Supreme Court deals blow to Rebel Flag

[there4eyeM]

The 'South' was not a country, it was states of the United States, part of the original "Perpetual Union" that was extended by the new Constitution. That states claimed to have left that Union did not make it a fact, so there was no invasion. There was a rebellion and it was put down.

 

[Flash]

[]Enough with the junior high school books.

What do you think about Shelby Foote?

I am sorry but you can't dismiss the simpleton story that most Americans have heard about the Civil War.

Americans are taught at an early age that the war was fought to free the salves and that is not accurate by any account.

You ask almost anybody and they will tell you that Lincoln freed the salves and that is absolutely false.

Historians look at the war from several different perspectives.

1. The accounts of the fighting and the battles.

2. The political era.

3. The economic aspect of the war.

One of the things that always seem to be missing is why did hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers leave their families and risk death to fight. Was it to maintain slavery? Only a small percentage of them were slave owners.

The real answer to that is that they fought to protect their homeland. That is what the letters from my grandfather said and he wasn't alone.

So why was their homeland threaten? The answer to that is Lincoln was unable to deal with the issue of secession without using force.

He did not like the idea of freedom and self determination. He wanted the cash rich South to be forced back in the Union because the Republican Party was dominated by rich NE Liberals that had economic interest in keeping the South as part of the union.

By the way do you know that Lincoln was elected President by less than 40% of the voters? That was hardly a mandate for him to go to war, was it?

 

[there4eyeM]

Yes, there were many candidates that year and Lincoln won with 35%. That's democracy, that was the deal.
Yes, the South depended on an economy that had no significant internal markets (slaves had no disposable income and neither did white subsistence farmers) and had to export their agricultural production.
Yes, that led to trade deficits with it's trading partners, such as France (which favored the secession effort) and England (which held back in horror of the slavery issue).
Yes, the North was industrial and wanted tariffs on British manufactured goods so that domestic industries could compete.
Yes, the Union was stated to be perpetual. People try to change things from time to time, and from time to time they succeed.
The South was unhappy with the democratic choice. The South chose a radical path to resolve the issue. The South lost.
The Union continued.

 

[toxicmedia]

[]Enough with the junior high school books.

What do you think about Shelby Foote?

I am sorry but you can't dismiss the simpleton story that most Americans have heard about the Civil War.

Americans are taught at an early age that the war was fought to free the salves and that is not accurate by any account.

You ask almost anybody and they will tell you that Lincoln freed the salves and that is absolutely false.

Historians look at the war from several different perspectives.

1. The accounts of the fighting and the battles.

2. The political era.

3. The economic aspect of the war.

One of the things that always seem to be missing is why did hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers leave their families and risk death to fight. Was it to maintain slavery? Only a small percentage of them were slave owners.

The real answer to that is that they fought to protect their homeland. That is what the letters from my grandfather said and he wasn't alone.

So why was their homeland threaten? The answer to that is Lincoln was unable to deal with the issue of secession without using force.

He did not like the idea of freedom and self determination. He wanted the cash rich South to be forced back in the Union because the Republican Party was dominated by rich NE Liberals that had economic interest in keeping the South as part of the union.

By the way do you know that Lincoln was elected President by less than 40% of the voters? That was hardly a mandate for him to go to war, was it?

You've stated lots of facts I agree with, perhaps not the intent....

But...Did Lincoln have anything at all to do with the Emacipation Proclaimation?

 

[there4eyeM]

Granted, the motivation for Southern soldiers may not have been slavery (though it easily could have been to keep racial separation), the motivation for Northern soldiers cannot be associated with the desire merely to repress the South.
At most, both armies were fighting for liberty, albeit a very different view of that principle.

 

[Flash]

[


But...Did Lincoln have anything at all to do with the Emacipation Proclaimation?

The EP did not do away with slavery in the US. It only applied to occupied territories and even some of them were exempted like the New Orleans area. Meanwhile slavery continued in other places in the Union.

The only reason it was issued was to get Black troops to join the Union army at a time when the Union was suffering tremendous losses.

Slavery was coming to an end because of technological advances that made it more expensive to have slave labor than to have machinery. Share cropping became a more viable economic model in agriculture than slavery.

Without the war slavery was doomed to extinction within a decade or two at the most.

