The Confederate flag

[micfranklin]

I've been doing some thinking and I was wondering what everyone's stance on the Confederate flag is? What does everyone think it stands for? Racism? Pride? Heritage? War?

[Labrocca]

I think it stands for the south and it's desire not to be part of the north. Of course some that wave it may have racial issues or even consider the flag some form of southern pride and heritage but that's poppycock. The Confederation of states only lasted 4 years and was in war that entire time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America

Most of the Confederations changes to it's own constitution had to do with slavery.

I guess if I had to use one word to describe the flag...it would be rebellion.

[Elrathin]

Much like the Swastika symbol, the confederate flag did not have it's origins in hatred and prejudice, but it is seen as a symbol or racism now.

I don't personally see it as that, but it would seem a multitude of others do.

I think people put too much stock into symbols personally.

[bobbylien]

I think its both.

[Buck Laser]

I wouldn't call it a symbol of pride, but it's a symbol of dissent. And it certainly IS a symbol of hate at times. The confederate flags that are incorporated in some southern state flags were put there back in the 60s when the gummint got serious about implementing school desegregation, and I consider that a symbol of racism.

By the way, I am a southerner, and quite a number of my ancestors fought for the confederacy. I learned recently though that a good number also fought on the union side--they were German immigrants who'd settled in Missouri.

When Howard Dean said the democrats need to reach out to the guys who have confederate flags on their pickups, I took him to mean that the democratic party has a natural constituency of working people, regardless of color, who find themselves not only disenfranchised but economically displaced by the "new" republican party that bends primarily to the will and desires of the global economy, not the needs of the people. Call this a populist bent, call it a new nationalism--but whatever you call it, one of its major aspects is that free trade is not your friend for a very large number of people.

[micfranklin]

But what about those blacks that do view the flag as a symbol of southern pride? There are those that fought for the Confederate Army during the Civil War as well.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I don't know how to answer that.

It doesn't always mean racism and bigotry, but it symbolizes a government where such a policy was a significant aspect of it. Its kind of like an 80 year old war veteran displaying a nazi flag as a part of his history. Sure, he may not consider it a sign of support for genocide, but, if nothing else, respect should prevent it from being displayed.

[Elrathin]

but, if nothing else, respect should prevent it from being displayed.


I guess I look at it from the other part, what about the respect to allow it to be displayed.

Again, I think too many people put too much stock into symbols.

[micfranklin]

but, if nothing else, respect should prevent it from being displayed.


I guess I look at it from the other part, what about the respect to allow it to be displayed.

Again, I think too many people put too much stock into symbols.


I also think that some people need to read their history of the Civil War before calling this flag a racist symbol, because the truth is the flag we're all thinking of isn't even the original Confederate flag, this is:

http://www.capitolflags.com/images/flag%20pictures/confed-first-nat-flag.gif

[Buck Laser]

but, if nothing else, respect should prevent it from being displayed.


I guess I look at it from the other part, what about the respect to allow it to be displayed.

Again, I think too many people put too much stock into symbols.


I also think that some people need to read their history of the Civil War before calling this flag a racist symbol, because the truth is the flag we're all thinking of isn't even the original Confederate flag, this is:

http://www.capitolflags.com/images/flag%20pictures/confed-first-nat-flag.gif


But no one's been arguing about that one. The confederate battle flag, the "stars and bars" is what the conflict is about. By the way, there was another flag in the confederacy as well--it's referenced in a popular song as the "bonny blue flag that bears a single star."

[AlonzoMourning23]

but, if nothing else, respect should prevent it from being displayed.


I guess I look at it from the other part, what about the respect to allow it to be displayed.

Again, I think too many people put too much stock into symbols.


Ok, so what about a german war vet who wants to display a swastika?

People put stock in symbols. Our lives are dominated by symbols.

[Elrathin]

Our lives are dominated by symbols.


Only if you let them.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I also think that some people need to read their history of the Civil War before calling this flag a racist symbol, because the truth is the flag we're all thinking of isn't even the original Confederate flag, this is:

http://www.capitolflags.com/images/flag%20pictures/confed-first-nat-flag.gif


I never said it was. But that's not the issue. Its been repeatedly used for that purpose, and its a flag used to represent a nation where slavery was a central part of its existence.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Only if you let them.


I'm not a big believer in "well, people SHOULD do this". It's like when people say "well parents SHOULD be doing that", when you know that you'll never get all, or close to all, of them doing it. You deal with what people do, what people are. Not what they should or shouldn't be. I really don't care what they should be if they're never going to become that.

Look, money, crosses, language, art, flags etc. are all symbolic of something. Symbolism is essential to human nature. And just as an american flag has symbolic meaning to americans, a confederate flag has symbolic meaning to most as well, and its particularly offensive to many as well.

[Stoner]

I honestly don't see what the problem is with the confederate flag.

[Elrathin]

And just as an american flag has symbolic meaning to americans, a confederate flag has symbolic meaning to most as well, and its particularly offensive to many as well.


And that is how YOU look at it, I don't. Like I said before I don't believe in a ban on flag burning, others do. People give symbols power and I choose not to give them that power. It's all up to people how much they want symbols to control their lives. I choose not to and look at it like that.

If people want to be slaves to symbols, that is their choice. A sad one, giving most people don't even know the origins of the swastika symbol or confederate flag, but hey ignorance seems to be the "in" thing for America right now. Just take a look at politics and you see ignorance playing the largest part.

[Cobra]

I don't see the big problem with the confederate flag. I even use it has my avatar on one board I post on.

[ECW]

I honestly don't see what the problem is with the confederate flag.


Try flying one in front of your house there in Bal'more and you'll see the problem.

[Professor]

The first time I saw the Confederate flag on a pick up it was a shock. I didn't get it, the war had been over for almost 150 years. But then I began to understand. It's the idea that the south is economically poorer, which it still is today. Their heyday was during the days of the plantations and slave trade. It's poorer and still in some eras hasn't recovered from the Great Depression. Given such circumstances I can understand why someone would fly the flag of their forefathers, and remember the good ol' days.

I do still think it is used mostly as a symbol of racism though.

I am curious, is there anyone here who does take pride in the flag and does fly it? Why? I promise I won't jump on you.

[Oedipus Rex]

The first time I saw the Confederate flag on a pick up it was a shock. I didn't get it, the war had been over for almost 150 years. But then I began to understand. It's the idea that the south is economically poorer, which it still is today. Their heyday was during the days of the plantations and slave trade. It's poorer and still in some eras hasn't recovered from the Great Depression. Given such circumstances I can understand why someone would fly the flag of their forefathers, and remember the good ol' days.

I do still think it is used mostly as a symbol of racism though.

I am curious, is there anyone here who does take pride in the flag and does fly it? Why? I promise I won't jump on you.


The flag is just one symbol of the South's history. The South is rooted in traditions and respect of those traditions. The mindset of a Southerner is vastly different than those of the rest of the country.

[ECW]

The first time I saw the Confederate flag on a pick up it was a shock.Â*Â*I didn't get it, the war had been over for almost 150 years.Â*Â*But then I began to understand.Â*Â*It's the idea that the south is economically poorer, which it still is today.Â*Â*Their heyday was during the days of the plantations and slave trade.Â*Â*It's poorer and still in some eras hasn't recovered from the Great Depression.Â*Â*Given such circumstances I can understand why someone would fly the flag of their forefathers, and remember the good ol' days.

I do still think it is used mostly as a symbol of racism though.Â*Â*

I am curious, is there anyone here who does take pride in the flag and does fly it?Â*Â*Why?Â*Â*I promise I won't jump on you.


The flag is just one symbol of the South's history. The South is rooted in traditions and respect of those traditions. The mindset of a Southerner is vastly different than those of the rest of the country.


And I saw the Klan appropriate one of our most revered symbols into an instrument of hate without a peep from "traditional" southerners. The flag is no more than a symbol of hatred anymore and whatever cultural value it may have had is gone. The respect of our tradition of rebellion, as you put it, was stolen by the Klan and they aren't returning it and I wouldn't want it now even if they did.

[Oedipus Rex]

The first time I saw the Confederate flag on a pick up it was a shock. I didn't get it, the war had been over for almost 150 years. But then I began to understand. It's the idea that the south is economically poorer, which it still is today. Their heyday was during the days of the plantations and slave trade. It's poorer and still in some eras hasn't recovered from the Great Depression. Given such circumstances I can understand why someone would fly the flag of their forefathers, and remember the good ol' days.

I do still think it is used mostly as a symbol of racism though.

I am curious, is there anyone here who does take pride in the flag and does fly it? Why? I promise I won't jump on you.


The flag is just one symbol of the South's history. The South is rooted in traditions and respect of those traditions. The mindset of a Southerner is vastly different than those of the rest of the country.


And I saw the Klan appropriate one of our most revered symbols into an instrument of hate without a peep from "traditional" southerners. The flag is no more than a symbol of hatred anymore and whatever cultural value it may have had is gone. The respect of our tradition of rebellion, as you put it, was stolen by the Klan and they aren't returning it and I wouldn't want it now even if they did.



Its not an issue of you wanting it back or not. Its not yours to give or take. Its an issue of traditions and legacy. Nothing more.

[Stoner]

And I saw the Klan appropriate one of our most revered symbols into an instrument of hate

The respect of our tradition of rebellion, as you put it, was stolen by the Klan and they aren't returning it and I wouldn't want it now even if they did.


