” There, in plain English, is the shrill, accusatory language of sectionalism.
Nothing but bitterness and bad feeling could come of it. From such a position it was a short step to the proposition that if a state or section of the country no longer felt itself represented in, or fairly treated by, the Federal Government, then it had the right to dissolve its association with that government. It could secede from the Union. The use of force to stop a state from seceding was, the argument went, unconstitutional, since the Union itself was a creature of the states. It had been wholly created by them. Moreover no provision had been made for such an eventuality in the Constitution.
The Unionist response was that the Preamble of the Constitution stated that the Union derived its power from the people as a whole, and that they alone could dissolve it. President Andrew Jackson, himself a Southerner, had threatened in 1832 to send troops to force South Carolina to allow the collection of the Federal tariff if that state persisted in its assertion that it could “nullify” any Federal law it did not agree with. Jackson’s message to the people of the offending state read, “Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent the execution of the laws deceived you. The object is disunion. Disunion by armed force is treason.” On that occasion South Carolina had backed down.
We see this same State’s Rights argument brought forward again in the 1860’s to justify secession as a solution to what amounts to a sectional inferiority complex. The section I refer to, of course, the deep South as whole. Please note that it feels itself to be a “section”, not because of simple geography, but because its society is based upon slavery. So the problem, once again, came down to that “peculiar institution.”
Of course there was agitation in the North for the abolition of the slavery on purely moral grounds. Abolitionist leader William Lloyd Garrison, holding aloft a copy of the Federal Constitution before a crowd in Massachusetts called it “a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell.” The abolitionists believed not only that slavery was wrong, but that the Federal government should move to abolish it. Although they were always a small minority they were very vocal about their beliefs, and projected themselves into the minds of southerners as a threat out of all proportion to their actual power and infuence. This threat was greatly magnified in 1859 by John Brown's seizure of the Harper's Ferry arsenal and his call for a general insurrection of the slaves. This caused many of the Southern states to implement plans for more effective militias for internal defense.
While some in the North hated slavery because they felt that it was wrong, most people held no opinion of it at all, and some even condoned it because abolishing it would be bad for business. Without slaves there would be no cotton. Without cotton the textile industry would suffer. To many it was just that simple.
Even in the North only four states permitted free blacks to vote, and in no state could they serve on a jury. Many people wondered what could possibly be done with the huge number of blacks if they were, in fact, freed.
The whole mess went up in smoke in the presidential election year of 1860. The Democratic party split badly. Stephen Douglas became the nominee of the northern wing of the party. A southern faction broke away from the party and nominated Senator John Breckinridge of Kentucky. The remnants of the Whig party nominated John Bell of Tennessee.
Into this confusion the new Republican party injected its nominee, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was a moderate Republican. As such he was a compromise candidate, everybody’s second choice. He was convinced that the Constitution forbade the Federal government from taking action against slavery where it already existed, but was determined to keep it from spreading further. South Carolina, in a fit of stubborn pride, unilaterally announced that it would secede from the Union if Lincoln were elected.
To everyone’s amazement Lincoln was victorious. He had gathered a mere 40% of the popular vote, and carried not a single slave state, but the vote had been so fragmented by the abundance of factions that it had been enough.
South Carolina, true to its word, seceded on December 20, 1860. Mississippi left on January 9, 1861, and Florida on the 10th. Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas followed.
The sitting President, James Buchanan felt himself powerless to act. Federal arsenals and fortifications throughout the South were occupied by southern authorities without a shot being fired. In the four months between Lincoln’s election and his inauguration the South was allowed to strengthen its position undisturbed.
Lincoln’s inaugural address was at once firm and conciliatory. Unwilling to strike the initial blow to compel the southern states back into the Union, he decided to bide his time. When a Federal ship carrying supplies was dispatched to reprovision Fort Sumter, in Charleston Harbor, the secessionist hand was forced. To forestall the resupply of the fort the Rebel batteries ringing it opened fire at 4:30 a.m. on the 12th of April, 1861, forcing its rapid capitulation.
President Lincoln immediately called upon the states to supply 75,000 troops to serve for ninety days against “combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee promptly seceded.
The war was on in earnest. Ironically, the combination of political events, southern pride, and willfulness succeeded in paving the way to the abolition of slavery; a condition that no combination of legal action on the part of the most virulent abolitionist could possibly have accomplished.