 

[SillyWabbit]

It's the STATE department of motor vehicles. They can deny anything they want. Indiana denied a LBGTQGF license plate too.

OK, so fill me in. I know what LBGTQ is, what the hell is the GF?


LMNOP

Do we really want to know?

 

[Flash]

Granted, the motivation for Southern soldiers may not have been slavery (though it easily could have been to keep racial separation), the motivation for Northern soldiers cannot be associated with the desire merely to repress the South.
At most, both armies were fighting for liberty, albeit a very different view of that principle.

The Union Army was full of conscripts. Immigrants straight off the boat from Ireland were drafted directly into the Union Army.

The war cry of the North was never "freed the salves". It was "Preserve the Union".

I don't know about you but I would never join the military to subjugate other Americans to be part of a Union that they did not want to be a part of. That is just wrong, isn't it? Why kill a man for wanting to be free?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Too bad for the Sons of Confederate Veterans

Supreme Court says states can block Confederate flag license plates

The justices said in a 5-4 decision that Texas' specialty license plate program is a form of government, not private, speech. The First Amendment does not prohibit the state from rejecting some designs, they said.
"States have long used license plates in this country to convey government messages," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the majority, which included the court's other more liberal justices along with Clarence Thomas. Just as the state cannot force drivers to espouse a particular message, he said, drivers cannot force a state to espouse theirs.

Why are we even spending time on this issue? If someone wants a Confederate license plate in a state that won't issue them, they can get a Confederate bumper sticker or an antenna flag.

 

[toxicmedia]

[


But...Did Lincoln have anything at all to do with the Emacipation Proclaimation?

The EP did not do away with slavery in the US. It only applied to occupied territories and even some of them were exempted like the New Orleans area. Meanwhile slavery continued in other places in the Union.

The only reason it was issued was to get Black troops to join the Union army at a time when the Union was suffering tremendous losses.

Slavery was coming to an end because of technological advances that made it more expensive to have slave labor than to have machinery. Share cropping became a more viable economic model in agriculture than slavery.

Without the war slavery was doomed to extinction within a decade or two at the most.

But the Emancipation Proclaimation did free some slaves, just not all of them, and did Lincoln have anything to do with it?

Because I think you stated that the idea that Lincoln freed the slaves was completely false.

I'd be curious to know what percentage of the slaves in the US were freed by the EP

 

[Flash]

[


But...Did Lincoln have anything at all to do with the Emacipation Proclaimation?

The EP did not do away with slavery in the US. It only applied to occupied territories and even some of them were exempted like the New Orleans area. Meanwhile slavery continued in other places in the Union.

The only reason it was issued was to get Black troops to join the Union army at a time when the Union was suffering tremendous losses.

Slavery was coming to an end because of technological advances that made it more expensive to have slave labor than to have machinery. Share cropping became a more viable economic model in agriculture than slavery.

Without the war slavery was doomed to extinction within a decade or two at the most.

But the Emancipation Proclaimation did free some slaves, just not all of them, and did Lincoln have anything to do with it?

Because I think you stated that the idea that Lincoln freed the slaves was completely false.

I'd be curious to know what percentage of the slaves in the US were freed by the EP

I never said that Lincoln did not have anti slavery views.

I said he didn't start the war to free the slaves.

"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." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

 

[toxicmedia]

[


But...Did Lincoln have anything at all to do with the Emacipation Proclaimation?

The EP did not do away with slavery in the US. It only applied to occupied territories and even some of them were exempted like the New Orleans area. Meanwhile slavery continued in other places in the Union.

The only reason it was issued was to get Black troops to join the Union army at a time when the Union was suffering tremendous losses.

Slavery was coming to an end because of technological advances that made it more expensive to have slave labor than to have machinery. Share cropping became a more viable economic model in agriculture than slavery.

Without the war slavery was doomed to extinction within a decade or two at the most.

But the Emancipation Proclaimation did free some slaves, just not all of them, and did Lincoln have anything to do with it?

Because I think you stated that the idea that Lincoln freed the slaves was completely false.

I'd be curious to know what percentage of the slaves in the US were freed by the EP

I never said that Lincoln did not have anti slavery views.

I said he didn't start the war to free the slaves.

"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." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

Of course, you did say that Lincoln didn't start the war to free the slaves, and I agree.