So according to you we give in to evil orginizations and let them take whatever they want of ours.Â*Â*And now since they distorted what the flag once stood for we just lay down and let them have it?

That is like the KKK deciding that everyone in the klan must drive Chevy's.Â*Â*All klan members have to drive Chevy's.Â*Â*And ECW comes along and says, "You know what?Â*Â*Since Chevy's obviously now represent racism no one else should drive them."

Hey, if you want to allow racists to dictate what you do then that's your prerogative.Â*Â*Personally I prefer to stand up and fight for what I believe in.

[Buck Laser]

And I saw the Klan appropriate one of our most revered symbols into an instrument of hate without a peep from "traditional" southerners. The flag is no more than a symbol of hatred anymore and whatever cultural value it may have had is gone. The respect of our tradition of rebellion, as you put it, was stolen by the Klan and they aren't returning it and I wouldn't want it now even if they did.

Sorry, ECW, it was politicians in the south who saw an opportunity for votes in the confederate flag in the 60s as they tried to lead a battle against civil rights. They appropriated the flag, and in a couple of cases, actually but it back on their state flags.

Yes the Klan is/was a nasty organization, but even 50 years ago, it was recognized as such. When I entered the army in 1953, there were questions on the form--"have you ever belonged to...such stuff as the KKK and the communist party?" Or maybe it was only on my security clearance form, since I had secret clearance to become a rocket scientist (guided missile technician).

But whatever the Klan did, it was the politicians, most of whom became republican, who stole that fllag.

[AlonzoMourning23]

give symbols power and I choose not to give them that power.

Sure ya do. You ever buy something at a store? Speak or read? Ever utilize an american flag?

It's all up to people how much they want symbols to control their lives.Â*Â*I choose not to and look at it like that.

If people want to be slaves to symbols, that is their choice.

Try to go a few days without using symbols. Though, if you were to do that, you wouldn't be able to read these words. Humans, by their very nature, are slaves to symbols.

A sad one, giving most people don't even know the origins of the swastika symbol or confederate flag, but hey ignorance seems to be the "in" thing for America right now.Â*Â*Just take a look at politics and you see ignorance playing the largest part.


The confederate flag is, was, and always will be a associated with the confederacy. It doesn't matter that it wasn't a national flag, the association is correct. The swastika association is more complex. Context plays a more significant role in how that should be interpereted. A german war vet displaying a swastika or nazi flag may simply be proud of his german history, but you wouldn't confuse that with anything from hinduism or another religion.

The flag is just one symbol of the South's history. The South is rooted in traditions and respect of those traditions. The mindset of a Southerner is vastly different than those of the rest of the country.


But, if that nation they celebrate had been succesful, it would have meant continued slavery for millions of blacks. The survival or death of that nation meant everything for the freedom of blacks.

[firefox]

I personally voted for "Other" because I don't really care. If I was forced to join a side back then, I would probably go Confederate, but both sides were pretty screwed up in their own ways. The only one I really feel confident flying these days is The Gadsden Flag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag). What about all of you?

[Oedipus Rex]

The flag is just one symbol of the South's history. The South is rooted in traditions and respect of those traditions. The mindset of a Southerner is vastly different than those of the rest of the country.


But, if that nation they celebrate had been succesful, it would have meant continued slavery for millions of blacks. The survival or death of that nation meant everything for the freedom of blacks.


You're probably right, to a point. You need to look at what the South gave up to be part of the original 13 colonies and what the North gained. This country would've collapsed without the South's participation in the formation of the United States.

But all that aside, the War of Northern Agression wasn't about slavery.

[AlonzoMourning23]

It wasn't about slavery, but it was. The issue was of states rights and the fear of losing their way of life, and slavery was essential to both issues. Without slavery the conflict is unlikely to occur, but the central issue was not slavery. It just was a significant reason as to why there was an issue that became important enough to take the steps they did.

But I think thats secondary. The point is that a legacy is being celebrated in which the enslavement of people was a significant difference between that nation and the enemy of that nation. It's almost as if people are indifferent to it.

It's different than saying thomas jefferson or washington should not be honored. The difference being that it was accepted at the time and they were not key players in keeping it that way when the tide was turning against it. The confederacy took a strong stand in favor of keeping the institution of slavery. Even when facing defeat and an attempt was made to allow any slave willing to fight freedom, it became so watered down and in the end no slaves were freed. Even if the war had continued it was likely a dead end.

[Oedipus Rex]

It wasn't about slavery, but it was. The issue was of states rights and the fear of losing their way of life, and slavery was essential to both issues. Without slavery the conflict is unlikely to occur, but the central issue was not slavery. It just was a significant reason as to why there was an issue that became important enough to take the steps they did.

But I think thats secondary. The point is that a legacy is being celebrated in which the enslavement of people was a significant difference between that nation and the enemy of that nation. It's almost as if people are indifferent to it.

It's different than saying thomas jefferson or washington should not be honored. The difference being that it was accepted at the time and they were not key players in keeping it that way when the tide was turning against it. The confederacy took a strong stand in favor of keeping the institution of slavery. Even when facing defeat and an attempt was made to allow any slave willing to fight freedom, it became so watered down and in the end no slaves were freed. Even if the war had continued it was likely a dead end.


I have a different opinion. Perhaps this gentleman's words could convey my opinion better than I could myself.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/gordoncauses.htm

John B. Gordon, Maj. Gen. CSA
"During the entire life of the Republic the respective rights and powers of the States and general government had furnished a question for endless controversy. In process of time this controversy assumed a somewhat sectional phase. The dominating thought of the North and of the South may be summarized in a few sentences.
The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of force; that the original States were not the creatures but the creators of the Union; that these States had gained their independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from the mother country, and had not surrendered these on entering the Union; that by the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not delegated were reserved to the States; and the South challenged the North to find one trace of authority in that Constitution for invading and coercing a sovereign State."

[AlonzoMourning23]

And by exercising that right they believed they had they attempted to continue on a path that enslaved millions.

Is the right to exercise sovereignty worthy of praise when that sovereignty was used to keep millions as slaves? Something which did not occur when they lost it.

Slavery was essential to the southern way of life, particularly the southern economy. And the sovereign nation they attempted to create with that reality is what is being honored by that flag.

Rebellion for the sake of rebellion is not a virtue. The principles driving that rebellion can be, and thats what this comes down to. Somehow I fail to see how the more abstract concept of the right of southern sovereignity is more important than individual freedom.

[Oedipus Rex]

And by exercising that right they believed they had they attempted to continue on a path that enslaved millions.

Is the right to exercise sovereignty worthy of praise when that sovereignty was used to keep millions as slaves? Something which did not occur when they lost it.

Slavery was essential to the southern way of life, particularly the southern economy. And the sovereign nation they attempted to create with that reality is what is being honored by that flag.

Rebellion for the sake of rebellion is not a virtue. The principles driving that rebellion can be, and thats what this comes down to. Somehow I fail to see how the more abstract concept of the right of southern sovereignity is more important than individual freedom.



The problem is that you're looking at the past with the perspective of today. There's nothing wrong with the Stars and Bars. Its my view that folks who do have a problem with the flag either aren't Southern, are afraid they will appear racist or are trying to impose their opinions on those of us who respect our cultural past.

There's really no debating this any further. I won't change my opinion or turn my back on my family's history.

[ECW]

And by exercising that right they believed they had they attempted to continue on a path that enslaved millions.

Is the right to exercise sovereignty worthy of praise when that sovereignty was used to keep millions as slaves? Something which did not occur when they lost it.

Slavery was essential to the southern way of life, particularly the southern economy. And the sovereign nation they attempted to create with that reality is what is being honored by that flag.

Rebellion for the sake of rebellion is not a virtue. The principles driving that rebellion can be, and thats what this comes down to. Somehow I fail to see how the more abstract concept of the right of southern sovereignity is more important than individual freedom.



The problem is that you're looking at the past with the perspective of today. There's nothing wrong with the Stars and Bars. Its my view that folks who do have a problem with the flag either aren't Southern, are afraid they will appear racist or are trying to impose their opinions on those of us who respect our cultural past.

There's really no debating this any further. I won't change my opinion or turn my back on my family's history.


Try none of the above. I am a southerner thru and thru. However, the flag to me is a symbol of rebellion against the United States, a position I would have taken even back in the 1860's. I find very little right with it. You may want to fight to get the flag back from the racist Klan but it is now sullied and defiled.

In a historical context, the Stars and Bars HAD a purpose but to use that same flag now means to carry all of the associated baggage with it: the hatred, the racism that founded it and the misguided notion that you can justify the intent for the South to keep their slave-holding ways by disguising it with the "state's rights" mantra. That is the old South. I don't buy into that notion that we ought to keep that old South alive. I like very much the new South where those beliefs are cast aside and disposed of and replaced with a brotherhood of humanity, respect for one another and a striving for the common goal of the American Dream.

You may respect the South all you want in your way. Having a contrary opinion, as I do, is merely that: having a contrary opinion. I just don't see this issue as you do and I never will. I don't care much for Yankees on the whole but I like racism, terrorism in the name of racism and political structures set up to enforce racist attitudes and beliefs even less. A lot less.

[Oedipus Rex]

And by exercising that right they believed they had they attempted to continue on a path that enslaved millions.