...visit James F. Epperson's Causes of the Civil War page
for primary source documents
http://www.swcivilwar.com/cw_causes.html
The Civil War was caused by a myriad of conflicting pressures, principles, and prejudices, fueled by sectional differences and pride, and set into motion by a most unlikely set of political events.
At the root of all of the problems was the institution of slavery, which had been introduced into North America in early colonial times. The American Revolution had been fought to validate the idea that all men were created equal, yet slavery was legal in all of the thirteen colonies throughout the revolutionary period. Although it was largely gone from the northern states by 1787, it was still enshrined in the new Constitution of the United States, not only at the behest of the Southern ones, but also with the approval of many of the Northern delegates who saw that there was still much money to be made in the slave trade by the Yankee shipping industry. Eventually its existence came to color every aspect of American life.
At the Constitutional Convention there were arguments over slavery. Representatives of the Northern states claimed that if the Southern slaves were mere property, then they should not be counted toward voting representation in Congress. Southerners, placed in the difficult position of trying to argue, at least in this case, that the slaves were human beings, eventually came to accept the three-fifths compromise, by which five slaves counted as three free men toward that representation. By the end of the convention the institution of slavery itself, though never specifically mentioned, was well protected within the body of the Constitution.
It seemed to Thomas Jefferson and many others that slavery was on its way out, doomed to die a natural death. It was becoming increasingly expensive to keep slaves in the agrarian society of the south. Northern and Southern members of Congress voted together to abolish the importation of slaves from overseas in 1808, but the domestic slave trade continued to flourish. The invention of the cotton gin made the cultivation of cotton on large plantations using slave labor a profitable enterprise in the deep South. The slave became an ever more important element of the southern economy, and so the debate about slavery, for the southerner, gradually evolved into an economically based question of money and power, and ceased to be a theoretical or ideological issue at all. It became an institution that southerners felt bound to protect.
But even as the need to protect it grew, the ability, or at least the perceived ability of the South to do so was waning. Southern leaders grew progressively more sensitive to this condition. In 1800 half of the population of the United States had lived in the South. But by 1850 only a third lived there and the disparity continued to widen. While northern industrial opportunity attracted scores of immigrants from Europe in search of freedom the South's population stagnated. Even as slave states were added to the Union to balance the number of free ones, the South found that its representatives in the House had been overwhelmed by the North’s explosive growth. More and more emphasis was now placed on maintaining parity in the Senate. Failing this, the paranoid theory went, the South would find itself at the mercy of a government in which it no longer had an effective voice. Never mind that slavery was protected under the constitution, and that it would have been impossible to make amendments to abolish it. Jefferson Davis, at the time a Senator from Mississippi, summed up the sectionalist argument himself. Speaking, in effect, to the people of the North concerning slavery, “It is not humanity that influences you… it is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the Government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement… you want by an unjust system of legislation to promote the industry of the United States at the expense of the people of the South.” There, in plain English, is the shrill, accusatory language of sectionalism.
Nothing but bitterness and bad feeling could come of it. From such a position it was a short step to the proposition that if a state or section of the country no longer felt itself represented in, or fairly treated by, the Federal Government, then it had the right to dissolve its association with that government. It could secede from the Union. The use of force to stop a state from seceding was, the argument went, unconstitutional, since the Union itself was a creature of the states. It had been wholly created by them. Moreover no provision had been made for such an eventuality in the Constitution.
The Unionist response was that the Preamble of the Constitution stated that the Union derived its power from the people as a whole, and that they alone could dissolve it. President Andrew Jackson, himself a Southerner, had threatened in 1832 to send troops to force South Carolina to allow the collection of the Federal tariff if that state persisted in its assertion that it could “nullify” any Federal law it did not agree with. Jackson’s message to the people of the offending state read, “Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent the execution of the laws deceived you. The object is disunion. Disunion by armed force is treason.” On that occasion South Carolina had backed down.
We see this same State’s Rights argument brought forward again in the 1860’s to justify secession as a solution to what amounts to a sectional inferiority complex. The section I refer to, of course, the deep South as whole. Please note that it feels itself to be a “section”, not because of simple geography, but because its society is based upon slavery. So the problem, once again, came down to that “peculiar institution.”
