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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

"Moved. Banned. What's the difference? Removing it from the public view or hiding it away is essentially banning it."

Wrong.

It makes a world of difference, one having nothing to do with the another; where removing a flag from state property is in no way 'essentially' a 'ban.'

A ban means that to display the flag one would be subject to some sort of punitive measure by government, such as fine or other penalty – and no such measure exists in any state or jurisdiction.

Moreover, flags on government property constitute government speech, and government is at liberty to discontinue that speech as it sees fit, an act that does not 'violate' the First Amendment. (Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans (2015))

Last, the premise of your thread fails, the consequence of your ignorance and stupidity.

 

[TemplarKormac]

As for rape...wow. That takes the cake. It's not the responsibility of men to control their urgings, it's the responsibility of women to not provoke those urgings? Simply wow. Free pass to rapists folks - it's not their fault.

Wow. No. You think I want men to rape scantly clad women walking down the sidewalk? But if you're going to dress like that, you're inviting it on yourself. Safety first, am I right?

 

[Coyote]

As for rape...wow. That takes the cake. It's not the responsibility of men to control their urgings, it's the responsibility of women to not provoke those urgings? Simply wow. Free pass to rapists folks - it's not their fault.

Wow. No. You think I want men to rape scantly clad women walking down the sidewalk? But if you're going to dress like that, you're inviting it on yourself. Safety first, am I right?

Common sense dictates safety first. However, in this country a woman has the right to be able to go out anwhere, dressed as she pleases and be safe - and most certainly not be blamed for "inviting" a rape! That excuse has been used since time inmemorial to put the onus on the victim not the perpetrator of the act. Who decides what "dressed like that" means? Different eras..different cultures....is she showing to much ankle, leg, bare skin, her neck, her hair...should she be in a burkha in case she inflames men's passions? All these cultures and eras have placed the blame on the woman.

 

[Coyote]

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

He might be referring to the fact of the removal of the purchase of the confederate flag from a vast majority of websites. I would not classify that as a "move".

Incidentally, the Civil War was over state rights and the power of a Federal Government to impose its power over them. If it was over the issue of slavery itself we wouldn't find this statement from President Lincoln:

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation warning that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state that did not end its rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863. None of the Confederate states restored themselves to the Union, and Lincoln's order, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect.

What of those slaves in the north, as it's well documented that the union also had slaves themselves. William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865. U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865.

Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased — they were inherited) in 1862!

I always prefer to do a little digging into personally fact checking our U.S. history, instead of simply going with what the popular agenda in society tries to sell you.

There's a current movement to white wash the confederacy with a new "popular agenda".

Sure - individuals on both sides owned or freed slaves. But that's little more than a minor detail.

It's disengenius to say it wasn't over slavery. The issue of slavery was integral to "state's rights" - specifically the right to own, breed and sell humanity. As each new territory became a state, it had to be designated a slave state or non-slave state in order to maintain the balance of states legalizing the ownership of human beings by other human beings.

This latest attempt at minimizing the issue of slavery is just that - an effort to minimize. You can not unweave the history of slavery from the southern state's right's cause.

Again, I bring the documented fact of Lincoln's threat to the southern states, the reason behind the emancipation proclamation, to force those southern states back into the union by freeing slaves in those states that stand in opposition to the north. It clearly isolates those southern states in particular and not on the United States as a whole, that is a BIG difference. The fact men leading those union troops continued to have slaves even at the conclusion of the civil war is another damning fact. Lincoln's use of the preliminary proclamation in September 22, 1862 was a strategic decision to hurt the south economically. If not, he would have made the initial decision at that point to free ALL slaves, not just within those states in rebellion. His statement clearly doesn't make that claim. Even after that controversy that would follow the civil war, equality wouldn't be accepted until the battle for the civil rights movement in the middle of the next century.

The most damning fact was not acts of individuals, but states demanding the right to own slaves and making sure the number of slave holding states equaled non-slave owning states. You can't unwind slavery from the Civil War which is what you are trying to do. It was not the ONLY cause, but it was far from being marginal.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Get back in the basement, kid. You don't have any clue what you're talking about.

The old bat has spoken. All hail the old bat......and her bad ass hurrycane

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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

He might be referring to the fact of the removal of the purchase of the confederate flag from a vast majority of websites. I would not classify that as a "move".

Incidentally, the Civil War was over state rights and the power of a Federal Government to impose its power over them. If it was over the issue of slavery itself we wouldn't find this statement from President Lincoln:

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation warning that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state that did not end its rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863. None of the Confederate states restored themselves to the Union, and Lincoln's order, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect.

What of those slaves in the north, as it's well documented that the union also had slaves themselves. William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865. U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865.

Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased — they were inherited) in 1862!

I always prefer to do a little digging into personally fact checking our U.S. history, instead of simply going with what the popular agenda in society tries to sell you.

There's a current movement to white wash the confederacy with a new "popular agenda".

Sure - individuals on both sides owned or freed slaves. But that's little more than a minor detail.

It's disengenius to say it wasn't over slavery. The issue of slavery was integral to "state's rights" - specifically the right to own, breed and sell humanity. As each new territory became a state, it had to be designated a slave state or non-slave state in order to maintain the balance of states legalizing the ownership of human beings by other human beings.

This latest attempt at minimizing the issue of slavery is just that - an effort to minimize. You can not unweave the history of slavery from the southern state's right's cause.

Again, I bring the documented fact of Lincoln's threat to the southern states, the reason behind the emancipation proclamation, to force those southern states back into the union by freeing slaves in those states that stand in opposition to the north. It clearly isolates those southern states in particular and not on the United States as a whole, that is a BIG difference. The fact men leading those union troops continued to have slaves even at the conclusion of the civil war is another damning fact. Lincoln's use of the preliminary proclamation in September 22, 1862 was a strategic decision to hurt the south economically. If not, he would have made the initial decision at that point to free ALL slaves, not just within those states in rebellion. His statement clearly doesn't make that claim. Even after that controversy that would follow the civil war, equality wouldn't be accepted until the battle for the civil rights movement in the middle of the next century.

The most damning fact was not acts of individuals, but states demanding the right to own slaves and making sure the number of slave holding states equaled non-slave owning states. You can't unwind slavery from the Civil War which is what you are trying to do. It was not the ONLY cause, but it was far from being marginal.

I hate to keep bringing up facts, but here it goes.

Union Army setbacks in battles over the summer of 1862 led Lincoln to emancipate all slaves in states at war with the Union. In September 1862, Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, announcing that all slaves in rebellious states would be free as of January 1. Recruitment of colored regiments began in full force following the Proclamation of January 1863.

Again it was a strategic decision by President Lincoln who was losing a war against General Lee and the south. The emancipation provision was ONLY against those states in rebellion against the north. It doesn't come any clearer than that, you can't dispute documented historical facts. You haven't produced any facts to explain the evidence provided. WHY did president Lincoln otherwise free slaves ONLY in those states in rebellion, and not ALL slaves across the United States?

 

[bodecea]

As for rape...wow. That takes the cake. It's not the responsibility of men to control their urgings, it's the responsibility of women to not provoke those urgings? Simply wow. Free pass to rapists folks - it's not their fault.

Wow. No. You think I want men to rape scantly clad women walking down the sidewalk? But if you're going to dress like that, you're inviting it on yourself. Safety first, am I right?

Have you have your con-federate flags taken away yet?

 

[Coyote]

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

He might be referring to the fact of the removal of the purchase of the confederate flag from a vast majority of websites. I would not classify that as a "move".

Incidentally, the Civil War was over state rights and the power of a Federal Government to impose its power over them. If it was over the issue of slavery itself we wouldn't find this statement from President Lincoln:

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation warning that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state that did not end its rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863. None of the Confederate states restored themselves to the Union, and Lincoln's order, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect.

What of those slaves in the north, as it's well documented that the union also had slaves themselves. William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865. U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865.

Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased — they were inherited) in 1862!

I always prefer to do a little digging into personally fact checking our U.S. history, instead of simply going with what the popular agenda in society tries to sell you.

There's a current movement to white wash the confederacy with a new "popular agenda".

Sure - individuals on both sides owned or freed slaves. But that's little more than a minor detail.

It's disengenius to say it wasn't over slavery. The issue of slavery was integral to "state's rights" - specifically the right to own, breed and sell humanity. As each new territory became a state, it had to be designated a slave state or non-slave state in order to maintain the balance of states legalizing the ownership of human beings by other human beings.

This latest attempt at minimizing the issue of slavery is just that - an effort to minimize. You can not unweave the history of slavery from the southern state's right's cause.

Again, I bring the documented fact of Lincoln's threat to the southern states, the reason behind the emancipation proclamation, to force those southern states back into the union by freeing slaves in those states that stand in opposition to the north. It clearly isolates those southern states in particular and not on the United States as a whole, that is a BIG difference. The fact men leading those union troops continued to have slaves even at the conclusion of the civil war is another damning fact. Lincoln's use of the preliminary proclamation in September 22, 1862 was a strategic decision to hurt the south economically. If not, he would have made the initial decision at that point to free ALL slaves, not just within those states in rebellion. His statement clearly doesn't make that claim. Even after that controversy that would follow the civil war, equality wouldn't be accepted until the battle for the civil rights movement in the middle of the next century.

The most damning fact was not acts of individuals, but states demanding the right to own slaves and making sure the number of slave holding states equaled non-slave owning states. You can't unwind slavery from the Civil War which is what you are trying to do. It was not the ONLY cause, but it was far from being marginal.

I hate to keep bringing up facts, but here it goes.

Union Army setbacks in battles over the summer of 1862 led Lincoln to emancipate all slaves in states at war with the Union. In September 1862, Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, announcing that all slaves in rebellious states would be free as of January 1. Recruitment of colored regiments began in full force following the Proclamation of January 1863.

Again it was a strategic decision by President Lincoln who was losing a war against General Lee and the south. The emancipation provision was ONLY against those states in rebellion against the north. It doesn't come any clearer than that, you can't dispute documents historical facts. You haven't produced any facts to explain the evidence provided.

Another poster already did: We banned a flag not too long ago...HEY what about this one? A very long rant... | Page 6 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The issue of slavery was integral to the Civil War.

Myth #1: The Civil War wasn't about slavery.

The most widespread myth is also the most basic. Across America, 60 percent to 75 percent of high-school history teachers believe and teach that the South seceded for state's rights, said Jim Loewen, author of "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" (Touchstone, 1996) and co-editor of "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The 'Great Truth' about the 'Lost Cause'" (University Press of Mississippi, 2010).


"It's complete B.S.," Loewen told LiveScience. "And by B.S., I mean 'bad scholarship.'"


In fact, Loewen said, the original documents of the Confederacy show quite clearly that the war was based on one thing: slavery. For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.


In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."


The myth that the war was not about slavery seems to be a self-protective one for many people, said Stan Deaton, the senior historian at the Georgia Historical Society.


"People think that somehow it demonizes their ancestors," to have fought for slavery, Deaton told LiveScience. But the people fighting at the time were very much aware of what was at stake, Deaton said.


"[Defining the war] is our problem," he said. "I don't think it was theirs."​

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

"[Black Lives Matter] is a movement designed to bring attention to a problem that doesn't exist."

Wrong again.

It very much addresses a real and serious problem, you're just too much of a blind, closed-minded conservative to understand that.

The movement represents a desire on the part of African-Americans to enter into a good faith dialogue with other Americans about the problems and issues facing black communities; but you and others on the right refuse to show African-Americans the respect to even listen to their concerns.

 

[Dad2three]

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

He might be referring to the fact of the removal of the purchase of the confederate flag from a vast majority of websites. I would not classify that as a "move".

Incidentally, the Civil War was over state rights and the power of a Federal Government to impose its power over them. If it was over the issue of slavery itself we wouldn't find this statement from President Lincoln:

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation warning that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state that did not end its rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863. None of the Confederate states restored themselves to the Union, and Lincoln's order, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect.

What of those slaves in the north, as it's well documented that the union also had slaves themselves. William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865. U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865.

Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased — they were inherited) in 1862!

I always prefer to do a little digging into personally fact checking our U.S. history, instead of simply going with what the popular agenda in society tries to sell you.

There's a current movement to white wash the confederacy with a new "popular agenda".

Sure - individuals on both sides owned or freed slaves. But that's little more than a minor detail.

It's disengenius to say it wasn't over slavery. The issue of slavery was integral to "state's rights" - specifically the right to own, breed and sell humanity. As each new territory became a state, it had to be designated a slave state or non-slave state in order to maintain the balance of states legalizing the ownership of human beings by other human beings.

This latest attempt at minimizing the issue of slavery is just that - an effort to minimize. You can not unweave the history of slavery from the southern state's right's cause.

Again, I bring the documented fact of Lincoln's threat to the southern states, the reason behind the emancipation proclamation, to force those southern states back into the union by freeing slaves in those states that stand in opposition to the north. It clearly isolates those southern states in particular and not on the United States as a whole, that is a BIG difference. The fact men leading those union troops continued to have slaves even at the conclusion of the civil war is another damning fact. Lincoln's use of the preliminary proclamation in September 22, 1862 was a strategic decision to hurt the south economically. If not, he would have made the initial decision at that point to free ALL slaves, not just within those states in rebellion. His statement clearly doesn't make that claim. Even after that controversy that would follow the civil war, equality wouldn't be accepted until the battle for the civil rights movement in the middle of the next century.

Letter to Horace Greeley

Written during the heart of the Civil War, this is one of Abraham Lincoln's most famous letters.



I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.



Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

He might be referring to the fact of the removal of the purchase of the confederate flag from a vast majority of websites. I would not classify that as a "move".

Incidentally, the Civil War was over state rights and the power of a Federal Government to impose its power over them. If it was over the issue of slavery itself we wouldn't find this statement from President Lincoln:

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation warning that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state that did not end its rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863. None of the Confederate states restored themselves to the Union, and Lincoln's order, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect.

What of those slaves in the north, as it's well documented that the union also had slaves themselves. William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865. U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865.

Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased — they were inherited) in 1862!

I always prefer to do a little digging into personally fact checking our U.S. history, instead of simply going with what the popular agenda in society tries to sell you.

There's a current movement to white wash the confederacy with a new "popular agenda".

Sure - individuals on both sides owned or freed slaves. But that's little more than a minor detail.

It's disengenius to say it wasn't over slavery. The issue of slavery was integral to "state's rights" - specifically the right to own, breed and sell humanity. As each new territory became a state, it had to be designated a slave state or non-slave state in order to maintain the balance of states legalizing the ownership of human beings by other human beings.

This latest attempt at minimizing the issue of slavery is just that - an effort to minimize. You can not unweave the history of slavery from the southern state's right's cause.

Again, I bring the documented fact of Lincoln's threat to the southern states, the reason behind the emancipation proclamation, to force those southern states back into the union by freeing slaves in those states that stand in opposition to the north. It clearly isolates those southern states in particular and not on the United States as a whole, that is a BIG difference. The fact men leading those union troops continued to have slaves even at the conclusion of the civil war is another damning fact. Lincoln's use of the preliminary proclamation in September 22, 1862 was a strategic decision to hurt the south economically. If not, he would have made the initial decision at that point to free ALL slaves, not just within those states in rebellion. His statement clearly doesn't make that claim. Even after that controversy that would follow the civil war, equality wouldn't be accepted until the battle for the civil rights movement in the middle of the next century.

The most damning fact was not acts of individuals, but states demanding the right to own slaves and making sure the number of slave holding states equaled non-slave owning states. You can't unwind slavery from the Civil War which is what you are trying to do. It was not the ONLY cause, but it was far from being marginal.

I hate to keep bringing up facts, but here it goes.

Union Army setbacks in battles over the summer of 1862 led Lincoln to emancipate all slaves in states at war with the Union. In September 1862, Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, announcing that all slaves in rebellious states would be free as of January 1. Recruitment of colored regiments began in full force following the Proclamation of January 1863.

Again it was a strategic decision by President Lincoln who was losing a war against General Lee and the south. The emancipation provision was ONLY against those states in rebellion against the north. It doesn't come any clearer than that, you can't dispute documents historical facts. You haven't produced any facts to explain the evidence provided.

Another poster already did: We banned a flag not too long ago...HEY what about this one? A very long rant... | Page 6 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The issue of slavery was integral to the Civil War.

Myth #1: The Civil War wasn't about slavery.

The most widespread myth is also the most basic. Across America, 60 percent to 75 percent of high-school history teachers believe and teach that the South seceded for state's rights, said Jim Loewen, author of "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" (Touchstone, 1996) and co-editor of "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The 'Great Truth' about the 'Lost Cause'" (University Press of Mississippi, 2010).


"It's complete B.S.," Loewen told LiveScience. "And by B.S., I mean 'bad scholarship.'"


In fact, Loewen said, the original documents of the Confederacy show quite clearly that the war was based on one thing: slavery. For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.


In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."


The myth that the war was not about slavery seems to be a self-protective one for many people, said Stan Deaton, the senior historian at the Georgia Historical Society.


"People think that somehow it demonizes their ancestors," to have fought for slavery, Deaton told LiveScience. But the people fighting at the time were very much aware of what was at stake, Deaton said.


"[Defining the war] is our problem," he said. "I don't think it was theirs."​

Why didn't the emancipation proclamation free ALL slaves in the north as well as the south? That question remains unanswered, excepts he documented fact the north was losing the war and used those freed slaves to add more troops to the union army.


You really need to educate yourself on the topic, as the north also owned slaves and General Lee freed his slaves well before many northern troop commanders.

Also that emancipation proclamation against the south was dated over a year after the civil war had begun. The north was losing every major battle to General Robert E Lee, until Gettysburg. President Lincoln was desperate to find a way to stop the south. That issued proclamation against ONLY THOSE STATES IN REBELLION was proof of that.

 

[bodecea]

There's a current movement to white wash the confederacy with a new "popular agenda".

Sure - individuals on both sides owned or freed slaves. But that's little more than a minor detail.

It's disengenius to say it wasn't over slavery. The issue of slavery was integral to "state's rights" - specifically the right to own, breed and sell humanity. As each new territory became a state, it had to be designated a slave state or non-slave state in order to maintain the balance of states legalizing the ownership of human beings by other human beings.

This latest attempt at minimizing the issue of slavery is just that - an effort to minimize. You can not unweave the history of slavery from the southern state's right's cause.

Again, I bring the documented fact of Lincoln's threat to the southern states, the reason behind the emancipation proclamation, to force those southern states back into the union by freeing slaves in those states that stand in opposition to the north. It clearly isolates those southern states in particular and not on the United States as a whole, that is a BIG difference. The fact men leading those union troops continued to have slaves even at the conclusion of the civil war is another damning fact. Lincoln's use of the preliminary proclamation in September 22, 1862 was a strategic decision to hurt the south economically. If not, he would have made the initial decision at that point to free ALL slaves, not just within those states in rebellion. His statement clearly doesn't make that claim. Even after that controversy that would follow the civil war, equality wouldn't be accepted until the battle for the civil rights movement in the middle of the next century.

The most damning fact was not acts of individuals, but states demanding the right to own slaves and making sure the number of slave holding states equaled non-slave owning states. You can't unwind slavery from the Civil War which is what you are trying to do. It was not the ONLY cause, but it was far from being marginal.

I hate to keep bringing up facts, but here it goes.

Union Army setbacks in battles over the summer of 1862 led Lincoln to emancipate all slaves in states at war with the Union. In September 1862, Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, announcing that all slaves in rebellious states would be free as of January 1. Recruitment of colored regiments began in full force following the Proclamation of January 1863.

Again it was a strategic decision by President Lincoln who was losing a war against General Lee and the south. The emancipation provision was ONLY against those states in rebellion against the north. It doesn't come any clearer than that, you can't dispute documents historical facts. You haven't produced any facts to explain the evidence provided.

Another poster already did: We banned a flag not too long ago...HEY what about this one? A very long rant... | Page 6 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The issue of slavery was integral to the Civil War.

Myth #1: The Civil War wasn't about slavery.

The most widespread myth is also the most basic. Across America, 60 percent to 75 percent of high-school history teachers believe and teach that the South seceded for state's rights, said Jim Loewen, author of "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" (Touchstone, 1996) and co-editor of "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The 'Great Truth' about the 'Lost Cause'" (University Press of Mississippi, 2010).


"It's complete B.S.," Loewen told LiveScience. "And by B.S., I mean 'bad scholarship.'"


In fact, Loewen said, the original documents of the Confederacy show quite clearly that the war was based on one thing: slavery. For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.


In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."


The myth that the war was not about slavery seems to be a self-protective one for many people, said Stan Deaton, the senior historian at the Georgia Historical Society.


"People think that somehow it demonizes their ancestors," to have fought for slavery, Deaton told LiveScience. But the people fighting at the time were very much aware of what was at stake, Deaton said.


"[Defining the war] is our problem," he said. "I don't think it was theirs."​

Why didn't the emancipation proclamation free ALL slaves in the north as well as the south? That question remains unanswered.


You really need to educate yourself on the topic, as the north also owned slaves and General Lee freed his slaves well before many northern troop commanders.

The South was about keeping slaves, dumping the Union to do so, and they started the war. The North was about fighting to save the Union AFTER a federal fort was attacked....freeing the slaves was secondary......or even lower on their to do list.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I find the Tea Party to be pretty damned ignorant and they've done their share of stirring racial animosity

Riiight. If you say so.

It's a problem that very much exists. There are more whites in the population than blacks - proven facts. More blacks are killed than whites per proportion of their race.

With all due respect, do you realize how stupid that sounds? What are police doing? Launching a genocidal campaign against the African American race?

Killed By Police - 2015

Please don't. I don't abide by people making such ill informed statements. You're too intelligent for that.

Blacks are more likely to be pulled over, handled aggressively, shot, arrested, incarcerated, and given the death penalty for the same crimes than whites. There is a lot of evidence to support that.

Are you kidding me?! Of the 17 million people pulled over a whopping 85% of them felt they were pulled over legitimately.

Show me the links that prove this "fact" of yours. Of all the stops made in 2008 (for which I can find any relevant statistics), 12.3% were because the person was black. Yeah. That's all of 1/10th of all the people stopped on the road that year.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Traffic Stops

As for death row inmates and executions, these links will blow a hole in your assertion:

Race of Death Row Inmates Executed Since 1976 | Death Penalty Information Center

Death Penalty Focus : Death Row Population Size and Characteristics

Whites are are also arrested at a rate three times higher than blacks. Any other "statistics" and "proportion to population" arguments you have are irrelevant to this fact:

Table 43

As for being shot:

A black person is more likely to be shot by another black person than a white person. This 28 year study makes that painfully clear. Black on black crime is an epidemic. Not white cops killing black thugs. More blacks are killed as a proportion of their own population by members of their own population (not a typo) than whites are:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

And more from the FBI:

2009:

Expanded Homicide Data Table 6 - Crime in the United States 2009

2010:

Expanded Homicide Data Table 6

2011:

Expanded Homicide Data Table 6

2012:

Expanded Homicide Data Table 6

2013:

Expanded Homicide Data Table 6

"There are some important caveats about these numbers -- most importantly is that they don’t include every murder. The data only reflects murders that involved a single victim and offender and when the race of the offender was known and reported by police to the FBI.

Due to those shortcomings, Northeastern University Criminology Professor James Alan Fox modified the FBI data files to estimate the characteristics of unsolved homicides and unreported cases. Fox’s data shows that the majority of people are killed by someone from their own race. For example, for 2010-13, his data showed that about 92 percent of blacks who were murdered were killed by other blacks, while the statistic for whites killed by whites was 81.5 percent. That is very close to the official numbers."

An updated look at statistics on black-on-black murders

 

[Dad2three]

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

He might be referring to the fact of the removal of the purchase of the confederate flag from a vast majority of websites. I would not classify that as a "move".

Incidentally, the Civil War was over state rights and the power of a Federal Government to impose its power over them. If it was over the issue of slavery itself we wouldn't find this statement from President Lincoln:

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation warning that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state that did not end its rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863. None of the Confederate states restored themselves to the Union, and Lincoln's order, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect.

What of those slaves in the north, as it's well documented that the union also had slaves themselves. William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865. U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865.

Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased — they were inherited) in 1862!

I always prefer to do a little digging into personally fact checking our U.S. history, instead of simply going with what the popular agenda in society tries to sell you.

There's a current movement to white wash the confederacy with a new "popular agenda".

Sure - individuals on both sides owned or freed slaves. But that's little more than a minor detail.

It's disengenius to say it wasn't over slavery. The issue of slavery was integral to "state's rights" - specifically the right to own, breed and sell humanity. As each new territory became a state, it had to be designated a slave state or non-slave state in order to maintain the balance of states legalizing the ownership of human beings by other human beings.

This latest attempt at minimizing the issue of slavery is just that - an effort to minimize. You can not unweave the history of slavery from the southern state's right's cause.

Again, I bring the documented fact of Lincoln's threat to the southern states, the reason behind the emancipation proclamation, to force those southern states back into the union by freeing slaves in those states that stand in opposition to the north. It clearly isolates those southern states in particular and not on the United States as a whole, that is a BIG difference. The fact men leading those union troops continued to have slaves even at the conclusion of the civil war is another damning fact. Lincoln's use of the preliminary proclamation in September 22, 1862 was a strategic decision to hurt the south economically. If not, he would have made the initial decision at that point to free ALL slaves, not just within those states in rebellion. His statement clearly doesn't make that claim. Even after that controversy that would follow the civil war, equality wouldn't be accepted until the battle for the civil rights movement in the middle of the next century.

The most damning fact was not acts of individuals, but states demanding the right to own slaves and making sure the number of slave holding states equaled non-slave owning states. You can't unwind slavery from the Civil War which is what you are trying to do. It was not the ONLY cause, but it was far from being marginal.

I hate to keep bringing up facts, but here it goes.

Union Army setbacks in battles over the summer of 1862 led Lincoln to emancipate all slaves in states at war with the Union. In September 1862, Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, announcing that all slaves in rebellious states would be free as of January 1. Recruitment of colored regiments began in full force following the Proclamation of January 1863.

Again it was a strategic decision by President Lincoln who was losing a war against General Lee and the south. The emancipation provision was ONLY against those states in rebellion against the north. It doesn't come any clearer than that, you can't dispute documented historical facts. You haven't produced any facts to explain the evidence provided. WHY did president Lincoln otherwise free slaves ONLY in those states in rebellion, and not ALL slaves across the United States?

10 Facts about the Emancipation Proclamation


Fact #1: Lincoln actually issued the Emancipation Proclamation twice.

Abraham Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22nd, 1862. It stipulated that if the Southern states did not cease their rebellion by January 1st, 1863, then Proclamation would go into effect. When the Confederacy did not yield, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1st, 1863.


act #3: Lincoln’s advisors did not initially support the Emancipation Proclamation.

When President Lincoln first proposed the Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet in the summer of 1862, many of the cabinet secretaries were apathetic, or worse, worried that the Proclamation was too radical. It was only Lincoln’s firm commitment to the necessity and justice of the Proclamation, along with the victory at Antietam, which finally persuaded his cabinet members to support him.


Fact #4: The Battle of Antietam (also known as Sharpsburg) provided the necessary Union victory to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

President Lincoln had first proposed the Emancipation Proclamation to his Cabinet in July 1862, but Secretary of State William Seward suggested waiting for a Union victory so that the government could prove that it could enforce the Proclamation. Although the Battle of Antietam resulted in a draw, the Union army was able to drive the Confederates out of Maryland – enough of a “victory,” that Lincoln felt comfortable issuing the Emancipation just five days later.


Fact #5: The Emancipation Proclamation was a firm demonstration of the President’s executive war powers. (damn commie!)


Fact #6: The Emancipation Proclamation changed the focus of the war.

Up until September 1862, the main focus of the war had been to preserve the Union. With the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation freedom for slaves now became a legitimate war aim.

Fact #7: The Emancipation Proclamation helped prevent the involvement of foreign nations in the Civil War.

Fact #8: The Emancipation Proclamation paved the way for African-Americans to fight for their freedom.



Fact #9: The Emancipation Proclamation led the way to total abolition of slavery in the United States.
10 Facts about the Emancipation Proclamation

 

[Coyote]

There's a current movement to white wash the confederacy with a new "popular agenda".

Sure - individuals on both sides owned or freed slaves. But that's little more than a minor detail.

It's disengenius to say it wasn't over slavery. The issue of slavery was integral to "state's rights" - specifically the right to own, breed and sell humanity. As each new territory became a state, it had to be designated a slave state or non-slave state in order to maintain the balance of states legalizing the ownership of human beings by other human beings.

This latest attempt at minimizing the issue of slavery is just that - an effort to minimize. You can not unweave the history of slavery from the southern state's right's cause.

Again, I bring the documented fact of Lincoln's threat to the southern states, the reason behind the emancipation proclamation, to force those southern states back into the union by freeing slaves in those states that stand in opposition to the north. It clearly isolates those southern states in particular and not on the United States as a whole, that is a BIG difference. The fact men leading those union troops continued to have slaves even at the conclusion of the civil war is another damning fact. Lincoln's use of the preliminary proclamation in September 22, 1862 was a strategic decision to hurt the south economically. If not, he would have made the initial decision at that point to free ALL slaves, not just within those states in rebellion. His statement clearly doesn't make that claim. Even after that controversy that would follow the civil war, equality wouldn't be accepted until the battle for the civil rights movement in the middle of the next century.

The most damning fact was not acts of individuals, but states demanding the right to own slaves and making sure the number of slave holding states equaled non-slave owning states. You can't unwind slavery from the Civil War which is what you are trying to do. It was not the ONLY cause, but it was far from being marginal.

I hate to keep bringing up facts, but here it goes.

Union Army setbacks in battles over the summer of 1862 led Lincoln to emancipate all slaves in states at war with the Union. In September 1862, Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, announcing that all slaves in rebellious states would be free as of January 1. Recruitment of colored regiments began in full force following the Proclamation of January 1863.

Again it was a strategic decision by President Lincoln who was losing a war against General Lee and the south. The emancipation provision was ONLY against those states in rebellion against the north. It doesn't come any clearer than that, you can't dispute documents historical facts. You haven't produced any facts to explain the evidence provided.

Another poster already did: We banned a flag not too long ago...HEY what about this one? A very long rant... | Page 6 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The issue of slavery was integral to the Civil War.

Myth #1: The Civil War wasn't about slavery.

The most widespread myth is also the most basic. Across America, 60 percent to 75 percent of high-school history teachers believe and teach that the South seceded for state's rights, said Jim Loewen, author of "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" (Touchstone, 1996) and co-editor of "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The 'Great Truth' about the 'Lost Cause'" (University Press of Mississippi, 2010).


"It's complete B.S.," Loewen told LiveScience. "And by B.S., I mean 'bad scholarship.'"


In fact, Loewen said, the original documents of the Confederacy show quite clearly that the war was based on one thing: slavery. For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.


In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."


The myth that the war was not about slavery seems to be a self-protective one for many people, said Stan Deaton, the senior historian at the Georgia Historical Society.


"People think that somehow it demonizes their ancestors," to have fought for slavery, Deaton told LiveScience. But the people fighting at the time were very much aware of what was at stake, Deaton said.


"[Defining the war] is our problem," he said. "I don't think it was theirs."​

Why didn't the emancipation proclamation free ALL slaves in the north as well as the south? That question remains unanswered, excepts he documented fact the north was losing the war and used those freed slaves to add more troops to the union army.


You really need to educate yourself on the topic, as the north also owned slaves and General Lee freed his slaves well before many northern troop commanders.

The north didn't go to war to end slavery, it went to war to keep the union together. The abolition movement grew as the war progressed. But the south most certainly went to war over slavery - that's indicated in the individual statements of seccession and other documentation. How many southern states freed their slaves before the war? How many denounced the institution of slavery?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

He might be referring to the fact of the removal of the purchase of the confederate flag from a vast majority of websites. I would not classify that as a "move".

Incidentally, the Civil War was over state rights and the power of a Federal Government to impose its power over them. If it was over the issue of slavery itself we wouldn't find this statement from President Lincoln:

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation warning that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state that did not end its rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863. None of the Confederate states restored themselves to the Union, and Lincoln's order, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect.

What of those slaves in the north, as it's well documented that the union also had slaves themselves. William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865. U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865.

Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased — they were inherited) in 1862!

I always prefer to do a little digging into personally fact checking our U.S. history, instead of simply going with what the popular agenda in society tries to sell you.

There's a current movement to white wash the confederacy with a new "popular agenda".

Sure - individuals on both sides owned or freed slaves. But that's little more than a minor detail.

It's disengenius to say it wasn't over slavery. The issue of slavery was integral to "state's rights" - specifically the right to own, breed and sell humanity. As each new territory became a state, it had to be designated a slave state or non-slave state in order to maintain the balance of states legalizing the ownership of human beings by other human beings.

This latest attempt at minimizing the issue of slavery is just that - an effort to minimize. You can not unweave the history of slavery from the southern state's right's cause.

Again, I bring the documented fact of Lincoln's threat to the southern states, the reason behind the emancipation proclamation, to force those southern states back into the union by freeing slaves in those states that stand in opposition to the north. It clearly isolates those southern states in particular and not on the United States as a whole, that is a BIG difference. The fact men leading those union troops continued to have slaves even at the conclusion of the civil war is another damning fact. Lincoln's use of the preliminary proclamation in September 22, 1862 was a strategic decision to hurt the south economically. If not, he would have made the initial decision at that point to free ALL slaves, not just within those states in rebellion. His statement clearly doesn't make that claim. Even after that controversy that would follow the civil war, equality wouldn't be accepted until the battle for the civil rights movement in the middle of the next century.

The most damning fact was not acts of individuals, but states demanding the right to own slaves and making sure the number of slave holding states equaled non-slave owning states. You can't unwind slavery from the Civil War which is what you are trying to do. It was not the ONLY cause, but it was far from being marginal.

I hate to keep bringing up facts, but here it goes.

Union Army setbacks in battles over the summer of 1862 led Lincoln to emancipate all slaves in states at war with the Union. In September 1862, Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, announcing that all slaves in rebellious states would be free as of January 1. Recruitment of colored regiments began in full force following the Proclamation of January 1863.

Again it was a strategic decision by President Lincoln who was losing a war against General Lee and the south. The emancipation provision was ONLY against those states in rebellion against the north. It doesn't come any clearer than that, you can't dispute documented historical facts. You haven't produced any facts to explain the evidence provided. WHY did president Lincoln otherwise free slaves ONLY in those states in rebellion, and not ALL slaves across the United States?

10 Facts about the Emancipation Proclamation


Fact #1: Lincoln actually issued the Emancipation Proclamation twice.

Abraham Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22nd, 1862. It stipulated that if the Southern states did not cease their rebellion by January 1st, 1863, then Proclamation would go into effect. When the Confederacy did not yield, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1st, 1863.


act #3: Lincoln’s advisors did not initially support the Emancipation Proclamation.

When President Lincoln first proposed the Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet in the summer of 1862, many of the cabinet secretaries were apathetic, or worse, worried that the Proclamation was too radical. It was only Lincoln’s firm commitment to the necessity and justice of the Proclamation, along with the victory at Antietam, which finally persuaded his cabinet members to support him.


Fact #4: The Battle of Antietam (also known as Sharpsburg) provided the necessary Union victory to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

President Lincoln had first proposed the Emancipation Proclamation to his Cabinet in July 1862, but Secretary of State William Seward suggested waiting for a Union victory so that the government could prove that it could enforce the Proclamation. Although the Battle of Antietam resulted in a draw, the Union army was able to drive the Confederates out of Maryland – enough of a “victory,” that Lincoln felt comfortable issuing the Emancipation just five days later.


Fact #5: The Emancipation Proclamation was a firm demonstration of the President’s executive war powers. (damn commie!)


Fact #6: The Emancipation Proclamation changed the focus of the war.

Up until September 1862, the main focus of the war had been to preserve the Union. With the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation freedom for slaves now became a legitimate war aim.

Fact #7: The Emancipation Proclamation helped prevent the involvement of foreign nations in the Civil War.

Fact #8: The Emancipation Proclamation paved the way for African-Americans to fight for their freedom.



Fact #9: The Emancipation Proclamation led the way to total abolition of slavery in the United States.
10 Facts about the Emancipation Proclamation

You just proved the civil war wasnt started over slavery, not until the emancipation proclamation was slavery even an issue. Notice how the first proclamation was against the southern states in rebellion alone - BINGO!!!! It was a strategic decision to go after the south when President Lincoln was on the verge of losing the war and his effort to preserve the union. The north had a lovelyhood that included black slaves, how could Lincoln make a statement to immediately free ALL the slaves? It was a move against the southern states to try to hurt those states and hopefully turn the tide of war, by drafting those freed slaves into the union army.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Dad2three]

There's a current movement to white wash the confederacy with a new "popular agenda".

Sure - individuals on both sides owned or freed slaves. But that's little more than a minor detail.

It's disengenius to say it wasn't over slavery. The issue of slavery was integral to "state's rights" - specifically the right to own, breed and sell humanity. As each new territory became a state, it had to be designated a slave state or non-slave state in order to maintain the balance of states legalizing the ownership of human beings by other human beings.

This latest attempt at minimizing the issue of slavery is just that - an effort to minimize. You can not unweave the history of slavery from the southern state's right's cause.

Again, I bring the documented fact of Lincoln's threat to the southern states, the reason behind the emancipation proclamation, to force those southern states back into the union by freeing slaves in those states that stand in opposition to the north. It clearly isolates those southern states in particular and not on the United States as a whole, that is a BIG difference. The fact men leading those union troops continued to have slaves even at the conclusion of the civil war is another damning fact. Lincoln's use of the preliminary proclamation in September 22, 1862 was a strategic decision to hurt the south economically. If not, he would have made the initial decision at that point to free ALL slaves, not just within those states in rebellion. His statement clearly doesn't make that claim. Even after that controversy that would follow the civil war, equality wouldn't be accepted until the battle for the civil rights movement in the middle of the next century.

The most damning fact was not acts of individuals, but states demanding the right to own slaves and making sure the number of slave holding states equaled non-slave owning states. You can't unwind slavery from the Civil War which is what you are trying to do. It was not the ONLY cause, but it was far from being marginal.

I hate to keep bringing up facts, but here it goes.

Union Army setbacks in battles over the summer of 1862 led Lincoln to emancipate all slaves in states at war with the Union. In September 1862, Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, announcing that all slaves in rebellious states would be free as of January 1. Recruitment of colored regiments began in full force following the Proclamation of January 1863.

Again it was a strategic decision by President Lincoln who was losing a war against General Lee and the south. The emancipation provision was ONLY against those states in rebellion against the north. It doesn't come any clearer than that, you can't dispute documented historical facts. You haven't produced any facts to explain the evidence provided. WHY did president Lincoln otherwise free slaves ONLY in those states in rebellion, and not ALL slaves across the United States?

10 Facts about the Emancipation Proclamation


Fact #1: Lincoln actually issued the Emancipation Proclamation twice.

Abraham Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22nd, 1862. It stipulated that if the Southern states did not cease their rebellion by January 1st, 1863, then Proclamation would go into effect. When the Confederacy did not yield, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1st, 1863.


act #3: Lincoln’s advisors did not initially support the Emancipation Proclamation.

When President Lincoln first proposed the Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet in the summer of 1862, many of the cabinet secretaries were apathetic, or worse, worried that the Proclamation was too radical. It was only Lincoln’s firm commitment to the necessity and justice of the Proclamation, along with the victory at Antietam, which finally persuaded his cabinet members to support him.


Fact #4: The Battle of Antietam (also known as Sharpsburg) provided the necessary Union victory to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

President Lincoln had first proposed the Emancipation Proclamation to his Cabinet in July 1862, but Secretary of State William Seward suggested waiting for a Union victory so that the government could prove that it could enforce the Proclamation. Although the Battle of Antietam resulted in a draw, the Union army was able to drive the Confederates out of Maryland – enough of a “victory,” that Lincoln felt comfortable issuing the Emancipation just five days later.


Fact #5: The Emancipation Proclamation was a firm demonstration of the President’s executive war powers. (damn commie!)


Fact #6: The Emancipation Proclamation changed the focus of the war.

Up until September 1862, the main focus of the war had been to preserve the Union. With the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation freedom for slaves now became a legitimate war aim.

Fact #7: The Emancipation Proclamation helped prevent the involvement of foreign nations in the Civil War.

Fact #8: The Emancipation Proclamation paved the way for African-Americans to fight for their freedom.



Fact #9: The Emancipation Proclamation led the way to total abolition of slavery in the United States.
10 Facts about the Emancipation Proclamation

You just proved the civil war wasnt started over slavery, not until the emancipation proclamation was slavery even an issue. Notice how the first proclamation was against the southern states in rebellion alone - BINGO!!!! It was a strategic decision to go after the south when President Lincoln was on the verge of losing the war and his effort to preserve the union. The north had a lovelyhood that included black slaves, how could Lincoln make a statement to immediately free ALL the slaves? It was a move against the southern states to try to hurt those states and hopefully turn the tide of war, by drafting those freed slaves into the union army.

Thank you for proving my point.

Weird YOUR reading comprehension issues Bubs? Miss the link when the CONServative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa IN THEIR OWN WORDS, ADMITTED THEY LEFT THE UNION BECAUSE OF SLAVERY? Yep, Abe wouldn't split the union over it though Bubs

 

[Coyote]

I find the Tea Party to be pretty damned ignorant and they've done their share of stirring racial animosity

Riiight. If you say so.

It's a problem that very much exists. There are more whites in the population than blacks - proven facts. More blacks are killed than whites per proportion of their race.

With all due respect, do you realize how stupid that sounds? What are police doing? Launching a genocidal campaign against the African American race?

Killed By Police - 2015

Please don't. I don't abide by people making such ill informed statements. You're too intelligent for that.[/quote]

Let me inform you then.

First, no one is claiming a "genocidal campaign against the African American race" (do you realize how stupid that sounds?).

Second, what is your point with the link you just posted above? It's a list of people killed, with the statement: "Corporate news reports of people killed by U.S. law enforcement officers, whether in the line of duty or not, and regardless of reason or method. Inclusion implies neither wrongdoing nor justification on the part of the person killed or the officer involved. The post merely documents the occurrence of a death."

What is it supposed to indicate?

Blacks are more likely to be pulled over, handled aggressively, shot, arrested, incarcerated, and given the death penalty for the same crimes than whites. There is a lot of evidence to support that.

Are you kidding me?! Of the 17 million people pulled over a whopping 85% of them felt they were pulled over legitimately.

Show me the links that prove this "fact" of yours. Of all the stops made in 2008 (for which I can only find relevant statistics) 12.3% were because the person was black. Yeah. That's all of 1/10th of all the people stopped on the road that year.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Traffic Stops

From your source:

• Black drivers (12.3%) were about three times as likely as white drivers (3.9%) and about two times as likely as Hispanic drivers (5.8%) to be searched during a traffic stop in 2008.

Also from your source: Police Behavior during Traffic and Street Stops, 2011

• Relatively more black drivers (13%) than white (10%) and Hispanic (10%) drivers were pulled over in a traffic stop during their most recent contact with police. There were no statistical differences in the race or Hispanic origin of persons involved in street stops.
• White drivers were both ticketed and searched at lower rates than black and Hispanic drivers.

As for death row inmates and executions, these links will blow a hole in your assertion:

Race of Death Row Inmates Executed Since 1976 | Death Penalty Information Center

Death Penalty Focus : Death Row Population Size and Characteristics

How...?

From your source on deathrow population and characteristics:
White 1,334 (43.10%)
Black 1,291 (41.71%)

41% are black...yet blacks make up only 14% of our population.

Also from your source: Death Penalty Focus : Racial Disparities
4) Race plays a role in determining who lives and who dies.
The race of the victim and the race of the defendant in capital cases are major factors in determining who is sentenced to die in this country. In 1990 a report from the General Accounting Office concluded that "in 82 percent of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e. those who murdered whites were more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks."

Whites are are also arrested at a rate three times higher than blacks. Any other "statistics" and "proportion to population" arguments you have are irrelevant to this fact:

www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf

Table 43

You're not making your point here because you are not accounting for demographics. Whites might be arrested at a rate "three times higher" than blacks but they represent 78% of the population compared to blacks at 14%. In your table you have arrest rates of 68.9% for whites and 28.3% for blacks - again, the arrest rate for blacks is twice that of whites.

As for being shot:

A black person is more likely to be shot by another black person than a white person. This 28 year study makes that painfully clear. Black on black crime is an epidemic. Not white cops killing black thugs. More blacks are killed as a proportion of their own population by members of their own population (not a typo) than whites are:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

2009:

Expanded Homicide Data Table 6 - Crime in the United States 2009

2010:

Expanded Homicide Data Table 6

2011:

Expanded Homicide Data Table 6

2012:

Expanded Homicide Data Table 6

2013:

Expanded Homicide Data Table 6

[/quote]

Strawman. We are not talking about crime (a much more complex problem) - we are talking about police actions and race.

 

[Coyote]

There's a current movement to white wash the confederacy with a new "popular agenda".

Sure - individuals on both sides owned or freed slaves. But that's little more than a minor detail.

It's disengenius to say it wasn't over slavery. The issue of slavery was integral to "state's rights" - specifically the right to own, breed and sell humanity. As each new territory became a state, it had to be designated a slave state or non-slave state in order to maintain the balance of states legalizing the ownership of human beings by other human beings.

This latest attempt at minimizing the issue of slavery is just that - an effort to minimize. You can not unweave the history of slavery from the southern state's right's cause.

Again, I bring the documented fact of Lincoln's threat to the southern states, the reason behind the emancipation proclamation, to force those southern states back into the union by freeing slaves in those states that stand in opposition to the north. It clearly isolates those southern states in particular and not on the United States as a whole, that is a BIG difference. The fact men leading those union troops continued to have slaves even at the conclusion of the civil war is another damning fact. Lincoln's use of the preliminary proclamation in September 22, 1862 was a strategic decision to hurt the south economically. If not, he would have made the initial decision at that point to free ALL slaves, not just within those states in rebellion. His statement clearly doesn't make that claim. Even after that controversy that would follow the civil war, equality wouldn't be accepted until the battle for the civil rights movement in the middle of the next century.

The most damning fact was not acts of individuals, but states demanding the right to own slaves and making sure the number of slave holding states equaled non-slave owning states. You can't unwind slavery from the Civil War which is what you are trying to do. It was not the ONLY cause, but it was far from being marginal.

I hate to keep bringing up facts, but here it goes.

Union Army setbacks in battles over the summer of 1862 led Lincoln to emancipate all slaves in states at war with the Union. In September 1862, Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, announcing that all slaves in rebellious states would be free as of January 1. Recruitment of colored regiments began in full force following the Proclamation of January 1863.

Again it was a strategic decision by President Lincoln who was losing a war against General Lee and the south. The emancipation provision was ONLY against those states in rebellion against the north. It doesn't come any clearer than that, you can't dispute documented historical facts. You haven't produced any facts to explain the evidence provided. WHY did president Lincoln otherwise free slaves ONLY in those states in rebellion, and not ALL slaves across the United States?

10 Facts about the Emancipation Proclamation


Fact #1: Lincoln actually issued the Emancipation Proclamation twice.

Abraham Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22nd, 1862. It stipulated that if the Southern states did not cease their rebellion by January 1st, 1863, then Proclamation would go into effect. When the Confederacy did not yield, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1st, 1863.


act #3: Lincoln’s advisors did not initially support the Emancipation Proclamation.

When President Lincoln first proposed the Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet in the summer of 1862, many of the cabinet secretaries were apathetic, or worse, worried that the Proclamation was too radical. It was only Lincoln’s firm commitment to the necessity and justice of the Proclamation, along with the victory at Antietam, which finally persuaded his cabinet members to support him.


Fact #4: The Battle of Antietam (also known as Sharpsburg) provided the necessary Union victory to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

President Lincoln had first proposed the Emancipation Proclamation to his Cabinet in July 1862, but Secretary of State William Seward suggested waiting for a Union victory so that the government could prove that it could enforce the Proclamation. Although the Battle of Antietam resulted in a draw, the Union army was able to drive the Confederates out of Maryland – enough of a “victory,” that Lincoln felt comfortable issuing the Emancipation just five days later.


Fact #5: The Emancipation Proclamation was a firm demonstration of the President’s executive war powers. (damn commie!)


Fact #6: The Emancipation Proclamation changed the focus of the war.

Up until September 1862, the main focus of the war had been to preserve the Union. With the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation freedom for slaves now became a legitimate war aim.

Fact #7: The Emancipation Proclamation helped prevent the involvement of foreign nations in the Civil War.

Fact #8: The Emancipation Proclamation paved the way for African-Americans to fight for their freedom.



Fact #9: The Emancipation Proclamation led the way to total abolition of slavery in the United States.
10 Facts about the Emancipation Proclamation

You just proved the civil war wasnt started over slavery, not until the emancipation proclamation was slavery even an issue. Notice how the first proclamation was against the southern states in rebellion alone - BINGO!!!! It was a strategic decision to go after the south when President Lincoln was on the verge of losing the war and his effort to preserve the union. The north had a lovelyhood that included black slaves, how could Lincoln make a statement to immediately free ALL the slaves? It was a move against the southern states to try to hurt those states and hopefully turn the tide of war, by drafting those freed slaves into the union army.

Thank you for proving my point.

The civil war was ABOUT slavery - about the right of southern states to own human beings. What part of that are you missing in your attempt to white wash the confederacy? Why did the south seceed? So they could continue slaveholding.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

when Trump becomes president, we will all be waving our confederate flags again and sexy white women will be wearing their skimpy confederate bikinis in the masses come summer 2017. i will have all of my cameras ready!!