Is the right to exercise sovereignty worthy of praise when that sovereignty was used to keep millions as slaves? Something which did not occur when they lost it.

Slavery was essential to the southern way of life, particularly the southern economy. And the sovereign nation they attempted to create with that reality is what is being honored by that flag.

Rebellion for the sake of rebellion is not a virtue. The principles driving that rebellion can be, and thats what this comes down to. Somehow I fail to see how the more abstract concept of the right of southern sovereignity is more important than individual freedom.



The problem is that you're looking at the past with the perspective of today. There's nothing wrong with the Stars and Bars. Its my view that folks who do have a problem with the flag either aren't Southern, are afraid they will appear racist or are trying to impose their opinions on those of us who respect our cultural past.

There's really no debating this any further. I won't change my opinion or turn my back on my family's history.


Try none of the above. I am a southerner thru and thru. However, the flag to me is a symbol of rebellion against the United States, a position I would have taken even back in the 1860's. I find very little right with it. You may want to fight to get the flag back from the racist Klan but it is now sullied and defiled.

In a historical context, the Stars and Bars HAD a purpose but to use that same flag now means to carry all of the associated baggage with it: the hatred, the racism that founded it and the misguided notion that you can justify the intent for the South to keep their slave-holding ways by disguising it with the "state's rights" mantra. That is the old South. I don't buy into that notion that we ought to keep that old South alive. I like very much the new South where those beliefs are cast aside and disposed of and replaced with a brotherhood of humanity, respect for one another and a striving for the common goal of the American Dream.

You may respect the South all you want in your way. Having a contrary opinion, as I do, is merely that: having a contrary opinion. I just don't see this issue as you do and I never will. I don't care much for Yankees on the whole but I like racism, terrorism in the name of racism and political structures set up to enforce racist attitudes and beliefs even less. A lot less.




I was born and raised in Alabama. That's my home as well as my history.

[ECW]

I was born and raised in Alabama. That's my home as well as my history.


and a fine home and history it is. Having lived in most of the states south of the Mason-Dixon at one point or another in my years (including Alabama) I have no problem with identifying oneself with home and being proud of that home. I currently live in the South right now as well and couldn't be more proud of doing so especially when travelling northward.

[micfranklin]

THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGAIN!!!!!

On a side note, some rappers like Lil' Jon and Outkast come from the South and don't mind the Confederate flag at all.

[firefox]

Rebellion for the sake of rebellion is not a virtue. The principles driving that rebellion can be, and thats what this comes down to. Somehow I fail to see how the more abstract concept of the right of southern sovereignity is more important than individual freedom.


I agree, Alonzo. States don't have rights, nor do any other groups. ONLY individuals do. The real irony here is that in the many decades since the 13th and 14th Amendments passed we have *all* become partial slaves, albiet in a more equal manner. Aside from the obvious example of taxation (especially income), let's look at "(in)voluntary compliance" laws and other decrees that make you do things such as collect taxes on your employees, go through various OSHA processes, etc. You are forced to do these things without any kind of pay. You are doing the work of a state agent without compensation and without free choice. This seems a lot like involuntary servatude to me!

[Oedipus Rex]

Rebellion for the sake of rebellion is not a virtue. The principles driving that rebellion can be, and thats what this comes down to. Somehow I fail to see how the more abstract concept of the right of southern sovereignity is more important than individual freedom.


States don't have rights, nor do any other groups. ONLY individuals do.




Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[AlonzoMourning23]

So is the argument basically that southern sovereignity is more important than ensuring the freedom of the population?

[Oedipus Rex]

So is the argument basically that southern sovereignity is more important than ensuring the freedom of the population?



You need to look at this in terms of what is the rights of the state vs what is the right of the national government. In this case, the state had the right and the national government ran all over the state.

You want another example??? Look at the mandatory age for alcohol consumption.

[Elrathin]

In this case, the state had the right and the national government ran all over the state.


So the state had the right to own slaves and oppress a people when the nation said they couldn't? :rolleyes:

Sorry but the nation did what was best for the people under them and that included the slaves of the people in those states that left.

Now if the nation had said it was alright to own slaves and the south left in opposition of that, it would have been a different story and I could agree with you there, but unfortunately they didn't.

[Oedipus Rex]

In this case, the state had the right and the national government ran all over the state.


So the state had the right to own slaves and oppress a people when the nation said they couldn't? :rolleyes:

Sorry but the nation did what was best for the people under them and that included the slaves of the people in those states that left.

Now if the nation had said it was alright to own slaves and the south left in opposition of that, it would have been a different story and I could agree with you there, but unfortunately they didn't.


Do yourself a favor and read about The Great Compromise. Read about the principal players involved and how/why it affected the formation of the Union. Look at what the South gave up and what the North gained.

You cannot sit in the 21st century and accurately judge the actions of the 18th century without knowing the background. Even then, what you believe today has absolutely no bearing on the past.

[Elrathin]

You cannot sit in the 21st century and accurately judge the actions of the 18th century without knowing the background. Even then, what you believe today has absolutely no bearing on the past.


Wrong is wrong. Oppressing people was wrong, so yeah I can judge.

Or are you saying it was ok to for a person to own a slave?

Just because someone did something out of ignorance, doesn't make it right. I also judge those that burned witches at the stakes. Or does that make me wrong too?

[Oedipus Rex]

You cannot sit in the 21st century and accurately judge the actions of the 18th century without knowing the background. Even then, what you believe today has absolutely no bearing on the past.


Wrong is wrong. Oppressing people was wrong, so yeah I can judge.

Or are you saying it was ok to for a person to own a slave?

Just because someone did something out of ignorance, doesn't make it right. I also judge those that burned witches at the stakes. Or does that make me wrong too?



I'm saying your perspective of right and wrong is tainted.


Let's take a leisurely stroll and discuss what you think you know about slavery and what you actually know. Are you game?

[firefox]

Rex is right historically, but Elrathin is right morally. I'd like to see how this goes so I'm going to lurk for a few posts here ;) First time ever!

[Elrathin]

Let's take a leisurely stroll and discuss what you think you know about slavery and what you actually know. Are you game?


Sure, me first. Are you saying Slavery is ok? Do you think the fact of OWNING someone is ok? Well that was what the south was about. There is no denying that one.

[Oedipus Rex]

Let's take a leisurely stroll and discuss what you think you know about slavery and what you actually know. Are you game?


Sure, me first. Are you saying Slavery is ok? Do you think the fact of OWNING someone is ok? Well that was what the south was about. There is no denying that one.


In today's terms, I think slavery is wrong. In the years preceeding the War of Northern Agression, it not only was alright but perfectly legal.


My turn. I'll bounce around a little in my questioning to illustrate a point. Do you believe in reparations for slavery?

[Elrathin]

Do you believe in reparations for slavery?


If there is a person alive today that personally owned a slave in the U.S., then yes I believe in reparations from that person. But last I checked there isn't anyone alive that did in the U.S.

[AlonzoMourning23]

So is the argument basically that southern sovereignity is more important than ensuring the freedom of the population?



You need to look at this in terms of what is the rights of the state vs what is the right of the national government. In this case, the state had the right and the national government ran all over the state.

You want another example??? Look at the mandatory age for alcohol consumption.


I guess that means yes.

[Oedipus Rex]

So is the argument basically that southern sovereignity is more important than ensuring the freedom of the population?



You need to look at this in terms of what is the rights of the state vs what is the right of the national government. In this case, the state had the right and the national government ran all over the state.

You want another example??? Look at the mandatory age for alcohol consumption.


I guess that means yes.



Yes. The national government had no right to dictate how states regulated the property of their own citizens. Slaves were property.

[Oedipus Rex]

Do you believe in reparations for slavery?


If there is a person alive today that personally owned a slave in the U.S., then yes I believe in reparations from that person. But last I checked there isn't anyone alive that did in the U.S.


This is true. But that doesn't stop the race baiters from trying anyway.

[AlonzoMourning23]

So is the argument basically that southern sovereignity is more important than ensuring the freedom of the population?



You need to look at this in terms of what is the rights of the state vs what is the right of the national government. In this case, the state had the right and the national government ran all over the state.

You want another example??? Look at the mandatory age for alcohol consumption.


I guess that means yes.



Yes. The national government had no right to dictate how states regulated the property of their own citizens. Slaves were property.


And the federal government has no right to define what is and is not property? So the state can declare anything property and therefore supercede the federal government?


This is true. But that doesn't stop the race baiters from trying anyway.

Well, if people like you weren't so adamant that sovereignity was more important than ensuring that millions of individuals were not treated as property, then maybe they wouldn't have as much of an argument.

[Elrathin]

Slaves were property.


And under the U.S. constitution, that was an incorrect practice. So the nation had every right to uphold the constitution in that regard.

[Oedipus Rex]

So is the argument basically that southern sovereignity is more important than ensuring the freedom of the population?



You need to look at this in terms of what is the rights of the state vs what is the right of the national government. In this case, the state had the right and the national government ran all over the state.

You want another example??? Look at the mandatory age for alcohol consumption.


I guess that means yes.



Yes. The national government had no right to dictate how states regulated the property of their own citizens. Slaves were property.


1. And the federal government has no right to define what is and is not property? So the state can declare anything property and therefore supercede the federal government?


This is true. But that doesn't stop the race baiters from trying anyway.

2. Well, if people like you weren't so adamant that sovereignity was more important than ensuring that millions of individuals were not treated as property, then maybe they wouldn't have as much of an argument.