Of course there was agitation in the North for the abolition of the slavery on purely moral grounds. Abolitionist leader William Lloyd Garrison, holding aloft a copy of the Federal Constitution before a crowd in Massachusetts called it “a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell.” The abolitionists believed not only that slavery was wrong, but that the Federal government should move to abolish it. Although they were always a small minority they were very vocal about their beliefs, and projected themselves into the minds of southerners as a threat out of all proportion to their actual power and infuence. This threat was greatly magnified in 1859 by John Brown's seizure of the Harper's Ferry arsenal and his call for a general insurrection of the slaves. This caused many of the Southern states to implement plans for more effective militias for internal defense.
While some in the North hated slavery because they felt that it was wrong, most people held no opinion of it at all, and some even condoned it because abolishing it would be bad for business. Without slaves there would be no cotton. Without cotton the textile industry would suffer. To many it was just that simple.
Even in the North only four states permitted free blacks to vote, and in no state could they serve on a jury. Many people wondered what could possibly be done with the huge number of blacks if they were, in fact, freed.
The whole mess went up in smoke in the presidential election year of 1860. The Democratic party split badly. Stephen Douglas became the nominee of the northern wing of the party. A southern faction broke away from the party and nominated Senator John Breckinridge of Kentucky. The remnants of the Whig party nominated John Bell of Tennessee.
Into this confusion the new Republican party injected its nominee, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was a moderate Republican. As such he was a compromise candidate, everybody’s second choice. He was convinced that the Constitution forbade the Federal government from taking action against slavery where it already existed, but was determined to keep it from spreading further. South Carolina, in a fit of stubborn pride, unilaterally announced that it would secede from the Union if Lincoln were elected.
To everyone’s amazement Lincoln was victorious. He had gathered a mere 40% of the popular vote, and carried not a single slave state, but the vote had been so fragmented by the abundance of factions that it had been enough.
South Carolina, true to its word, seceded on December 20, 1860. Mississippi left on January 9, 1861, and Florida on the 10th. Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas followed.
The sitting President, James Buchanan felt himself powerless to act. Federal arsenals and fortifications throughout the South were occupied by southern authorities without a shot being fired. In the four months between Lincoln’s election and his inauguration the South was allowed to strengthen its position undisturbed.
Lincoln’s inaugural address was at once firm and conciliatory. Unwilling to strike the initial blow to compel the southern states back into the Union, he decided to bide his time. When a Federal ship carrying supplies was dispatched to reprovision Fort Sumter, in Charleston Harbor, the secessionist hand was forced. To forestall the resupply of the fort the Rebel batteries ringing it opened fire at 4:30 a.m. on the 12th of April, 1861, forcing its rapid capitulation.
President Lincoln immediately called upon the states to supply 75,000 troops to serve for ninety days against “combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee promptly seceded.
The war was on in earnest. Ironically, the combination of political events, southern pride, and willfulness succeeded in paving the way to the abolition of slavery; a condition that no combination of legal action on the part of the most virulent abolitionist could possibly have accomplished.
...visit James F. Epperson's Causes of the Civil War page
for primary source documents
0 likes
The posts or stuff said are NOT an official forecast and my opinion alone. Please look to the NHC and NWS for official forecasts and products.
Model Runs Cheat Sheet:
GFS (5:30 AM/PM, 11:30 AM/PM)
HWRF, GFDL, UKMET, NAVGEM (6:30-8:00 AM/PM, 12:30-2:00 AM/PM)
ECMWF (1:45 AM/PM)
TCVN is a weighted averaged
Opinions my own.
Model Runs Cheat Sheet:
GFS (5:30 AM/PM, 11:30 AM/PM)
HWRF, GFDL, UKMET, NAVGEM (6:30-8:00 AM/PM, 12:30-2:00 AM/PM)
ECMWF (1:45 AM/PM)
TCVN is a weighted averaged
Opinions my own.
-
timNms
- Category 5
- Posts: 1371
- Age: 63
- Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:45 pm
- Location: Seminary, Mississippi
- Contact:
Hey, who said Mississippi is on the bottom of everything? LOL We were 2nd in this event (although, probably not the smartest thing MS has ever done 
) "South Carolina, true to its word, seceded on December 20, 1860. Mississippi left on January 9, 1861, and Florida on the 10th. Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas followed."