What I asked was whether or not you felt Lincoln had anything to do with the EP, in response to:

"You ask almost anybody and they will tell you that Lincoln freed the salves and that is absolutely false"

Lincoln's first draft of the EP presented to congress on January 1, 1863....included language meant to free slaves in Confederate states which were not back in the Union by then...but slaves in the Border States were not affected. The president knew the proclamation was a temporary military measure and only Congress could remove slavery permanently.

Lincoln took an active role in pushing the 13th Amendment through congress, and the House passed the bill in January 1865...which resulted in "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"

That passed before he died, did he do it alone? of course not...but how can you reconcile all of that indisputable fact...with your statement "Lincoln freed the salves and that is absolutely false"?

 

[Flash]

[


But...Did Lincoln have anything at all to do with the Emacipation Proclaimation?

The EP did not do away with slavery in the US. It only applied to occupied territories and even some of them were exempted like the New Orleans area. Meanwhile slavery continued in other places in the Union.

The only reason it was issued was to get Black troops to join the Union army at a time when the Union was suffering tremendous losses.

Slavery was coming to an end because of technological advances that made it more expensive to have slave labor than to have machinery. Share cropping became a more viable economic model in agriculture than slavery.

Without the war slavery was doomed to extinction within a decade or two at the most.

But the Emancipation Proclaimation did free some slaves, just not all of them, and did Lincoln have anything to do with it?

Because I think you stated that the idea that Lincoln freed the slaves was completely false.

I'd be curious to know what percentage of the slaves in the US were freed by the EP

I never said that Lincoln did not have anti slavery views.

I said he didn't start the war to free the slaves.

"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." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

Of course, you did say that Lincoln didn't start the war to free the slaves, and I agree.

What I asked was whether or not you felt Lincoln had anything to do with the EP, in response to:

"You ask almost anybody and they will tell you that Lincoln freed the salves and that is absolutely false"

Lincoln's first draft of the EP presented to congress on January 1, 1863....included language meant to free slaves in Confederate states which were not back in the Union by then...but slaves in the Border States were not affected. The president knew the proclamation was a temporary military measure and only Congress could remove slavery permanently.

Lincoln took an active role in pushing the 13th Amendment through congress, and the House passed the bill in January 1865...which resulted in "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"

That passed before he died, did he do it alone? of course not...but how can you reconcile all of that indisputable fact...with your statement "Lincoln freed the salves and that is absolutely false"?

Simply because the EP did nothing of substance to stop slavery in the US.

The 13th Amendment to the Bill of Rights did that and that happen almost a year after the war was over.

 

[whitehall]

It makes sense. States can block all sorts of stuff on license plates. The Supreme Court apparently also left it up to the states to determine if they want to block the Confederate flag which is a blow to the federal bureaucracy.

 

[toxicmedia]

[


But...Did Lincoln have anything at all to do with the Emacipation Proclaimation?

The EP did not do away with slavery in the US. It only applied to occupied territories and even some of them were exempted like the New Orleans area. Meanwhile slavery continued in other places in the Union.

The only reason it was issued was to get Black troops to join the Union army at a time when the Union was suffering tremendous losses.

Slavery was coming to an end because of technological advances that made it more expensive to have slave labor than to have machinery. Share cropping became a more viable economic model in agriculture than slavery.

Without the war slavery was doomed to extinction within a decade or two at the most.

But the Emancipation Proclaimation did free some slaves, just not all of them, and did Lincoln have anything to do with it?

Because I think you stated that the idea that Lincoln freed the slaves was completely false.

I'd be curious to know what percentage of the slaves in the US were freed by the EP

I never said that Lincoln did not have anti slavery views.

I said he didn't start the war to free the slaves.

"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." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

Of course, you did say that Lincoln didn't start the war to free the slaves, and I agree.

What I asked was whether or not you felt Lincoln had anything to do with the EP, in response to:

"You ask almost anybody and they will tell you that Lincoln freed the salves and that is absolutely false"

Lincoln's first draft of the EP presented to congress on January 1, 1863....included language meant to free slaves in Confederate states which were not back in the Union by then...but slaves in the Border States were not affected. The president knew the proclamation was a temporary military measure and only Congress could remove slavery permanently.