1. Slaves were property before the formation of this nation. The Constitution stipulates under the 5th Amendment, '...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'

The 13th Amendment ended slavery on January 31, 1865. It was then ratified on December 6, 1865. The civil war ended in April of 1865. Curious, huh?

2. Again, you're looking at this through the viewpoint of today. Today's perspectives have absolutely no bearing on the past.

[Oedipus Rex]

Slaves were property.


And under the U.S. constitution, that was an incorrect practice. So the nation had every right to uphold the constitution in that regard.


Wrong again. The Constitution deliberately side-stepped the issue of slavery precisely because the South would never have joined the Union otherwise. This nation would have failed before it began. It took the 13th Amendment to legally end the practice of slavery.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

There is a flag that is a racist symbol, it is not the stars and bars, it is in this picture, from 1925

http://www.law.du.edu/jenkins/images/kkk2.jpg

[AlonzoMourning23]

So is the argument basically that southern sovereignity is more important than ensuring the freedom of the population?



You need to look at this in terms of what is the rights of the state vs what is the right of the national government. In this case, the state had the right and the national government ran all over the state.

You want another example??? Look at the mandatory age for alcohol consumption.


I guess that means yes.



Yes. The national government had no right to dictate how states regulated the property of their own citizens. Slaves were property.


1. And the federal government has no right to define what is and is not property? So the state can declare anything property and therefore supercede the federal government?


This is true. But that doesn't stop the race baiters from trying anyway.

2. Well, if people like you weren't so adamant that sovereignity was more important than ensuring that millions of individuals were not treated as property, then maybe they wouldn't have as much of an argument.


1. Slaves were property before the formation of this nation. The Constitution stipulates under the 5th Amendment, '...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'

The 13th Amendment ended slavery on January 31, 1865. It was then ratified on December 6, 1865. The civil war ended in April of 1865. Curious, huh?

2. Again, you're looking at this through the viewpoint of today. Today's perspectives have absolutely no bearing on the past.


I'm looking at a time that had a very strong abolition movement. This is not like condemning jefferson for owning slaves, its like condemning george wallace for saying "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever!" during the civil rights movement. It's condemning a side that attempted to stand against freedom for individuals when there was a significant opposing side to stand against.

But, you're looking at the past and saying "Hey, one side enslaved millions, one side opposed it. But lets not let that get in the way of deciding which side was better".

A more modern example is vietnam and cambodia. Sure, cambodia had a few border skirmishes with vietnam, but that doesn't make vietnams invasion of cambodia right. But, on the other hand, vietnams invasion quickly ended the genocide of pol pot (one of their stated reasons for invading), so maybe it wasn't a bad thing after all.

[firefox]

Fleabit. It is the stars and bars look at the pic, man! :) BTW, are you Pirate Monkey from that *other* politics site we don't mention anymore?

[Oedipus Rex]

I'm looking at a time that had a very strong abolition movement. This is not like condemning jefferson for owning slaves, its like condemning george wallace for saying "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever!" during the civil rights movement. It's condemning a side that attempted to stand against freedom for individuals when there was a significant opposing side to stand against.

But, you're looking at the past and saying "Hey, one side enslaved millions, one side opposed it. But lets not let that get in the way of deciding which side was better".

A more modern example is vietnam and cambodia. Sure, cambodia had a few border skirmishes with vietnam, but that doesn't make vietnams invasion of cambodia right. But, on the other hand, vietnams invasion quickly ended the genocide of pol pot (one of their stated reasons for invading), so maybe it wasn't a bad thing after all.



Ok, your frame of reference is the 1960's. There's a lot of difference in attitudes between the 1960's and prior to 1865. You can't take a snapshot of one era and judge another era by the same standards. It isn't historically accurate or fair.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I'm looking at a time that had a very strong abolition movement. This is not like condemning jefferson for owning slaves, its like condemning george wallace for saying "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever!" during the civil rights movement. It's condemning a side that attempted to stand against freedom for individuals when there was a significant opposing side to stand against.

But, you're looking at the past and saying "Hey, one side enslaved millions, one side opposed it. But lets not let that get in the way of deciding which side was better".

A more modern example is vietnam and cambodia. Sure, cambodia had a few border skirmishes with vietnam, but that doesn't make vietnams invasion of cambodia right. But, on the other hand, vietnams invasion quickly ended the genocide of pol pot (one of their stated reasons for invading), so maybe it wasn't a bad thing after all.



Ok, your frame of reference is the 1960's. There's a lot of difference in attitudes between the 1960's and prior to 1865. You can't take a snapshot of one era and judge another era by the same standards. It isn't historically accurate or fair.


You have an issue that played a significant role in a war, both sides holding opposing views, and you're trying to argue essentially that they didn't know any better and you can't judge one side on their moral beliefs, even thought hat moral belief was very much in question at the time.

You act like slavery was an insignificant difference, one which was perfectly acceptable at the time by the vast majority of american society.

The confederacy is a nation whose victory would have extended the enslavement of millions for decades. That is not an insignificant matter. For all your cries of "understand the times", half the battle was being fought by a side that, according to you, didn't udnerstand the times.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Fleabit. It is the stars and bars look at the pic, man! :)


It is the stars and strips, the true flag of racism.

The confederate constitution had more restrictions on slavery than the US constitution did.

When Lincoln freed the slaves, he only freed them in the southern states, not the northern ones.

The democrat party is the party of racism, the US flag is the flag of racism.


BTW, are you Pirate Monkey from that *other* politics site we don't mention anymore?


No

[AlonzoMourning23]

When Lincoln freed the slaves, he only freed them in the southern states, not the northern ones.

The democrat party is the party of racism


I can never decide whether you're a joke or insane. Next thing you'll be condemning clinton for not freeing the slaves.

I also forgot that lincoln was a democrat.

[Oedipus Rex]

I'm looking at a time that had a very strong abolition movement. This is not like condemning jefferson for owning slaves, its like condemning george wallace for saying "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever!" during the civil rights movement. It's condemning a side that attempted to stand against freedom for individuals when there was a significant opposing side to stand against.

But, you're looking at the past and saying "Hey, one side enslaved millions, one side opposed it. But lets not let that get in the way of deciding which side was better".

A more modern example is vietnam and cambodia. Sure, cambodia had a few border skirmishes with vietnam, but that doesn't make vietnams invasion of cambodia right. But, on the other hand, vietnams invasion quickly ended the genocide of pol pot (one of their stated reasons for invading), so maybe it wasn't a bad thing after all.



Ok, your frame of reference is the 1960's. There's a lot of difference in attitudes between the 1960's and prior to 1865. You can't take a snapshot of one era and judge another era by the same standards. It isn't historically accurate or fair.


You have an issue that played a significant role in a war, both sides holding opposing views, and you're trying to argue essentially that they didn't know any better and you can't judge one side on their moral beliefs, even thought hat moral belief was very much in question at the time.

You act like slavery was an insignificant difference, one which was perfectly acceptable at the time by the vast majority of american society.

The confederacy is a nation whose victory would have extended the enslavement of millions for decades. That is not an insignificant matter. For all your cries of "understand the times", half the battle was being fought by a side that, according to you, didn't udnerstand the times.




I'm saying that you need to look at both sides of this issue and judge it on its merits. The North, as well as the South had slaves. The struggle over slavery continued right up to the Civil War. Greater minds than the two of us had a hell of a time dealing with this issue.





Here's a brief timeline to show points of reference to validate my POV.



1670: slavery is formally introduced in Virginia by the House of Burgesses

1776: Thomas Jefferson writes in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal". Yet, at the insistence of other slave owners, he removes a clause condemning the English king for importing slavery into the 13 colonies. Slaves exist in all 13 colonies.

1777: Vermont abolishes slavery.

1780: Quakers in the Pennsylvania legislature push through a law that frees all future children born to slaves when they reach the age of 28. Slaves born earlier than 1780 are never freed.

1780: Massachusetts abolishes slavery.

1783: New Hampshire abolishes slavery.

1784: Rhode Island frees all future children born to slaves when they reach the age of 28. Slaves born earlier than 1784 are never freed.

1794: Connecticut frees, at age 28, all future children born to slaves.

1799: New York frees, males at age 28 and females at 25, all future children born to slaves.

1800: New York still has 20,000 slaves.

1803: Delaware fails to pass gradual emancipation by a tie vote.

1804: New Jersey frees, males at age 25 and females at 21, all future children born to slaves.

1804-1807: South Carolina imports 40,000 African slaves.

1808: importation of slaves banned in the U.S.

1810: New York still has 15,000 slaves. Rhode Island has 108.

1814: Edward Coles urges Thomas Jefferson to lead the fight for abolition in Virginia. Jefferson counsels Coles to be quiet. Coles moves to Illinois, frees his slaves and gives each family 160 acres.

1817: New York's James Tallmadge introduces a bill to free all slaves in the state in ten years time. The bill passes.

1818: Illinois becomes a state. Despite the Northwest Ordinance, there are 900 "indentured" blacks.

1820: Missouri Compromise passes Congress. Missouri admitted to the US as slave state. Maine admitted as a free state. Slavery banned in US territories north of 36 degrees 30 minutes North latitude.

1820: New York still has 10,000 slaves. New Jersey has 7,500.

1827: New York frees its remaining slaves.

1830: Pennsylvania still has 400 slaves. New Jersey has 2,200 slaves. Delaware has 3,300 slaves and 16,000 free blacks.

1832: The Nullification Crisis begins when South Carolina tries to "nullify" a Federal tariff on imports, declaring that a state can ignore an obnoxious federal law . President Jackson and Henry Clay completely outmaneuver John Calhoun, who agrees to a mildly watered down tariff. South Carolina, defeated in the nullification issue, still asserts a theoretical right to secession.

1836-37: Arkansas admitted as a slave state and Michigan admitted as a free state, thus balancing the entry of slave and free states.

1842: Rhode Island no longer has any slaves.

1845: Florida is admitted as a slave state.

1845: Congress votes to admit Texas by a simple majority instead of the 2/3 majority needed for treaties. The House passes a pro-slavery statehood bill 118-101. In the Senate, 3 southern Whigs switch over, and Texas is admitted as a slave state 27-25.

1848: Connecticut frees all remaining slaves.

1850: Pennsylvania no longer has any slaves, the last one having died.

1850: Compromise. California admitted as a free state. Utah and New Mexico territories opened to slavery.

1854: Illinois Democrat Stephen Douglas pushes the Kansas-Nebraska Bill through US Congress. Slaves are permitted in territories north of 36 degrees 30 minutes North latitude, overturning the Missouri Compromise.

1857: US Supreme Court rules in Dred Scott vs. Sanford, that blacks are not citizens and the Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional, thus legalizing slavery in all territories.

1860: New Jersey still has 18 slaves according to census.

Dec. 1860: South Carolina secedes from USA.

Jan.-Feb. 1861: Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas secede to form the Confederate States of America (CSA) with South Carolina. Jefferson Davis of Mississippi is elected president.

May 1862: Gen. David Hunter declares all slaves free in his US army department on the South Carolina islands. President Lincoln revokes the order.

Sept. 1862: Emancipation Proclamation by President Lincoln frees all slaves in the rebellious states as of Jan. 1, 1863.

July 1864: President Lincoln faces the prospect of defeat in the fall elections unless US armies win victories. The opposing Democratic party vows to obtain peace, which is tantamount to recognizing the CSA.

Jan. 1865: Thirteenth Amendment, prohibiting slavery, is passed by the US Congress.

Dec. 1865: Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, ratified.

Link to above dates... http://members.aol.com/djmaschek/slavery_timeline.html

[Stoner]

I also forgot that lincoln was a democrat.


Actually no, he wasn't.

Lincoln is the only president to ever represent 2 political parties...and neither was the Democratic Party.

Lincoln represented the Republican Party and the National Union Party.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Slavery was abolished in new jersey in 1846. This was the end of a gradual abolishment of slavery which the state began in 1807: http://www.slavenorth.com/newjersey.htm.

And the order was rescinded by lincoln because he feared it would strengthen the confederacy. It's an issue of patience and the right move at the wrong time. It's not an issue of "let's keep slaves because we want slaves".

Besides, the unmistakeable reality is that the issue of slavery was a major issue leading up to the war, and the defeat of the south meant the end of slavery, while the defeat of the north meant the continuation of slavery. You cannot support the south without also taking that into account. And your "understand the times" argument only works when the particular time is not engulfed in controvery over that issue.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I also forgot that lincoln was a democrat.


Actually no, he wasn't.Â*Â*

Lincoln is the only president to ever represent 2 political parties...and neither was the Democratic Party.

Lincoln represented the Republican Party and the National Union Party.


After the part about clinton not freeing the slaves (and the fact that I quoted a ridiculous line from flea, which a condemnation of the democratic party followed a condemnation of lincoln not freeing the norths slaves), I thought the sarcasm was obvious.

[Oedipus Rex]

1. Slavery was abolished in new jersey in 1846. This was the end of a gradual abolishment of slavery which the state began in 1807: http://www.slavenorth.com/newjersey.htm.

2. And the order was rescinded by lincoln because he feared it would strengthen the confederacy. It's an issue of patience and the right move at the wrong time. It's not an issue of "let's keep slaves because we want slaves".

3. Besides, the unmistakeable reality is that the issue of slavery was a major issue leading up to the war, and the defeat of the south meant the end of slavery, while the defeat of the north meant the continuation of slavery. You cannot support the south without also taking that into account. And your "understand the times" argument only works when the particular time is not engulfed in controvery over that issue.


1. New Jersey, as well as other northern states, were telling a sovereign state how to conduct its own business. It took a Civil War and the 13th Amendment to end slavery.

2. Come on. It was a purely politically motivated move. He rescinded the Emancipation because he wanted the feather in his cap all to himself. Lincoln emancipated the slaves four months after General Hunter did it first. Also, Lincoln had no power to emancipate because the South had succeeded from the Union and the 5th Amendment provides for 'due process'. He violated the Constitution. You cannot free what isn't yours. Quite a simple theory.

3. Slavery was an issue before this nation existed. The Constitution did not explicitly prohibit the practice because without the Southern States, this country would never have existed. That's the reality, no matter how ugly it is on its surface.

[AlonzoMourning23]

1. New Jersey, as well as other northern states, were telling a sovereign state how to conduct its own business. It took a Civil War and the 13th Amendment to end slavery.

Yes, they were telling them they couldn't enslave millions of people. There's a bit of a difference there. Again, you seem to think the rights of nations are more important than the rights of the people living under it.

2. Come on. It was a purely politically motivated move. He rescinded the Emancipation because he wanted the feather in his cap all to himself. Lincoln emancipated the slaves four months after General Hunter did it first.

Ya, he decided how to fight the war depending on how good it made him look :rolleyes:.

Also, Lincoln had no power to emancipate because the South had succeeded from the Union and the 5th Amendment provides for 'due process'. He violated the Constitution. You cannot free what isn't yours. Quite a simple theory.

Not always in times of war. And the 5th amendment states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Were each of those slaves given due process? They were deprived of liberty, that seems more significant than the slaveowners being deprived of property.

The proclamation was issued in a time of war, and was a war act, but did not free the slaves in and of itself.

3. Slavery was an issue before this nation existed. The Constitution did not explicitly prohibit the practice because without the Southern States, this country would never have existed. That's the reality, no matter how ugly it is on its surface.


Slavery was an issue, but not that had any real momentum against it. Kind of like legal equality of racial and ethnic groups in the late 1850's. Wasn't close to reality yet, but was an idea in the minds of some. When the issue is brought to the forefront that's when who takes what side becomes important, as that's when individuals are forced to make a real choice.

But I can't believe I'm arguing with someone who thinks the right of the south to have slaves was valid and should be respected.

[ECW]

I also forgot that lincoln was a democrat.


Actually no, he wasn't.Â*Â*

Lincoln is the only president to ever represent 2 political parties...and neither was the Democratic Party.

Lincoln represented the Republican Party and the National Union Party.


Lincoln was one thing that no Republican is today: a liberal.

[Stoner]

Lincoln was one thing that no Republican is today: a liberal.


http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/signs006.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

[Oedipus Rex]

1. New Jersey, as well as other northern states, were telling a sovereign state how to conduct its own business. It took a Civil War and the 13th Amendment to end slavery.

Yes, they were telling them they couldn't enslave millions of people. There's a bit of a difference there. Again, you seem to think the rights of nations are more important than the rights of the people living under it.

2. Come on. It was a purely politically motivated move. He rescinded the Emancipation because he wanted the feather in his cap all to himself. Lincoln emancipated the slaves four months after General Hunter did it first.

Ya, he decided how to fight the war depending on how good it made him look :rolleyes:.

Also, Lincoln had no power to emancipate because the South had succeeded from the Union and the 5th Amendment provides for 'due process'. He violated the Constitution. You cannot free what isn't yours. Quite a simple theory.

Not always in times of war. And the 5th amendment states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Were each of those slaves given due process? They were deprived of liberty, that seems more significant than the slaveowners being deprived of property.

The proclamation was issued in a time of war, and was a war act, but did not free the slaves in and of itself.

3. Slavery was an issue before this nation existed. The Constitution did not explicitly prohibit the practice because without the Southern States, this country would never have existed. That's the reality, no matter how ugly it is on its surface.


Slavery was an issue, but not that had any real momentum against it. Kind of like legal equality of racial and ethnic groups in the late 1850's. Wasn't close to reality yet, but was an idea in the minds of some. When the issue is brought to the forefront that's when who takes what side becomes important, as that's when individuals are forced to make a real choice.

But I can't believe I'm arguing with someone who thinks the right of the south to have slaves was valid and should be respected.


You're not arguing with me. You're just trying to validate your point to me in terms of today as opposed to the the facts of yesteryear. While your points are worthy of consideration... today... they have no bearing on the politics of the past. There, I've made my point over and over again. I'm done with the subject for now.

[ECW]

Lincoln was one thing that no Republican is today: a liberal.


http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/signs006.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)


great comeback

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Lincoln was one thing that no Republican is today: a liberal.


Wow, a completely unsupported statement that has no basis in fact.

[Stoner]

Wow, a completely unsupported statement that has no basis in fact.


You were expecting something else from liberals?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Wow, a completely unsupported statement that has no basis in fact.


You were expecting something else from liberals?


The funny part is when he posts "great comeback", as if his post had any content to begin with.

[ECW]

Funny, the Master of the Opinion Without Proof accusing me of his own crime. Welcome back, Flea. Is your tail out from between your legs from the November to Remember? You ready to take your lessons again?

Lincoln was a Liberal because abolitionists were the liberals of the day. He also refused to be punative towards the South the way the Radical Republicans wanted him to be which is another Liberal way of thinking on his part. Kind of bites to think that the leader of your party, the one that put you on the map, is a Liberal thru and thru. Eh?

(On a side point: Lincoln's a role model for presidents on how to fight a successful war against insurgents. Another Liberal trait. Too bad Chimpy never read that much in college to pick that up.)

[AlonzoMourning23]

1. New Jersey, as well as other northern states, were telling a sovereign state how to conduct its own business. It took a Civil War and the 13th Amendment to end slavery.

Yes, they were telling them they couldn't enslave millions of people. There's a bit of a difference there. Again, you seem to think the rights of nations are more important than the rights of the people living under it.

2. Come on. It was a purely politically motivated move. He rescinded the Emancipation because he wanted the feather in his cap all to himself. Lincoln emancipated the slaves four months after General Hunter did it first.

Ya, he decided how to fight the war depending on how good it made him look :rolleyes:.

Also, Lincoln had no power to emancipate because the South had succeeded from the Union and the 5th Amendment provides for 'due process'. He violated the Constitution. You cannot free what isn't yours. Quite a simple theory.

Not always in times of war. And the 5th amendment states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Were each of those slaves given due process? They were deprived of liberty, that seems more significant than the slaveowners being deprived of property.

The proclamation was issued in a time of war, and was a war act, but did not free the slaves in and of itself.

3. Slavery was an issue before this nation existed. The Constitution did not explicitly prohibit the practice because without the Southern States, this country would never have existed. That's the reality, no matter how ugly it is on its surface.


Slavery was an issue, but not that had any real momentum against it. Kind of like legal equality of racial and ethnic groups in the late 1850's. Wasn't close to reality yet, but was an idea in the minds of some. When the issue is brought to the forefront that's when who takes what side becomes important, as that's when individuals are forced to make a real choice.

But I can't believe I'm arguing with someone who thinks the right of the south to have slaves was valid and should be respected.


You're not arguing with me. You're just trying to validate your point to me in terms of today as opposed to the the facts of yesteryear. While your points are worthy of consideration... today... they have no bearing on the politics of the past. There, I've made my point over and over again. I'm done with the subject for now.


And you repeatedly ignore the fact that, within the politics of the day, there was an opposing side that agreed with me. That's the side you are saying was wrong.

[Oedipus Rex]

And you repeatedly ignore the fact that, within the politics of the day, there was an opposing side that agreed with me. That's the side you are saying was wrong.



Anyone with a small amount of reasoning should know that there are always two sides of everything. You gave yours and I gave mine. Mine were backed by the Bill of Rights. And to me, yours were back by emotion.

That isn't to say you're wrong in your opinions but it is to say that I'm legally correct in my POV as supported by the BoR.

Why is this such an important issue with you?

[AlonzoMourning23]

Actually, the bill of rights does not grant the right to secede from the union. I also remember something about not being deprived of liberty without due process, and of all men being created equal.

[Oedipus Rex]

Actually, the bill of rights does not grant the right to secede from the union. I also remember something about not being deprived of liberty without due process, and of all men being created equal.


Yet it took a Civil War and the 13th Amendment to outlaw slavery (1865).

Look, I 'get' your point. You just don't 'get' mine.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Lincoln was a Liberal because abolitionists were the liberals of the day.


Abolitionists were religious nuts, not liberals, and Lincoln was no abolitionist.



As usual, another wrong answer by you. I had hoped this board might get a better class of liberal while I was gone. Oh well.

[ECW]

Lincoln was a Liberal because abolitionists were the liberals of the day.


Abolitionists were religious nuts, not liberals, and Lincoln was no abolitionist.

Sez you. Let's see, he freed slaves in secessionist territory and planned to free all the slaves once the war was over. Sounds like an abolitionist to me. And he sounds like a Liberal as well.

As usual, another wrong answer by you. I had hoped this board might get a better class of liberal while I was gone. Oh well.


Bring some proof to the table instead of your whining and wailing and the whole board will improve, as if by magic. THAT would be too much to hope for. Glad to see nothing has changed on your end: still whipping out opinions as if they were fact and complaining when no one bothers to take you seriously. It makes my job that much easier disproving you.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Sez you. Let's see, he freed slaves in secessionist territory and planned to free all the slaves once the war was over. Sounds like an abolitionist to me. And he sounds like a Liberal as well.


I can picture you there with your fingers in your ears going LALALALALALALA!

Lincoln was not an abolitionist by any stretch of the definition, he publicly said he had no intention of freeing slaves, and only freed them as an act of war, not out of abolitionist ideals, which he had not.

Bush is more of a liberal than Lincoln was.

[MAP2010.wireless]

Sez you. Let's see, he freed slaves in secessionist territory and planned to free all the slaves once the war was over. Sounds like an abolitionist to me. And he sounds like a Liberal as well.


I can picture you there with your fingers in your ears going LALALALALALALA!

Lincoln was not an abolitionist by any stretch of the definition, he publicly said he had no intention of freeing slaves, and only freed them as an act of war, not out of abolitionist ideals, which he had not.

Bush is more of a liberal than Lincoln was.


Even if he did not do it to free the slaves, I thank God he did.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Even if he did not do it to free the slaves, I thank God he did.


Why wouldn't you prefer that he didn't start a war that make Iraq look like like a schoolyard fight to do what other countries did in the courts?

Lincoln mishandled the whole thing to a degree that would be hard to replicate if you tried to do the worst job possible.

And even given that he did free the slaves, why do you think it OK that he only freed them in the states that seceded? Are you for slavery in the northern states?

[MAP2010.wireless]

Even if he did not do it to free the slaves, I thank God he did.


Why wouldn't you prefer that he didn't start a war that make Iraq look like like a schoolyard fight to do what other countries did in the courts?

Lincoln mishandled the whole thing to a degree that would be hard to replicate if you tried to do the worst job possible.

And even given that he did free the slaves, why do you think it OK that he only freed them in the states that seceded? Are you for slavery in the northern states?


It starts some where and at that time you would be killed to even try, and thats why he died.

[AlonzoMourning23]

flea, in what northern states was slavery legal in?

[Oedipus Rex]

Even if he did not do it to free the slaves, I thank God he did.


And even given that he did free the slaves, why do you think it OK that he only freed them in the states that seceded? Are you for slavery in the northern states?


If the Southern states succeeded, did lincoln really have the power to emancipate the slaves? Let's assume emancipation could be done... doesn't it take an act of Congress at the very least? If the 13th Amendment was needed to end slavery, the an emancipation by Lincoln wasn't worth the paper it was printed on, right?

[Oedipus Rex]

flea, in what northern states was slavery legal in?


At different times... ALL.

[MAP2010.wireless]

Even if he did not do it to free the slaves, I thank God he did.


And even given that he did free the slaves, why do you think it OK that he only freed them in the states that seceded? Are you for slavery in the northern states?


If the Southern states succeeded, did lincoln really have the power to emancipate the slaves? Let's assume emancipation could be done... doesn't it take an act of Congress at the very least? If the 13th Amendment was needed to end slavery, the an emancipation by Lincoln wasn't worth the paper it was printed on, right?


My point is I thank God that Blacks can vote and that they Free, It was wrong to have slaves. And Thank God they are Free.

The Confederate Flag has many meanings but so many place a hateful meaning, Just because of the fact they are not like them.

We are no better then only one, so if we should have Freedom so should every one.

[AlonzoMourning23]

flea, in what northern states was slavery legal in?


At different times... ALL.


That's nice, obvious, but nice. Maybe you should have read flea's posts.

If you noticed flea is ranting about lincoln not freeing northern slaves. What states was slavery legal in the north during the civil war and how many slaves were there? The only ones I'm aware of that had slaves at that late were a few border states that were temporarily allowed to keep slaves on the condition that they did not secede.

[MAP2010.wireless]

flea, in what northern states was slavery legal in?


At different times... ALL.


Northern States Are the Frist states to Free the Slaves.
Not the South, the South was the last to Free Slaves.

Mark

[ECW]

Sez you. Let's see, he freed slaves in secessionist territory and planned to free all the slaves once the war was over. Sounds like an abolitionist to me. And he sounds like a Liberal as well.


I can picture you there with your fingers in your ears going LALALALALALALA!

And I can picture you there...

Well, never mind. I'm not going to give my yound friend Nitrus another chance to ding me over what I can picture you doing. And Chimpy is as much of a Liberal as you are.

[Oedipus Rex]

flea, in what northern states was slavery legal in?


At different times... ALL.


That's nice, obvious, but nice. Maybe you should have read flea's posts.

If you noticed flea is ranting about lincoln not freeing northern slaves. What states was slavery legal in the north during the civil war and how many slaves were there? The only ones I'm aware of that had slaves at that late were a few border states that were temporarily allowed to keep slaves on the condition that they did not secede.


Isn't this an example of 'generalization' that you tried to ding me on? Just thought I'd point it out for you.

Here's part of what was posted on post #62...

1842: Rhode Island no longer has any slaves.

1845: Florida is admitted as a slave state.

1845: Congress votes to admit Texas by a simple majority instead of the 2/3 majority needed for treaties. The House passes a pro-slavery statehood bill 118-101. In the Senate, 3 southern Whigs switch over, and Texas is admitted as a slave state 27-25.

1848: Connecticut frees all remaining slaves.

1850: Pennsylvania no longer has any slaves, the last one having died.

1850: Compromise. California admitted as a free state. Utah and New Mexico territories opened to slavery.

1854: Illinois Democrat Stephen Douglas pushes the Kansas-Nebraska Bill through US Congress. Slaves are permitted in territories north of 36 degrees 30 minutes North latitude, overturning the Missouri Compromise.

1857: US Supreme Court rules in Dred Scott vs. Sanford, that blacks are not citizens and the Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional, thus legalizing slavery in all territories.

1860: New Jersey still has 18 slaves according to census.

Dec. 1860: South Carolina secedes from USA.

Jan.-Feb. 1861: Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas secede to form the Confederate States of America (CSA) with South Carolina. Jefferson Davis of Mississippi is elected president.

May 1862: Gen. David Hunter declares all slaves free in his US army department on the South Carolina islands. President Lincoln revokes the order.

Sept. 1862: Emancipation Proclamation by President Lincoln frees all slaves in the rebellious states as of Jan. 1, 1863.

July 1864: President Lincoln faces the prospect of defeat in the fall elections unless US armies win victories. The opposing Democratic party vows to obtain peace, which is tantamount to recognizing the CSA.

Jan. 1865: Thirteenth Amendment, prohibiting slavery, is passed by the US Congress.

Dec. 1865: Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, ratified.


******************************************


Yep, sounds Southern and border states to me. Check your facts.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Northern States Are the Frist states to Free the Slaves.
Not the South, the South was the last to Free Slaves.

Mark


The northern states abolished slavery, but some left existing slaves in bondage. When Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation, he left northern slaves still in bondage.

[underdawg]

Even to this day Northern states like Illinois still have sundown towns.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

1860: New Jersey still has 18 slaves according to census.


Yep, sounds Southern and border states to me. Check your facts.


And New Jersey. Also you leave out Indian slavery, I would check your source because it claims california was a free state, yet fransiscans sold indians as slaves up till 1867, perhaps other states as well.

Why didn't Lincoln free the slaves in new jersey, and the indian slaves?

[Oedipus Rex]

Even to this day Northern states like Illinois still have sundown towns.


Lemme guess... that's where the blacks had better be out of town by sundown?

[BoogyMan]

Even to this dayÂ*Â*Northern states like Illinois still have sundown towns.


For anyone not aware of what a sundown town is see the writeup at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_town

[Oedipus Rex]

1860: New Jersey still has 18 slaves according to census.


Yep, sounds Southern and border states to me. Check your facts.


And New Jersey. Also you leave out Indian slavery, I would check your source because it claims california was a free state, yet fransiscans sold indians as slaves up till 18867, perhaps other states as well.

Why didn't Lincoln free the slaves in new jersey, and the indian slaves?


Here's a fact I'll bet many folks don't know... some of the biggest slave holders in the South were black.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

The guy freed in Amistad, Joseph Cinqué, was reported to have become a slave trader after he was freed.

[Oedipus Rex]

The guy freed in Amistad, Joseph Cinqué, was reported to have become a slave trader after he was freed.


Try these links...

http://www.epado.bravehost.com/whiteslaves05.htm

Harry Koger, in Black Slave Owners. Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, reported on the success of Black women in Charleston.

"By 1860, so many Black women in Charleston had inherited or been given slaves and other property by white men, and used their property to start successful businesses, that they owned 70% of the Black owned slaves in the city."[36]

From Kroger's work, it is noted that free Black slave owners resided in states as north as New York and as far south as Florida, extending westward into Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Missouri. According to the federal census of 1830, free blacks owned more than 10,000 slaves in Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia. The majority of black slave owners lived in Louisiana and planted sugar cane.[37]



http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4).

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings (5). In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners (6).

[MAP2010.wireless]

I can only wish one day people will not hate because of race.
I have no respect for others who hate because of race.

Mark

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I can only wish one day people will not hate because of race.



The way to achieve that is to eliminate all races but one.

[AlonzoMourning23]

1857: US Supreme Court rules in Dred Scott vs. Sanford, that blacks are not citizens and the Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional, thus legalizing slavery in all territories.

And all northern states had laws on the books declaring slavery illegal. The dred scott decision did not reverse those laws. It prohibited congress from deciding whether or not states could ban slavery, and it prohibited laws that automatically freed slaves upon entering free states. It did not allow a residents of boston to acquire a slave.

1860: New Jersey still has 18 slaves according to census.

New jersey had enacted laws that effectly meant the end of slavery, but were gradual.

Revolutionary Era

In the 18th century, especially during the Revolutionary era, the contrast between the institution of slavery and the principles of human rights endorsed by New Jersey patriots and Quakers resulted in outspoken opposition to slavery and attempts to cause the colonial legislature to end the slave trade. Despite the service of slaves in patriot military forces and their work on the home front, the 1776 Constitution of the new state of New Jersey did not abolish slavery. Indeed, New Jersey and New York were the only northern states that did not move to limit slavery during the Revolutionary War.
By 1800 there were an estimated 12,422 enslaved men and women in New Jersey, or 5.8 percent of the population. Some steps were taken by the legislature during the late 18th century to improve the condition of slaves, but it was not until 1804 that the New Jersey legislature passed the Act for the Gradual Emancipation of Slavery. Under this act, children born to an enslaved woman after July 4, 1804 were free. However, the law provided that female children were obligated to serve their mother’s owner until the age of 21, and male children were obligated until the age of 25. If an owner did not wish to enforce this obligation, he or she could abandon the infant to the local overseers of the poor when it was one year old and be relieved of its care. People who were born into slavery before July 4, 1804 were slaves for life unless their owners chose to manumit them, that is, to give them their freedom. Even as late as the Civil War there were still a few very elderly slaves in New Jersey.

http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/njwomenshistory/wpnj2/3aSlavery.htm

Though I have to wonder why flea can't argue for himself, and why you feel the need to answer all his questions for him.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

New jersey had enacted laws that effectly meant the end of slavery, but were gradual.


Completely meaningless to this debate, Jersey DID have slaves, Lincoln did not free them, he specifically only freed slaves when he could get political gain from it, and was content to leave a slave in bondage if it suited him politically.

Lincoln was no abolitionist.

[Oedipus Rex]

Though I have to wonder why flea can't argue for himself, and why you feel the need to answer all his questions for him.


I don't believe I answered for anyone but myself. Of course, you'd know better than I, what I'm thinking.:P

[MAP2010.wireless]

I can only wish one day people will not hate because of race.



The way to achieve that is to eliminate all races but one.


I'm not sure if you mean it will never happen because there will always be hate or because you hated others. You may want to state it clearly because I hope you are not ok with other races being killed.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I hope you are not ok with other races being killed.


I'm OK with saddam being hanged and he is another race.

Do you think he should be spared because of his race?

[MAP2010.wireless]

I hope you are not ok with other races being killed.


I'm OK with saddam being hanged and he is another race.

Do you think he should be spared because of his race?


"I'm not sure if you mean it will never happen because there will always be hate or because you hated others. You may want to state it clearly because I hope you are not ok with other races being killed."

Your post sounded as if you think the only way to stop hate is to kill every one who is not your race, so I was asking do you think its ok to kill off people because of their race?

Saddam is not being killed because of his race, hes being killed because he is a killer.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Your post sounded as if you think the only way to stop hate is to kill every one who is not your race


The only way to stop racism is to have one race. That won't stop hatred, but it will stop racially based hatred. Nothing else will stop racially based hatred.

That's just common sense.

[MAP2010.wireless]

Your post sounded as if you think the only way to stop hate is to kill every one who is not your race


The only way to stop racism is to have one race. That won't stop hatred, but it will stop racially based hatred. Nothing else will stop racially based hatred.

That's just common sense.


I respect all races and feel that we all are the same, none greater and none less. We are all made by God.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I respect all races and feel that we all are the same, none greater and none less. We are all made by God.


That's real nice and all, but guess what? Racial hatred and tension is exactly the same as before you said it.

So what's your plan for getting all the races to live in peace like the telletubbies?

[MAP2010.wireless]

I respect all races and feel that we all are the same, none greater and none less. We are all made by God.


That's real nice and all, but guess what? Racial hatred and tension is exactly the same as before you said it.

So what's your plan for getting all the races to live in peace like the telletubbies?


Its starts with yourself then with others, you must frist not hate then it will spead. If you hate then that will spead.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Its starts with yourself then with others, you must frist not hate then it will spead. If you hate then that will spead.


How is that supposed to work?

[ECW]

Its starts with yourself then with others, you must frist not hate then it will spead. If you hate then that will spead.


How is that supposed to work?


It's rare that I agree with MAP but I get it. Not surprised that you don't.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Its starts with yourself then with others, you must frist not hate then it will spead. If you hate then that will spead.


How is that supposed to work?


It's rare that I agree with MAP but I get it. Not surprised that you don't.


Then explain it. How is you not being racist going to make every other human all over the world suddenly become non racist, because as a theory it sounds pretty weak, and silly.

[Oedipus Rex]

Its starts with yourself then with others, you must frist not hate then it will spead. If you hate then that will spead.


How is that supposed to work?


It's rare that I agree with MAP but I get it. Not surprised that you don't.


You and I are both Southern boys. We were always taught to be respectful to our elders and to always treat a woman as a lady until she proves herself to be otherwise. That said, some people take kindness for weakness. Those folks only understand you if you relate to them on their level.

[ECW]

Its starts with yourself then with others, you must frist not hate then it will spead. If you hate then that will spead.


How is that supposed to work?


It's rare that I agree with MAP but I get it. Not surprised that you don't.


You and I are both Southern boys. We were always taught to be respectful to our elders and to always treat a woman as a lady until she proves herself to be otherwise. That said, some people take kindness for weakness. Those folks only understand you if you relate to them on their level.


Exactly. If you give kindness, you can tell the relative civilized nature of a person if they return the kindness. Those folks you never have a problem with. It's the others who ruin it for the rest by spreading their hate. Standing up to the hatred and spreading love is the only way that racism or any other kind of hate gets beaten.

But like I said, I wasn't expecting you to get it, flea.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Standing up to the hatred and spreading love is the only way that racism or any other kind of hate gets beaten.


So, according to this theory if we had loved the Nazi's instead of fighting them, we could have saved 6 million jews and the world would be a telletubbie paradise run by Father Hitler, who replaced father Christmas as the best guy ever??

Well, again I just can't see it, can you explain this plan of yours?

[ECW]

Standing up to the hatred and spreading love is the only way that racism or any other kind of hate gets beaten.


So, according to this theory if we had loved the Nazi's instead of fighting them, we could have saved 6 million jews and the world would be a telletubbie paradise run by Father Hitler, who replaced father Christmas as the best guy ever??

Well, again I just can't see it, can you explain this plan of yours?


We stood up to the Nazis and saved Germany. We weren't able to save the Jews because we didn't get there in time. Now Germany is one of our closest allies as is Israel. That's how it's done.

I'm not surprised that you don't see it. There's a lot of that going around tonight.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Standing up to the hatred and spreading love is the only way that racism or any other kind of hate gets beaten.


So, according to this theory if we had loved the Nazi's instead of fighting them, we could have saved 6 million jews and the world would be a telletubbie paradise run by Father Hitler, who replaced father Christmas as the best guy ever??

Well, again I just can't see it, can you explain this plan of yours?


We stood up to the Nazis and saved Germany. We weren't able to save the Jews because we didn't get there in time. Now Germany is one of our closest allies as is Israel. That's how it's done.


But that has nothing to do with this silly pipe dream of spreading peace by giving kindness. In fact if you studied history you would realize that chamberlin tried this kindness bit and it lead to those six million jews dying. It was only by violence, and lots of it that peace was temporarily reached.

It's like your saying you can eat broth with a fork, then you pull out a spoon and say that proves a fork will work, there is a complete disconnect between what you say and reality.

[ECW]

Sorry but it was Hitler, not Chamberlain, who was responsible for the six million deaths. I guess when you set up Strawmen to knock down to make your point, time for reasonable discussion must come to a close.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Sorry but it was Hitler, not Chamberlain, who was responsible for the six million deaths.


How so, did chamberlin not follow your fool proof plan of thinking kind thoughts? After all that is how you defeat hate, right?

Or were you kidding when you posted that naive foolishness?

[MAP2010.wireless]

If we are open to other races and treat them with respect as we should others will do the same, but its the same thinking where you feel peace will only come by death of others then you will never see what peace is. If help others to respect and be kind then they will respect and be kind, if I hate and wish death for this peace then how do I think they will not wish the same on me? You said there can not be peace till there is only one race, thats sad. We should stand up to the one who wish us death and protect the ones who wish to respect others right to live, death of others is not a way to peace.

War is not a way to peace, its only the way to protect the weak from the people who say there should only be one race.

Mark Pendergraft

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

If we are open to other races and treat them with respect as we should others will do the same


So you are claiming the jews didn't treat the nazi's with respect and that is why they were slaughtered like dogs by the nazi's?

Can you expand on that? How did the jews fail to show respect? What advice would you have given them to appear more respectful so the nazi's would have left them alone?

[MAP2010.wireless]

If we are open to other races and treat them with respect as we should others will do the same


So you are claiming the jews didn't treat the nazi's with respect and that is why they were slaughtered like dogs by the nazi's?

Can you expand on that? How did the jews fail to show respect? What advice would you have given them to appear more respectful so the nazi's would have left them alone?


You come up with some crazy ideas, I really have no clue where you get that from.

What I said is this, people like you and Hitler who think there should only be one race is why we went over there and kick there @ss.
We protect others right to live, people like you think you must kill to find peace and only by kill off other races will you find this.

One more point. What makes you think your race will be the standing, if you feel this way what is keeping others from think the same about your race. Hate is hate and only when you change your heart will others change theirs.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

[
What I said is this, people like you and Hitler who think there should only be one race is why we went over there and kick there @ss.


Well, I never said there should be only one race, and I am not sure hitler ever did either, but you are still making zero sense at all.

You said by not hating you could basically stop racism, but killing is what stopped the german racism (and the fact that they did pretty much get rid of the jews didn't hurt)

How does this not hating stop other people from being racist? Because it sounds like it doesn't work at all and you have completely failed to support this claim whatsoever.

[MAP2010.wireless]

[
What I said is this, people like you and Hitler who think there should only be one race is why we went over there and kick there @ss.


Well, I never said there should be only one race, and I am not sure hitler ever did either, but you are still making zero sense at all.

You said by not hating you could basically stop racism, but killing is what stopped the german racism (and the fact that they did pretty much get rid of the jews didn't hurt)

How does this not hating stop other people from being racist? Because it sounds like it doesn't work at all and you have completely failed to support this claim whatsoever.


You have the right to think and feel what you want, but I now know its a waist of time to talk with you. If you mean you think it was good to kill the Jews, then you have lost any respect I could have had for you.

I think you should seek help.


Mark Pendergraft

[MAP2010.wireless]

Its starts with yourself then with others, you must frist not hate then it will spead. If you hate then that will spead.


How is that supposed to work?


It's rare that I agree with MAP but I get it. Not surprised that you don't.


Thanks, I think Flea comes up with some crazy stuff.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

You have the right to think and feel what you want, but I now know its a waist of time to talk with you.


As I thought, you are completely unable to provide one shred of logic or example to this idea that racism will stop because you don't feel it.


Next time leave your new age magic at the door when rational discussion is involved, OK?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Thanks, I think Flea comes up with some crazy stuff.


What crazy stuff? You remind me of the stoners at woodstock chanting "no rain", thinking they can stop the rain with a wish. You can't end racism with a wish, and nothing I have seen posted here is crazier than that.

[MAP2010.wireless]

You have the right to think and feel what you want, but I now know its a waist of time to talk with you.


As I thought, you are completely unable to provide one shred of logic or example to this idea that racism will stop because you don't feel it.


Next time leave your new age magic at the door when rational discussion is involved, OK?


I'm going to be respectful and say you really need to seek help, you say crazy off the wall stuff and who knows what you mean. You sound like your sick and need some help, whatever it is you have some crazy ideas and are a waist of my time. And you say Logic, I hope you get some next year for Christmas because you did not get none this year. And I think you are Very Racist.

Mark

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I'm going to be respectful and say you really need to seek help, you say crazy off the wall stuff and who knows what you mean. You sound like your sick and need some help, whatever it is you have some crazy ideas and are a waist of my time. And you say Logic, I hope you get some next year for Christmas because you did not get none this year. And I think you are Very Racist.

Mark


If you really want to be respectful, then stop the personal attacks and explain how you are going to wish racism away.

[MAP2010.wireless]

I'm going to be respectful and say you really need to seek help, you say crazy off the wall stuff and who knows what you mean. You sound like your sick and need some help, whatever it is you have some crazy ideas and are a waist of my time. And you say Logic, I hope you get some next year for Christmas because you did not get none this year. And I think you are Very Racist.

Mark


If you really want to be respectful, then stop the personal attacks and explain how you are going to wish racism away.


To the point I may act Repectful but I have to use or respect for you.
And Because of your off the wall post its a waist of time.

This will be my last post to you.

Mark Pendergraft

[Nitrus]

EVERYBODY CALM DOWN. FLEA, YOU HAVE TURNED WHAT MAP' SAID INTO SOMETHING HE WASNT IMPLYING AT ALL. YOU TWIST HIS WORDS AND THEN REPORT HIM. THIS IS NOT ON. UNLESS HE SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT YOU ARE RACIST

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

EVERYBODY CALM DOWN. FLEA, YOU HAVE TURNED WHAT MAP' SAID INTO SOMETHING HE WASNT IMPLYING AT ALL. YOU TWIST HIS WORDS AND THEN REPORT HIM. THIS IS NOT ON. UNLESS HE SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT YOU ARE RACIST


He did say he thinks I am very racist. So as a moderator you are telling me I can call anyone anything I want as long as I say "I think you are a ..." rather than "you are a ..."?

Also, I have not twisted his words at all, he made a claim that seemed very silly to me, that you could end racism with positive vibes or whatever. I have asked him to clarify that several times and he simply resorts to his childish namecalling.

So answer my question about moderation, and if it's allowed I'll tell you what I think you are :P

[Nitrus]

Personally I do not think that "I think you are very racist" as a personal attack it is an opinion.

I can see that he generally did express his opinion rather than say "I think that you are.." to mask a personal attack, it is not a generic rule, it is a judgment and each post and comment will be judged independently.

Ok?