) "South Carolina, true to its word, seceded on December 20, 1860. Mississippi left on January 9, 1861, and Florida on the 10th. Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas followed."
0 likes
-
timNms
- Category 5
- Posts: 1371
- Age: 63
- Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:45 pm
- Location: Seminary, Mississippi
- Contact:
In all seriousness, I am sick of the way some people down those of us from the south. Yeah, way back when, the south used slave labor to build large plantations, produce cotton, and become rich. But, keep in mind, the north also used slave labor. It's not just a "southern thang".
After reading the last post from stormchazer, it appears to me that slavery was not the main reason for the states to have seceded. Misrepresentation seems to have played a major role in the conflict.
Regardless of what happened back then, one this is for certain today. Those of us alive now had absolutely NOTHING to do with slavery. We should not be held accountable for something that our ancestors did. It is also my belief that no state's flag should be changed just to please a minority few. Yeah, I'm proud of the flag that represents Mississippi and it'll be a cold day in .....well, you know where...when I agree for it to be changed. White America has bowed down to a minority few not wanting to ruffle any feathers, or wanting to be "politically correct" until we've lost just about all of our rights and it stinks. I say if you don't like it here, GO TO AFRICA and see just how long you survive in the jungle with the wild tribes
After reading the last post from stormchazer, it appears to me that slavery was not the main reason for the states to have seceded. Misrepresentation seems to have played a major role in the conflict.
Regardless of what happened back then, one this is for certain today. Those of us alive now had absolutely NOTHING to do with slavery. We should not be held accountable for something that our ancestors did. It is also my belief that no state's flag should be changed just to please a minority few. Yeah, I'm proud of the flag that represents Mississippi and it'll be a cold day in .....well, you know where...when I agree for it to be changed. White America has bowed down to a minority few not wanting to ruffle any feathers, or wanting to be "politically correct" until we've lost just about all of our rights and it stinks. I say if you don't like it here, GO TO AFRICA and see just how long you survive in the jungle with the wild tribes
0 likes
-
GalvestonDuck
- Category 5
- Posts: 15941
- Age: 57
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
- Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)
I can understand your point about the inappropriate display of the Confederate Flag, Bill. Being from "up north" in KY, I never saw the Confederate Flag displayed on trucks, homes, jackets, tshirts, or what have you. I only saw it on the news, as being waved by KKK'ers and other white supremacists, and on the tattoos of a skinhead neo-nutzi who was a trauma patient in the ER. I tend to equate it with people like that and with the side that "lost" (as history teachers teach) the war. The Union won, the Union flag remained, and the Union flag is all I really know about my "heritage" from the "history" I was taught.
Then again, as I mentioned once before here, I could swear someone on my maternal grandmother's side owned slaves, because it's the only side of my family history that everyone wants to change the subject about when I ask.
Then again, as I mentioned once before here, I could swear someone on my maternal grandmother's side owned slaves, because it's the only side of my family history that everyone wants to change the subject about when I ask.
0 likes
-
stormchazer
- Category 5
- Posts: 2462
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 12:00 pm
- Location: Lakeland, Florida
- Contact:
timNms wrote:In all seriousness, I am sick of the way some people down those of us from the south. Yeah, way back when, the south used slave labor to build large plantations, produce cotton, and become rich. But, keep in mind, the north also used slave labor. It's not just a "southern thang".
After reading the last post from stormchazer, it appears to me that slavery was not the main reason for the states to have seceded. Misrepresentation seems to have played a major role in the conflict.
Regardless of what happened back then, one this is for certain today. Those of us alive now had absolutely NOTHING to do with slavery. We should not be held accountable for something that our ancestors did. It is also my belief that no state's flag should be changed just to please a minority few. Yeah, I'm proud of the flag that represents Mississippi and it'll be a cold day in .....well, you know where...when I agree for it to be changed. White America has bowed down to a minority few not wanting to ruffle any feathers, or wanting to be "politically correct" until we've lost just about all of our rights and it stinks. I say if you don't like it here, GO TO AFRICA and see just how long you survive in the jungle with the wild tribes
After reading the last post from stormchazer, it appears to me that slavery was not the main reason for the states to have seceded. Misrepresentation seems to have played a major role in the conflict
I would love an explanation on how you came to this conclusion?