Lincoln took an active role in pushing the 13th Amendment through congress, and the House passed the bill in January 1865...which resulted in "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"

That passed before he died, did he do it alone? of course not...but how can you reconcile all of that indisputable fact...with your statement "Lincoln freed the salves and that is absolutely false"?

Simply because the EP did nothing of substance to stop slavery in the US.

The 13th Amendment to the Bill of Rights did that and that happen almost a year after the war was over.

But the 13th passed while Lincoln was alive, and he was arguably the most involved person in getting it pushed through.

If you want to get technical, yes, the EP didn't free any slaves, and the 13th was passed by Republicans and Democrats in the House.

I think you're trying to demonize Lincoln and the Union, and in doing so, you are trying too hard to shoe-horn technicalities into an argument that turns American history on it's head.

I am perfectly willing to settle for my opinion that neither side was an less moral than the other. Good and bad in both, because that's how we all really are as people.

A good example of that is Hollywood's examples of male slave owners. They're always the sweaty old drunk fat guy who rapes the young slave girls. In reality, there were laws against that, and any slave owner who did that, would have lot's of trouble socially, at church, and in business because of the distaste for it within southern society.

There are many examples of slaves that were well treated and stayed with their former owners after the war. Junior high school textbooks would not include that.

 

[Flash]

But the 13th passed while Lincoln was alive, and he was arguably the most involved person in getting it pushed through.

If you want to get technical, yes, the EP didn't free any slaves, and the 13th was passed by Republicans and Democrats in the House.

I think you're trying to demonize Lincoln and the Union, and in doing so, you are trying too hard to shoe-horn technicalities into an argument that turns American history on it's head.

I am perfectly willing to settle for my opinion that neither side was an less moral than the other. Good and bad in both, because that's how we all really are as people.

A good example of that is Hollywood's examples of male slave owners. They're always the sweaty old drunk fat guy who rapes the young slave girls. In reality, there were laws against that, and any slave owner who did that, would have lot's of trouble socially, at church, and in business because of the distaste for it within southern society.

There are many examples of slaves that were well treated and stayed with their former owners after the war. Junior high school textbooks would not include that.

The 13th was not ratified until several months after his death.

Lincoln was a lunatic that was hell bent to go to war over secession and that was the wrong moral thing to do and it resulted in the deaths of almost a million people, the destruction of scores of American cities and the economic ruin of a third of the country for almost 100 years.

To me Americans should not be killed because they want self determination and freedom. The Union should not be a suicide pact or like the Mafia that when you join you can never get out.

It was not the act of secession that caused the war. That was only a political act. It was Lincoln undoing the secession by force that was the war. It started with Lincoln breaking the fragile truce at Ft Sumter that Buchanan worked so hard to preserve and started in full force when the army crossed the Potomac River to kill Americans and take away their arms. The war was Americans defending their homeland against an invasion.

The issue of slavery was a side show. Lincoln even said in the quote I posted above that it was.

 

[Redfish]

I understand the SC ruling as it did. But the confederate flag is not, and was never, a symbol of slavery. The left wing media has created this myth and many have bought into the lie.

Slavery existed in the northern states under the american flag. Should it also be banned?

This is just another example of political correctness being taken to the foolish extremes.

 

[SwimExpert]

No, I'm complaining that a state when engaged in for profit activities are not held to the same standards as any other business.

Do you have any evidence that bakeries in Texas are forced to make cakes for gay weddings?

There's no cakes mentioned in the quote you posted. Care to try again?

No, but your insinuation is clear. If the government can disallow the public from refusing service for gay weddings when it's against the business owner's beliefs, how can the government rightfully refuse to accommodate people who want a confederate license plate design? I'm inclined to agree that you raise a valid ethical dilemma, generally speaking.

However, there is one problem because the dilemma doesn't actually exist in this particular. Texas does not have public accommodation laws that prohibit a baker or other business from discriminating against gay marriages. Thus, the government is not refusing to follow its own rules.

 

[SwimExpert]

The flag hurts no one. It's just another "politically correct" statement to pacify the masses.

Well enough. But under what circumstance can the state be forced to provide license plates it chooses to not produce?

It can't be forced to.

So the court's decision was correct...

 

[SwimExpert]

selling the right to individuals

Then it's not a right.

Don't quote me out of context *****.

Hey, you said it, not me.