At the root of all of the problems was the institution of slavery, which had been introduced into North America in early colonial times. The American Revolution had been fought to validate the idea that all men were created equal, yet slavery was legal in all of the thirteen colonies throughout the revolutionary period.
Economic issues were a cause of War but it came back to the slave question.
The slave became an ever more important element of the southern economy, and so the debate about slavery, for the southerner, gradually evolved into an economically based question of money and power, and ceased to be a theoretical or ideological issue at all. It became an institution that southerners felt bound to protect.
Congress was becoming split over pro-slave senators and pro-free.
But even as the need to protect it grew, the ability, or at least the perceived ability of the South to do so was waning. Southern leaders grew progressively more sensitive to this condition. In 1800 half of the population of the United States had lived in the South. But by 1850 only a third lived there and the disparity continued to widen. While northern industrial opportunity attracted scores of immigrants from Europe in search of freedom the South's population stagnated. Even as slave states were added to the Union to balance the number of free ones, the South found that its representatives in the House had been overwhelmed by the North’s explosive growth. More and more emphasis was now placed on maintaining parity in the Senate. Failing this, the paranoid theory went, the South would find itself at the mercy of a government in which it no longer had an effective voice. Never mind that slavery was protected under the constitution, and that it would have been impossible to make amendments to abolish it. Jefferson Davis, at the time a Senator from Mississippi, summed up the sectionalist argument himself. Speaking, in effect, to the people of the North concerning slavery, “It is not humanity that influences you… it is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the Government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement… you want by an unjust system of legislation to promote the industry of the United States at the expense of the people of the South.”
A sectional War...yes...because of the slave issue.
We see this same State’s Rights argument brought forward again in the 1860’s to justify secession as a solution to what amounts to a sectional inferiority complex. The section I refer to, of course, the deep South as whole. Please note that it feels itself to be a “section”, not because of simple geography, but because its society is based upon slavery.
The south new that if new slave states were not added, that Congress would be dominated by Pro-North (sic. Pro-Free ) representation.
Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was a moderate Republican. As such he was a compromise candidate, everybody’s second choice. He was convinced that the Constitution forbade the Federal government from taking action against slavery where it already existed
The end of slavery, dissolved the sectionalist issues that the South tried to use as an excuse for seccession.
.The war was on in earnest. Ironically, the combination of political events, southern pride, and willfulness succeeded in paving the way to the abolition of slavery; a condition that no combination of legal action on the part of the most virulent abolitionist could possibly have accomplished
Your arguement sir?
0 likes
The posts or stuff said are NOT an official forecast and my opinion alone. Please look to the NHC and NWS for official forecasts and products.
Model Runs Cheat Sheet:
GFS (5:30 AM/PM, 11:30 AM/PM)
HWRF, GFDL, UKMET, NAVGEM (6:30-8:00 AM/PM, 12:30-2:00 AM/PM)
ECMWF (1:45 AM/PM)
TCVN is a weighted averaged
Opinions my own.
Model Runs Cheat Sheet:
GFS (5:30 AM/PM, 11:30 AM/PM)
HWRF, GFDL, UKMET, NAVGEM (6:30-8:00 AM/PM, 12:30-2:00 AM/PM)
ECMWF (1:45 AM/PM)
TCVN is a weighted averaged
Opinions my own.
-
Anonymous
Lindaloo wrote:Exactly Bill!! Some people pass judgement on the flag and do not even know it's history. It is the flag the soldiers went to battle under. Another example of stereotyping us here in the South by someone from Pennsylvania. I highly doubt he ever sees a Confederate Flag on the side of a pick up truck.
How would you know? Do you live here? I thought not...
Too many people north of the mason-dixon line think they are Southerners...Have you ever heard the saying "In Pennsylvania there's Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and the rest is Alabama"...It's true!
0 likes
-
Anonymous
streetsoldier wrote:Correction, there...BOTH sides won. The United States preserved the Union; the Confederates preserved the rights of the States within that Union.
As to the "colors", whether Continental, Union, Confederate or modern...they are a part of OUR history (yes, that means ALL of us); and try to show some respect for those who fought and died so that YOU can enjoy the liberty of "baiting" people in this Forum.
Sorry, let me reiterate...The confederates lost. They were separists and traitors, and thankfully the Union kicked butt.
0 likes
-
Anonymous
GalvestonDuck wrote:I can understand your point about the inappropriate display of the Confederate Flag, Bill. Being from "up north" in KY, I never saw the Confederate Flag displayed on trucks, homes, jackets, tshirts, or what have you. I only saw it on the news, as being waved by KKK'ers and other white supremacists, and on the tattoos of a skinhead neo-nutzi who was a trauma patient in the ER. I tend to equate it with people like that and with the side that "lost" (as history teachers teach) the war. The Union won, the Union flag remained, and the Union flag is all I really know about my "heritage" from the "history" I was taught.
Then again, as I mentioned once before here, I could swear someone on my maternal grandmother's side owned slaves, because it's the only side of my family history that everyone wants to change the subject about when I ask.
Hahahahha....Yes the liberals taught you phony "history"..That's it. You people just can't over the fact that the Union won.
BTW, you people should visit the Civil War Muesuem in Harrisburg, PA...Provides a very balanced and unbiased look at the war.
0 likes
-
GalvestonDuck
- Category 5
- Posts: 15941
- Age: 57
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
- Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)
danwxman wrote:GalvestonDuck wrote:I can understand your point about the inappropriate display of the Confederate Flag, Bill. Being from "up north" in KY, I never saw the Confederate Flag displayed on trucks, homes, jackets, tshirts, or what have you. I only saw it on the news, as being waved by KKK'ers and other white supremacists, and on the tattoos of a skinhead neo-nutzi who was a trauma patient in the ER. I tend to equate it with people like that and with the side that "lost" (as history teachers teach) the war. The Union won, the Union flag remained, and the Union flag is all I really know about my "heritage" from the "history" I was taught.
Then again, as I mentioned once before here, I could swear someone on my maternal grandmother's side owned slaves, because it's the only side of my family history that everyone wants to change the subject about when I ask.
Hahahahha....Yes the liberals taught you phony "history"..That's it. You people just can't over the fact that the Union won.
BTW, you people should visit the Civil War Muesuem in Harrisburg, PA...Provides a very balanced and unbiased look at the war.
What in tarnation are you on about, Dan?
"You people"...."you people?" Clearly you didn't read my post, did you? I'm one of YOU people, jack -- a northerner, a Yankee, Union all the way. I even have a Northern accent (not quite sure where I got it). Look at a map. Find your state...Pennsylvania. Now, scan over to the left and down a little. See? Kentucky. Yes, I know the Union won. Isn't that what I said? Yes...it is. I just checked. "The Union won." It's pretty clear.
However, I wasn't taught about what the South gained in the war, besides what they lost. I was commending Bill on educating me on the other side of the story and I was acknowledging that my education is lacking about the full story of the war. Talk about an unbiased look at the war? I learned the Union bias of the story. When I was younger, I thought a majority of Southerners were racist, white supremacist KKK'ers. I learned otherwise when I got older. I don't know if my teachers were liberals or conservatives when I was younger. Is there liberal math? Conservative biology? Weird. I just know that I had to remember what they said and be able to rewrite it in essay form for a test in order to pass. Then I got older and learned to question things and to think for myself and to analyze what I was told. I found out that there are white supremacists in Kentucky and Montana and Washington all pretty much all over the US, not just in the South.
You people just can't over the fact that the Union won.
Who is "you people?" because I know you're not talking to me. I'm offended at the attack. And might I point out that "you people" is generally considered an attacking phrase, used by racists on both sides, to state generalizations about a particular group.
Regardless of which side you learned, where you were educated, or how you feel about your heritage now, we can't deny that this was the bloodiest war in US history and men on both sides died fighting for their cause. There are certain things that the country lost and certain things that we gained. Forget all the Confederate vs. Union boundaries. It's all about AMERICAN heritage...not just Southern or Northern. This country was torn apart by it and I pray nothing like it ever happens again.
0 likes
-
GalvestonDuck
- Category 5
- Posts: 15941
- Age: 57
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
- Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)
-
Anonymous
Lindaloo wrote:Do not have to live there to know the truth. And if you did not know we in the South tend to be Conservative Republicans. Your liberal lines are innaccurate.
Yes you do need to live here to know the truth!!! DUH! I know the South is conservative, what's that have to do with anything? The people in PA tend to be conservative sheeple too, except for the educated people in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.
0 likes
-
Anonymous
GalvestonDuck wrote:danwxman wrote:GalvestonDuck wrote:I can understand your point about the inappropriate display of the Confederate Flag, Bill. Being from "up north" in KY, I never saw the Confederate Flag displayed on trucks, homes, jackets, tshirts, or what have you. I only saw it on the news, as being waved by KKK'ers and other white supremacists, and on the tattoos of a skinhead neo-nutzi who was a trauma patient in the ER. I tend to equate it with people like that and with the side that "lost" (as history teachers teach) the war. The Union won, the Union flag remained, and the Union flag is all I really know about my "heritage" from the "history" I was taught.
Then again, as I mentioned once before here, I could swear someone on my maternal grandmother's side owned slaves, because it's the only side of my family history that everyone wants to change the subject about when I ask.
Hahahahha....Yes the liberals taught you phony "history"..That's it. You people just can't over the fact that the Union won.
BTW, you people should visit the Civil War Muesuem in Harrisburg, PA...Provides a very balanced and unbiased look at the war.
What in tarnation are you on about, Dan?
"You people"...."you people?" Clearly you didn't read my post, did you? I'm one of YOU people, jack -- a northerner, a Yankee, Union all the way. I even have a Northern accent (not quite sure where I got it). Look at a map. Find your state...Pennsylvania. Now, scan over to the left and down a little. See? Kentucky. Yes, I know the Union won. Isn't that what I said? Yes...it is. I just checked. "The Union won." It's pretty clear.
However, I wasn't taught about what the South gained in the war, besides what they lost. I was commending Bill on educating me on the other side of the story and I was acknowledging that my education is lacking about the full story of the war. Talk about an unbiased look at the war? I learned the Union bias of the story. When I was younger, I thought a majority of Southerners were racist, white supremacist KKK'ers. I learned otherwise when I got older. I don't know if my teachers were liberals or conservatives when I was younger. Is there liberal math? Conservative biology? Weird. I just know that I had to remember what they said and be able to rewrite it in essay form for a test in order to pass. Then I got older and learned to question things and to think for myself and to analyze what I was told. I found out that there are white supremacists in Kentucky and Montana and Washington all pretty much all over the US, not just in the South.You people just can't over the fact that the Union won.
Who is "you people?" because I know you're not talking to me. I'm offended at the attack. And might I point out that "you people" is generally considered an attacking phrase, used by racists on both sides, to state generalizations about a particular group.
Regardless of which side you learned, where you were educated, or how you feel about your heritage now, we can't deny that this was the bloodiest war in US history and men on both sides died fighting for their cause. There are certain things that the country lost and certain things that we gained. Forget all the Confederate vs. Union boundaries. It's all about AMERICAN heritage...not just Southern or Northern. This country was torn apart by it and I pray nothing like it ever happens again.
"You people" applies to anybody who thinks the Confederacy won.
0 likes
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
Lindaloo wrote:Are you debating or flaming danwxman. No one in the South thinks we won the Civil War. You are on a rant all by yourself.
Ranting by myself? Hah, you guys were ranting all by yourselves the first 2/3 of this thread. All everybody in this forum does is rant by themselves because everybody agrees. Boring if you ask me. Sorry if I'm causing too much controversy (and obviously bringing more traffic to your site).
0 likes
danwxman wrote:I feel sorry for anybody that has to die in battle defending their cause, but there are varying degrees of pity here. Do I pity Nazi soldiers? Not really...Do I pity Confederate soldiers? A little more than the Nazis I suppose.
Have you ever served your country? Have you ever defended something you believed in? Sounds to me like the pity party is you.
0 likes
-
GalvestonDuck
- Category 5
- Posts: 15941
- Age: 57
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
- Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)
Well, next time, Dan, when you're addressing someone else, either address them by name or quote their text so we know to whom you are talking. Quoting mine made absolutely no sense and came off as an attack. What it was an attack on, I'm not quite sure. I'd equate it to a dog barking at a bone -- nonsense.
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests