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

[Meathead]

You keep using the proportional argument. But like I said. The crime statistics say blacks commit more crimes, thus are represented more in prison populations, arrests, and death row.

It doesn't exactly work that way. For example, blacks are more likely to receive jail time or the death penalty than whites - for comparable crimes. This is particularly true in capital cases and research has shown that when the perpetrator is black, or the victim is white the penalty is substantially greater.

From: There's blatant inequality at nearly every phase of the criminal justice system

Black Americans are more likely to have their cars searched. Nationally, black drivers are also more likely to be pulled over and less likely to receive a reason for being stopped. In one Rhode Island study, black drivers were stopped more even though they were less likely to receive a citation.

Black Americans are more likely to be arrested for drug use. Police arrest black Americans for drug crimes at twice the rate of whites, according to federal data, despite the fact that whites use drugs at comparable rates and sell drugs at comparable or even higher rates.

Black Americans are more likely to be jailed while awaiting trial. A 2014 study in New York City showed that blacks were more likely than whites or nonblack minorities to be in jail while they await trial, even after controlling for the seriousness of charges and prior record. Other research suggests that this disparity is often due to the fact that black defendants cannot afford to pay bail. The temporary incarceration stigmatizes the defendant, disrupts family life and employment, and makes it harder for the defendant to prepare a defense.

Black Americans are more likely to be offered a plea deal that includes prison time. The same study in New York found that black defendants are more likely to be offered plea deals that include prison time than whites or nonblack minorities. Even after controlling for many factors, including the seriousness of charges and prior record, blacks were 13 percent more likely than whites to be offered such deals. (note - this would certainly influence crime rate statistics where a white person might get a much lighter sentence for felonies, community service, fines, no prison time or the ability to have it expunged from the record after a certain number of years).

Black Americans may be excluded from juries because of their race. Researchers found that North Carolina prosecutors were excluding black people from juries in capital cases at twice the rate of other jurors, even when controlling for legitimate justifications for striking jurors, such as employment status or reservations about the death penalty. Other studies have shown that excluding black people from juries can influence deliberations and verdicts. For example, black defendants in capital cases with white victims are less likely to receive a death sentence if there is a black juror.

Black Americans are more likely to serve longer sentences than white Americans for the same offense.

A 2012 working paper found “robust evidence” that black male federal defendants were given longer sentences than comparable whites. Black men’s sentences were, on average, 10 percent longer than those of their white peers. This is partly explained by the fact that prosecutors are about twice as likely to file charges against blacks that carry mandatory minimum sentences than against whites.​

There is more in the article but all of these factors would have an effect on prison populations, skewed conviction rates and even arrest rates if blacks are more likely to have their cars searched or receive penalties for drug convictions.

Loving the fact that we are using the "blacks are over represented, therefore there must be a racist motive" argument. Just because whites make up the majority of the population doesn't mean they have to make up for that by being the majority of prison populations, killers, or death row inmates.

Placing it all under racism would be oversimplifying it - many factors influence crime rates and arrest rates, for example poverty - which effects one's ability to mount a good defense or make bail (as just one example). However, when you read the article I cited above it is also quite clear that there are racist elements involved as well: striking blacks from juries, the disproportionate representation of blacks on death row and the way death sentences are given as well as sentencing for drug crimes and the offering of plea deals.

That's the whole thing, expectations don't mirror reality. Your expectations are rather naive "there are more whites than blacks, therefore there should be more whites than black on death row, or arrested, or..."

In 2005, the following was found in "The Color of Crime"

• Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.
• When Blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-Blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.
• Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the White rate.
• The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is Black and Hispanic.
• Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving Blacks and Whites, Blacks commit 85 percent and Whites commit 15 percent.
• Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are Black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When Whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are Black.
• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a White than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.
• Only 10 percent of youth gang members are white.
• Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs. Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely.
• Between 1980 and 2003 the US incarceration rate more than tripled, from 139 to 482 per 100,000, and the number of prisoners increased from 320,000 to 1.39 million.
• Blacks are seven times more likely to be in prison than Whites. Hispanics are three times more likely.
  
  The Color of Crime (Second, Expanded Edition, 2005)

You can see here that the high crime rate directly correlates with the high incarceration rate.

The Color of Crime is a problematic resource and I question it's scholarship: New Century Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tim Wise wrote the following rebuttal to it in The Color of Deception: Race, Crime and Sloppy Social Science

“A lie can travel half-way around the world while the truth is still pulling on its boots.”​

Stoking Fears About Interracial Crime — A Look at How Racists Do Math


Next, Taylor claims that most victims of black violent crime are white, and thus, that blacks are violently targeting whites. Furthermore, since only a small share of the victims of white criminals are black (only 4.4 percent in 2002, for example), this means that blacks are far more of a threat to whites than vice-versa. But there are several problems with these claims.


To begin with, the white victim totals in the Justice Department’s victimization data include those termed Hispanic by the Census, since nine in ten Latino/as are considered racially white by government record-keepers. Since Latinos and Latinas tend to live closer to blacks than non-Hispanic whites, this means that many “white” victims of “black crime” are Latino or Latina, and that in any given year, the majority of black crime victims would be people of color, not whites.


But even if we compute the white totals as Taylor does, without breaking out Hispanic victims of “black crime,” his position is without merit. In 2002, whites, including Latinos, were about 81.5 percent of the population (3). That same year, whites (including Latinos) were 51 percent of the victims of violent crimes committed by blacks, meaning that whites were victimized by blacks less often than would have been expected by random chance, given the extent to which whites were available to be victimized (4).


As for the claim that blacks victimize whites at rates that are far higher than the reverse, though true, this statistic is meaningless, for a few obvious but overlooked reasons, first among them the simple truth that if whites are more available as potential victims, we would naturally expect black criminals to victimize whites more often than white criminals would victimize blacks. Examining data from 2002, there were indeed 4.5 times more black-on-white violent crimes than the reverse (5). While this may seem to support Taylor’s position, it actually destroys it, because the interracial crime gap, though seemingly large, is smaller than random chance would have predicted. The critical factor ignored by Taylor is the extent to which whites and blacks encounter each other in the first place. Because of ongoing racial isolation and de facto segregation, the two group’s members do not encounter one another at rates commensurate with their shares of the population: a fact that literally torpedoes the claims in The Color of Crime.


As sociologist Robert O’Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white criminal for that matter) encountering a black person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a given black person (or black criminal) encountering a white person are nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent (6), meaning the actual interracial victimization gap between black-on-white and white-on-black crime is smaller than one would expect. In 2002, blacks committed a little more than 1.2 million violent crimes, while whites committed a little more than three million violent crimes (7). If each black criminal had a 57 percent chance of encountering (and thus potentially victimizing) a white person, this means that over the course of 2002, blacks should have been expected to victimize roughly 690,000 whites. But in truth, blacks victimized whites only 614,176 times that year (8). Conversely, if each white criminal had only a three percent chance of encountering and thus victimizing a black person, this means that over the course of 2002, whites would have been expected to victimize roughly 93,000 blacks. But in truth, whites victimized blacks 135,931 times: almost 50 percent more often than would be expected by random chance (9).


Indeed, given relative crime rates as well as rates of interracial encounter, random chance would have predicted the ratio of black-on-white to white-on-black victimization at roughly 7.4 to one. Yet, as the data makes clear, there were only 4.5 times more black-on-white crimes than white-on-black crimes in 2002. In other words, given encounter ratios, black criminals victimize whites less often than could be expected, while white criminals victimize blacks more often than could be expected.​

Black Americans have to stop being so violent. A society has a right to protect itself regardless of political correctness and the self-righteousness of some of its members.

Of course society has a right to protect itself. Crazy damn gunrights nuts.

To be fair, not all blacks are nuts about guns. A lot of the thus are though, and a society needs to protect itself.

A lot of the thus? Who's thus? Roof? Lanza? Holmes? Loughner?

The point is that the authorities who are entrusted to protect society do not, and should not have the luxury of self-righteousness and the obligation to dispense justice according to system of quotas. When about 6% of the population {black males, duh} commit about 50% of murders and other violent crimes, it is perhaps better to look for ways to defend the public, including detaining those obviously more likely to murder.

Horrific, I'm sure, but there you go.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

And once again I will point out that the Southern Slave states seceded over the issue of slavery. The rest of the Union- including the non-rebellious slave states did not go to war over slavery.

Lincoln had no authority to free slaves that were legal in the non-rebellious states- he could do so in the areas in rebellion under his authority as Commander in Chief.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic decision- and a brilliant one at that. Lincoln always opposed slavery- but he was clear he was willing to endure slavery to maintain the Union- but when it became clear that the Union was better served by ending slavery, Lincoln took the actions he was able to take- the Emancipation Proclamation- and promoting the 13th Amendment.

We are better as a nation because of it.

If you read history regarding Lincoln, it says he "changed" his focus of the war and made it about slavery only after the proclamation was presented. When you look at the position of the south, they believed in a form of government that surrounded greater state's rights and representation over a Federal Government power that desired to subject IT'S will over the individual states. That Federal Government was viewed as squelching freedom and the rights of those states. Lincoln made things worse by using a union army to further subject his will against them, showing himself as an invader of the south. That only reinforced the confederates desire to have the states be represented over a Fedetal body that's forcing its will upon them to comply. When you look at the exact wording of that proclamation it reads that the Federal Government would issue a proclamation to those STATES IN REBELLION that the President will free slaves in those states that don't comply with the north. The President yet again was using FORCE against those states in succession to force them to end their rebellion.

Read the proclamation carefully:
Lincoln issued a 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.

So according to the written proclamation warning of 1862 - IF the south had ended their rebellion against the north, President Lincoln would not end slavery and would not seek to free those slaves from among the states of the south. If these ARE the terms as it was clearly written, there is then NO BASIS to say that the initial Government will over the south had always centered around the need to end slavery.

Read that first proclamation to the south, look carefully to those conditions written regarding "slavery". Had the south ended their rebellion, Lincoln would NOT end slavery in those states. Now tell me again that the preservation of slavery was the reason why the south rejected the proclamation and continued to succeed against the north, when that very same "preservation" was promised to them as a condition by Lincoln himself for returning to the union. End your rebellion, and we will not free those slaves from among your states and thereby not seek to end slavery in this nation.

Interesting thought. We do know slavery is why they started the secession attempt because that is what their declaration of secession says.

 

[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.

And once again I will point out that the Southern Slave states seceded over the issue of slavery. The rest of the Union- including the non-rebellious slave states did not go to war over slavery.

Lincoln had no authority to free slaves that were legal in the non-rebellious states- he could do so in the areas in rebellion under his authority as Commander in Chief.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic decision- and a brilliant one at that. Lincoln always opposed slavery- but he was clear he was willing to endure slavery to maintain the Union- but when it became clear that the Union was better served by ending slavery, Lincoln took the actions he was able to take- the Emancipation Proclamation- and promoting the 13th Amendment.

We are better as a nation because of it.

If you read history regarding Lincoln, it says he "changed" his focus of the war and made it about slavery only after the proclamation was presented. When you look at the position of the south, they believed in a form of government that surrounded greater state's rights and representation over a Federal Government power that desired to subject IT'S will over the individual states. That Federal Government was viewed as squelching freedom and the rights of those states. Lincoln made things worse by using a union army to further subject his will against them, showing himself as an invader of the south. That only reinforced the confederates desire to have the states be represented over a Fedetal body that's forcing its will upon them to comply. When you look at the exact wording of that proclamation it reads that the Federal Government would issue a proclamation to those STATES IN REBELLION that the President will free slaves in those states that don't comply with the north. The President yet again was using FORCE against those states in succession to force them to end their rebellion.

Read the proclamation carefully:
Lincoln issued a 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.

So according to the written proclamation warning of 1862 - IF the south had ended their rebellion against the north, President Lincoln would not end slavery and would not seek to free those slaves from among the states of the south. If these ARE the terms as it was clearly written, there is then NO BASIS to say that the initial Government will over the south had always centered around the need to end slavery.

Read that first proclamation to the south, look carefully to those conditions written regarding "slavery". Had the south ended their rebellion, Lincoln would NOT end slavery in those states. Now tell me again that the preservation of slavery was the reason why the south rejected the proclamation and continued to succeed against the north, when that very same "preservation" was promised to them as a condition by Lincoln himself for returning to the union. End your rebellion, and we will not free those slaves from among your states and thereby not seek to end slavery in this nation.

Interesting thought. We do know slavery is why they started the secession attempt because that is what their declaration of secession says.

It is "believed" to be the reason for secession. However if that's all it was about and that was the "central" issue, (1) the south would have joined the union (2) they would not be in rebellion against the north (3) and according to the proclamation no slaves would have been freed, but the south would have been able to keep their slaves.

However, the south rejected the idea of joining the north despite being told no slaves would be set free as a result. Why did the south reject rejoining the union? Slavery then could not have been the reason the south CHOSE to be driven to the cost of war. The evidence simply doesn't support what many have been told to believe. Also, Lincoln waited over one year to make the proclamation and make slavery the issue. History records Lincoln "changed his focus" (it's those small key words often have Ben overlooked) to then make the issue about slavery ... at a time when the war was already well under way.

I used to think the civil war was strictly and only about slavery, until I did some research of my own and the evidence no longer made that the simple answer. If President Lincoln's first proclamation would have allowed the south to keep their slaves, that would have without doubt have ended their rebellion based on the issue of slavery alone.

Remember now, history records that Lincoln afterwards tells that he changed his focus and made the issue of the war about slavery. (Small details like that raises questions that can lead you to look deeper into the war itself)

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

And once again I will point out that the Southern Slave states seceded over the issue of slavery. The rest of the Union- including the non-rebellious slave states did not go to war over slavery.

Lincoln had no authority to free slaves that were legal in the non-rebellious states- he could do so in the areas in rebellion under his authority as Commander in Chief.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic decision- and a brilliant one at that. Lincoln always opposed slavery- but he was clear he was willing to endure slavery to maintain the Union- but when it became clear that the Union was better served by ending slavery, Lincoln took the actions he was able to take- the Emancipation Proclamation- and promoting the 13th Amendment.

We are better as a nation because of it.

If you read history regarding Lincoln, it says he "changed" his focus of the war and made it about slavery only after the proclamation was presented. When you look at the position of the south, they believed in a form of government that surrounded greater state's rights and representation over a Federal Government power that desired to subject IT'S will over the individual states. That Federal Government was viewed as squelching freedom and the rights of those states. Lincoln made things worse by using a union army to further subject his will against them, showing himself as an invader of the south. That only reinforced the confederates desire to have the states be represented over a Fedetal body that's forcing its will upon them to comply. When you look at the exact wording of that proclamation it reads that the Federal Government would issue a proclamation to those STATES IN REBELLION that the President will free slaves in those states that don't comply with the north. The President yet again was using FORCE against those states in succession to force them to end their rebellion.

Read the proclamation carefully:
Lincoln issued a 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.

So according to the written proclamation warning of 1862 - IF the south had ended their rebellion against the north, President Lincoln would not end slavery and would not seek to free those slaves from among the states of the south. If these ARE the terms as it was clearly written, there is then NO BASIS to say that the initial Government will over the south had always centered around the need to end slavery.

Read that first proclamation to the south, look carefully to those conditions written regarding "slavery". Had the south ended their rebellion, Lincoln would NOT end slavery in those states. Now tell me again that the preservation of slavery was the reason why the south rejected the proclamation and continued to succeed against the north, when that very same "preservation" was promised to them as a condition by Lincoln himself for returning to the union. End your rebellion, and we will not free those slaves from among your states and thereby not seek to end slavery in this nation.

Interesting thought. We do know slavery is why they started the secession attempt because that is what their declaration of secession says.

It is "believed" to be the reason for secession. However if that's all it was about and that was the "central" issue, (1) the south would have joined the union (2) they would not be in rebellion against the north (3) and according to the proclamation no slaves would have been freed, but the south would have been able to keep their slaves.

However, the south rejected the idea of joining the north despite being told no slaves would be set free as a result. Why did the south reject rejoining the union? Slavery then could not have been the reason the south CHOSE to be driven to the cost of war. The evidence simply doesn't support what many have been told to believe. Also, Lincoln waited over one year to make the proclamation and make slavery the issue. History records Lincoln "changed his focus" (it's those small key words often have Ben overlooked) to then make the issue about slavery ... at a time when the war was already well under way.

I used to think the civil war was strictly and only about slavery, until I did some research of my own and the evidence no longer made that the simple answer. If President Lincoln's first proclamation would have allowed the south to keep their slaves, that would have without doubt have ended their rebellion based on the issue of slavery alone.

Remember now, history records that Lincoln afterwards tells that he changed his focus and made the issue of the war about slavery. (Small details like that raises questions that can lead you to look deeper into the war itself)

Believed HELL. Read the declarations of secession from each of the states. It plainly says why they wanted to seceded. No matter what efforts were later made to try to end the conflict, the reason for it in the first place is and was never in doubt.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

And once again I will point out that the Southern Slave states seceded over the issue of slavery. The rest of the Union- including the non-rebellious slave states did not go to war over slavery.

Lincoln had no authority to free slaves that were legal in the non-rebellious states- he could do so in the areas in rebellion under his authority as Commander in Chief.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic decision- and a brilliant one at that. Lincoln always opposed slavery- but he was clear he was willing to endure slavery to maintain the Union- but when it became clear that the Union was better served by ending slavery, Lincoln took the actions he was able to take- the Emancipation Proclamation- and promoting the 13th Amendment.

We are better as a nation because of it.

If you read history regarding Lincoln, it says he "changed" his focus of the war and made it about slavery only after the proclamation was presented. When you look at the position of the south, they believed in a form of government that surrounded greater state's rights and representation over a Federal Government power that desired to subject IT'S will over the individual states. That Federal Government was viewed as squelching freedom and the rights of those states. Lincoln made things worse by using a union army to further subject his will against them, showing himself as an invader of the south. That only reinforced the confederates desire to have the states be represented over a Fedetal body that's forcing its will upon them to comply. When you look at the exact wording of that proclamation it reads that the Federal Government would issue a proclamation to those STATES IN REBELLION that the President will free slaves in those states that don't comply with the north. The President yet again was using FORCE against those states in succession to force them to end their rebellion.

Read the proclamation carefully:
Lincoln issued a 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.

So according to the written proclamation warning of 1862 - IF the south had ended their rebellion against the north, President Lincoln would not end slavery and would not seek to free those slaves from among the states of the south. If these ARE the terms as it was clearly written, there is then NO BASIS to say that the initial Government will over the south had always centered around the need to end slavery.

Read that first proclamation to the south, look carefully to those conditions written regarding "slavery". Had the south ended their rebellion, Lincoln would NOT end slavery in those states. Now tell me again that the preservation of slavery was the reason why the south rejected the proclamation and continued to succeed against the north, when that very same "preservation" was promised to them as a condition by Lincoln himself for returning to the union. End your rebellion, and we will not free those slaves from among your states and thereby not seek to end slavery in this nation.

Interesting thought. We do know slavery is why they started the secession attempt because that is what their declaration of secession says.

It is "believed" to be the reason for secession. However if that's all it was about and that was the "central" issue, (1) the south would have joined the union (2) they would not be in rebellion against the north (3) and according to the proclamation no slaves would have been freed, but the south would have been able to keep their slaves.

However, the south rejected the idea of joining the north despite being told no slaves would be set free as a result. Why did the south reject rejoining the union? Slavery then could not have been the reason the south CHOSE to be driven to the cost of war. The evidence simply doesn't support what many have been told to believe. Also, Lincoln waited over one year to make the proclamation and make slavery the issue. History records Lincoln "changed his focus" (it's those small key words often have Ben overlooked) to then make the issue about slavery ... at a time when the war was already well under way.

I used to think the civil war was strictly and only about slavery, until I did some research of my own and the evidence no longer made that the simple answer. If President Lincoln's first proclamation would have allowed the south to keep their slaves, that would have without doubt have ended their rebellion based on the issue of slavery alone.

Remember now, history records that Lincoln afterwards tells that he changed his focus and made the issue of the war about slavery. (Small details like that raises questions that can lead you to look deeper into the war itself)

Remember- it takes two sides to make a war.

The North certainly did not go to war to end slavery. But the rebellious slave states seceded specifically to protect the institution of owning slaves- and it was that secession that led to the war.

President Lincoln opposed slavery personally but went into the Presidency thinking that maintaining slavery was the only way to avert the dissolution of the Union, but by the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, recognized that the best way to preserve the Union would be to abolish slavery in the rebel states- which also incidentally was part of the process which led to the 13th Amendment.

The North didn't go to war over slavery- but the South did.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

And once again I will point out that the Southern Slave states seceded over the issue of slavery. The rest of the Union- including the non-rebellious slave states did not go to war over slavery.

Lincoln had no authority to free slaves that were legal in the non-rebellious states- he could do so in the areas in rebellion under his authority as Commander in Chief.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic decision- and a brilliant one at that. Lincoln always opposed slavery- but he was clear he was willing to endure slavery to maintain the Union- but when it became clear that the Union was better served by ending slavery, Lincoln took the actions he was able to take- the Emancipation Proclamation- and promoting the 13th Amendment.

We are better as a nation because of it.

If you read history regarding Lincoln, it says he "changed" his focus of the war and made it about slavery only after the proclamation was presented. When you look at the position of the south, they believed in a form of government that surrounded greater state's rights and representation over a Federal Government power that desired to subject IT'S will over the individual states. That Federal Government was viewed as squelching freedom and the rights of those states. Lincoln made things worse by using a union army to further subject his will against them, showing himself as an invader of the south. That only reinforced the confederates desire to have the states be represented over a Fedetal body that's forcing its will upon them to comply. When you look at the exact wording of that proclamation it reads that the Federal Government would issue a proclamation to those STATES IN REBELLION that the President will free slaves in those states that don't comply with the north. The President yet again was using FORCE against those states in succession to force them to end their rebellion.

Read the proclamation carefully:
Lincoln issued a 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.

So according to the written proclamation warning of 1862 - IF the south had ended their rebellion against the north, President Lincoln would not end slavery and would not seek to free those slaves from among the states of the south. If these ARE the terms as it was clearly written, there is then NO BASIS to say that the initial Government will over the south had always centered around the need to end slavery.

Read that first proclamation to the south, look carefully to those conditions written regarding "slavery". Had the south ended their rebellion, Lincoln would NOT end slavery in those states. Now tell me again that the preservation of slavery was the reason why the south rejected the proclamation and continued to succeed against the north, when that very same "preservation" was promised to them as a condition by Lincoln himself for returning to the union. End your rebellion, and we will not free those slaves from among your states and thereby not seek to end slavery in this nation.

Interesting thought. We do know slavery is why they started the secession attempt because that is what their declaration of secession says.

It is "believed" to be the reason for secession. However if that's all it was about and that was the "central" issue, (1) the south would have joined the union (2) they would not be in rebellion against the north (3) and according to the proclamation no slaves would have been freed, but the south would have been able to keep their slaves.

However, the south rejected the idea of joining the north despite being told no slaves would be set free as a result. Why did the south reject rejoining the union? Slavery then could not have been the reason the south CHOSE to be driven to the cost of war. The evidence simply doesn't support what many have been told to believe. Also, Lincoln waited over one year to make the proclamation and make slavery the issue. History records Lincoln "changed his focus" (it's those small key words often have Ben overlooked) to then make the issue about slavery ... at a time when the war was already well under way.

I used to think the civil war was strictly and only about slavery, until I did some research of my own and the evidence no longer made that the simple answer. If President Lincoln's first proclamation would have allowed the south to keep their slaves, that would have without doubt have ended their rebellion based on the issue of slavery alone.

Remember now, history records that Lincoln afterwards tells that he changed his focus and made the issue of the war about slavery. (Small details like that raises questions that can lead you to look deeper into the war itself)

Believed HELL. Read the declarations of secession from each of the states. It plainly says why they wanted to seceded. No matter what efforts were later made to try to end the conflict, the reason for it in the first place is and was never in doubt.

You got to look deeper, all the evidence doesn't make it that simple. If it were the rebellious states would have accepted Lincoln's offer and rejoined the union. No one has provided an answer as to why the offer was rejected.

What reason would the south have to reject joining the union and keeping their slaves? Instead they chose to go to war. No one on this thread has offered a reason the south rejected joining the union when they would have kept their slaves if they had. They say it's about slavery, but the south didn't go along with Lincoln's proposal to "end their rebellion with the north", now did they? Even IF in doing so meant keeping their slaves.

The evidence doesn't make it as strong an argument as you would like.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

And once again I will point out that the Southern Slave states seceded over the issue of slavery. The rest of the Union- including the non-rebellious slave states did not go to war over slavery.

Lincoln had no authority to free slaves that were legal in the non-rebellious states- he could do so in the areas in rebellion under his authority as Commander in Chief.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic decision- and a brilliant one at that. Lincoln always opposed slavery- but he was clear he was willing to endure slavery to maintain the Union- but when it became clear that the Union was better served by ending slavery, Lincoln took the actions he was able to take- the Emancipation Proclamation- and promoting the 13th Amendment.

We are better as a nation because of it.

If you read history regarding Lincoln, it says he "changed" his focus of the war and made it about slavery only after the proclamation was presented. When you look at the position of the south, they believed in a form of government that surrounded greater state's rights and representation over a Federal Government power that desired to subject IT'S will over the individual states. That Federal Government was viewed as squelching freedom and the rights of those states. Lincoln made things worse by using a union army to further subject his will against them, showing himself as an invader of the south. That only reinforced the confederates desire to have the states be represented over a Fedetal body that's forcing its will upon them to comply. When you look at the exact wording of that proclamation it reads that the Federal Government would issue a proclamation to those STATES IN REBELLION that the President will free slaves in those states that don't comply with the north. The President yet again was using FORCE against those states in succession to force them to end their rebellion.

Read the proclamation carefully:
Lincoln issued a 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.

So according to the written proclamation warning of 1862 - IF the south had ended their rebellion against the north, President Lincoln would not end slavery and would not seek to free those slaves from among the states of the south. If these ARE the terms as it was clearly written, there is then NO BASIS to say that the initial Government will over the south had always centered around the need to end slavery.

Read that first proclamation to the south, look carefully to those conditions written regarding "slavery". Had the south ended their rebellion, Lincoln would NOT end slavery in those states. Now tell me again that the preservation of slavery was the reason why the south rejected the proclamation and continued to succeed against the north, when that very same "preservation" was promised to them as a condition by Lincoln himself for returning to the union. End your rebellion, and we will not free those slaves from among your states and thereby not seek to end slavery in this nation.

Interesting thought. We do know slavery is why they started the secession attempt because that is what their declaration of secession says.

It is "believed" to be the reason for secession. However if that's all it was about and that was the "central" issue, (1) the south would have joined the union (2) they would not be in rebellion against the north (3) and according to the proclamation no slaves would have been freed, but the south would have been able to keep their slaves.

However, the south rejected the idea of joining the north despite being told no slaves would be set free as a result. Why did the south reject rejoining the union? Slavery then could not have been the reason the south CHOSE to be driven to the cost of war. The evidence simply doesn't support what many have been told to believe. Also, Lincoln waited over one year to make the proclamation and make slavery the issue. History records Lincoln "changed his focus" (it's those small key words often have Ben overlooked) to then make the issue about slavery ... at a time when the war was already well under way.

I used to think the civil war was strictly and only about slavery, until I did some research of my own and the evidence no longer made that the simple answer. If President Lincoln's first proclamation would have allowed the south to keep their slaves, that would have without doubt have ended their rebellion based on the issue of slavery alone.

Remember now, history records that Lincoln afterwards tells that he changed his focus and made the issue of the war about slavery. (Small details like that raises questions that can lead you to look deeper into the war itself)

Remember- it takes two sides to make a war.

The North certainly did not go to war to end slavery. But the rebellious slave states seceded specifically to protect the institution of owning slaves- and it was that secession that led to the war.

President Lincoln opposed slavery personally but went into the Presidency thinking that maintaining slavery was the only way to avert the dissolution of the Union, but by the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, recognized that the best way to preserve the Union would be to abolish slavery in the rebel states- which also incidentally was part of the process which led to the 13th Amendment.

The North didn't go to war over slavery- but the South did.

Why did the south reject Lincoln's proclamation to rejoin the union if it meant keeping those slaves? They chose war and blood ahead and to establish their OWN Confeserate States instead of a United States with slavery promised as Lincoln's condition to end the rebellion

If it was soley about slavery you would have been able to quite easily have provided an answer by now.

 

[Syriusly]

And once again I will point out that the Southern Slave states seceded over the issue of slavery. The rest of the Union- including the non-rebellious slave states did not go to war over slavery.

Lincoln had no authority to free slaves that were legal in the non-rebellious states- he could do so in the areas in rebellion under his authority as Commander in Chief.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic decision- and a brilliant one at that. Lincoln always opposed slavery- but he was clear he was willing to endure slavery to maintain the Union- but when it became clear that the Union was better served by ending slavery, Lincoln took the actions he was able to take- the Emancipation Proclamation- and promoting the 13th Amendment.

We are better as a nation because of it.

If you read history regarding Lincoln, it says he "changed" his focus of the war and made it about slavery only after the proclamation was presented. When you look at the position of the south, they believed in a form of government that surrounded greater state's rights and representation over a Federal Government power that desired to subject IT'S will over the individual states. That Federal Government was viewed as squelching freedom and the rights of those states. Lincoln made things worse by using a union army to further subject his will against them, showing himself as an invader of the south. That only reinforced the confederates desire to have the states be represented over a Fedetal body that's forcing its will upon them to comply. When you look at the exact wording of that proclamation it reads that the Federal Government would issue a proclamation to those STATES IN REBELLION that the President will free slaves in those states that don't comply with the north. The President yet again was using FORCE against those states in succession to force them to end their rebellion.

Read the proclamation carefully:
Lincoln issued a 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.

So according to the written proclamation warning of 1862 - IF the south had ended their rebellion against the north, President Lincoln would not end slavery and would not seek to free those slaves from among the states of the south. If these ARE the terms as it was clearly written, there is then NO BASIS to say that the initial Government will over the south had always centered around the need to end slavery.

Read that first proclamation to the south, look carefully to those conditions written regarding "slavery". Had the south ended their rebellion, Lincoln would NOT end slavery in those states. Now tell me again that the preservation of slavery was the reason why the south rejected the proclamation and continued to succeed against the north, when that very same "preservation" was promised to them as a condition by Lincoln himself for returning to the union. End your rebellion, and we will not free those slaves from among your states and thereby not seek to end slavery in this nation.

Interesting thought. We do know slavery is why they started the secession attempt because that is what their declaration of secession says.

It is "believed" to be the reason for secession. However if that's all it was about and that was the "central" issue, (1) the south would have joined the union (2) they would not be in rebellion against the north (3) and according to the proclamation no slaves would have been freed, but the south would have been able to keep their slaves.

However, the south rejected the idea of joining the north despite being told no slaves would be set free as a result. Why did the south reject rejoining the union? Slavery then could not have been the reason the south CHOSE to be driven to the cost of war. The evidence simply doesn't support what many have been told to believe. Also, Lincoln waited over one year to make the proclamation and make slavery the issue. History records Lincoln "changed his focus" (it's those small key words often have Ben overlooked) to then make the issue about slavery ... at a time when the war was already well under way.

I used to think the civil war was strictly and only about slavery, until I did some research of my own and the evidence no longer made that the simple answer. If President Lincoln's first proclamation would have allowed the south to keep their slaves, that would have without doubt have ended their rebellion based on the issue of slavery alone.

Remember now, history records that Lincoln afterwards tells that he changed his focus and made the issue of the war about slavery. (Small details like that raises questions that can lead you to look deeper into the war itself)

Believed HELL. Read the declarations of secession from each of the states. It plainly says why they wanted to seceded. No matter what efforts were later made to try to end the conflict, the reason for it in the first place is and was never in doubt.

You got to look deeper, all the evidence doesn't make it that simple. If it were the rebellious states would have accepted Lincoln's offer and rejoined the union. No one has provided an answer as to why the offer was rejected.

What reason would the south have to reject joining the union and keeping their slaves? Instead they chose to go to war. No one on this thread has offered a reason the south rejected joining the union when they would have kept their slaves if they had. They say it's about slavery, but the south didn't go along with Lincoln's proposal to "end their rebellion with the north", now did they? Even IF in doing so meant keeping their slaves.

The evidence doesn't make it as strong an argument as you would like.

And once again I will point out that the Southern Slave states seceded over the issue of slavery. The rest of the Union- including the non-rebellious slave states did not go to war over slavery.

Lincoln had no authority to free slaves that were legal in the non-rebellious states- he could do so in the areas in rebellion under his authority as Commander in Chief.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic decision- and a brilliant one at that. Lincoln always opposed slavery- but he was clear he was willing to endure slavery to maintain the Union- but when it became clear that the Union was better served by ending slavery, Lincoln took the actions he was able to take- the Emancipation Proclamation- and promoting the 13th Amendment.

We are better as a nation because of it.

If you read history regarding Lincoln, it says he "changed" his focus of the war and made it about slavery only after the proclamation was presented. When you look at the position of the south, they believed in a form of government that surrounded greater state's rights and representation over a Federal Government power that desired to subject IT'S will over the individual states. That Federal Government was viewed as squelching freedom and the rights of those states. Lincoln made things worse by using a union army to further subject his will against them, showing himself as an invader of the south. That only reinforced the confederates desire to have the states be represented over a Fedetal body that's forcing its will upon them to comply. When you look at the exact wording of that proclamation it reads that the Federal Government would issue a proclamation to those STATES IN REBELLION that the President will free slaves in those states that don't comply with the north. The President yet again was using FORCE against those states in succession to force them to end their rebellion.

Read the proclamation carefully:
Lincoln issued a 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.

So according to the written proclamation warning of 1862 - IF the south had ended their rebellion against the north, President Lincoln would not end slavery and would not seek to free those slaves from among the states of the south. If these ARE the terms as it was clearly written, there is then NO BASIS to say that the initial Government will over the south had always centered around the need to end slavery.

Read that first proclamation to the south, look carefully to those conditions written regarding "slavery". Had the south ended their rebellion, Lincoln would NOT end slavery in those states. Now tell me again that the preservation of slavery was the reason why the south rejected the proclamation and continued to succeed against the north, when that very same "preservation" was promised to them as a condition by Lincoln himself for returning to the union. End your rebellion, and we will not free those slaves from among your states and thereby not seek to end slavery in this nation.

Interesting thought. We do know slavery is why they started the secession attempt because that is what their declaration of secession says.

It is "believed" to be the reason for secession. However if that's all it was about and that was the "central" issue, (1) the south would have joined the union (2) they would not be in rebellion against the north (3) and according to the proclamation no slaves would have been freed, but the south would have been able to keep their slaves.

However, the south rejected the idea of joining the north despite being told no slaves would be set free as a result. Why did the south reject rejoining the union? Slavery then could not have been the reason the south CHOSE to be driven to the cost of war. The evidence simply doesn't support what many have been told to believe. Also, Lincoln waited over one year to make the proclamation and make slavery the issue. History records Lincoln "changed his focus" (it's those small key words often have Ben overlooked) to then make the issue about slavery ... at a time when the war was already well under way.

I used to think the civil war was strictly and only about slavery, until I did some research of my own and the evidence no longer made that the simple answer. If President Lincoln's first proclamation would have allowed the south to keep their slaves, that would have without doubt have ended their rebellion based on the issue of slavery alone.

Remember now, history records that Lincoln afterwards tells that he changed his focus and made the issue of the war about slavery. (Small details like that raises questions that can lead you to look deeper into the war itself)

Remember- it takes two sides to make a war.

The North certainly did not go to war to end slavery. But the rebellious slave states seceded specifically to protect the institution of owning slaves- and it was that secession that led to the war.

President Lincoln opposed slavery personally but went into the Presidency thinking that maintaining slavery was the only way to avert the dissolution of the Union, but by the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, recognized that the best way to preserve the Union would be to abolish slavery in the rebel states- which also incidentally was part of the process which led to the 13th Amendment.

The North didn't go to war over slavery- but the South did.

Why did the south reject Lincoln's proclamation to rejoin the union if it meant keeping those slaves? They chose war and blood ahead and to establish their OWN Confeserate States instead of a United States with slavery promised as Lincoln's condition to end the rebellion

If it was soley about slavery you would have been able to quite easily have provided an answer by now.

I can't claim to know the actual reason why the South rejected the proclamation but sure- I can speculate.

Remember when Lincoln was elected he never advocated banning slavery- but the Southern slave states decided his election meant the end of slavery- and based upon that fear- and to protect their interest in their human property- they seceded.

By the time of the Emancipation Proclamation the war had been going on for almost 2 years- thousands and thousands had died- positions had grown more entrenched. I think that the Rebel leaders of the slave states rejected the offer because they still believed that ultimately that the North intended to end slavery- and they still believed that they could win the war.

Let me throw this back at you- the Secession Statements by South Carolina, and several other of the rebel slave states clearly stated that slavery was the primary reason for secession. The governor of South Carolina prior to the attack on Fort Sumter was talking about reintroducing the slave trade from Africa.

Since the Rebel Slave states themselves were saying that slavery was the primary reason for secession- why do you think that they refused the terms of the Emancipation Proclamation?

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know...................it would be helpful to know the history of the Lee battle flag before defending it.

When Lee was defeated, he himself said that the flag should be struck and never flown again.

Later (like in the 1950's), there were Southern governors who didn't want to comply with Equal Rights and the Civil Rights movement, so they decided to raise the flag over their capitols as an outward act of defiance.

Sorry.................but the main reason this flag has flown on state grounds was because of racism. It's good to see it taken down from government buildings.

However....................if you want to display the Lee battle flag, go right ahead.

Makes it easier for me to see where the idiots are.

 

[Coyote]

And once again I will point out that the Southern Slave states seceded over the issue of slavery. The rest of the Union- including the non-rebellious slave states did not go to war over slavery.

Lincoln had no authority to free slaves that were legal in the non-rebellious states- he could do so in the areas in rebellion under his authority as Commander in Chief.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic decision- and a brilliant one at that. Lincoln always opposed slavery- but he was clear he was willing to endure slavery to maintain the Union- but when it became clear that the Union was better served by ending slavery, Lincoln took the actions he was able to take- the Emancipation Proclamation- and promoting the 13th Amendment.

We are better as a nation because of it.

If you read history regarding Lincoln, it says he "changed" his focus of the war and made it about slavery only after the proclamation was presented. When you look at the position of the south, they believed in a form of government that surrounded greater state's rights and representation over a Federal Government power that desired to subject IT'S will over the individual states. That Federal Government was viewed as squelching freedom and the rights of those states. Lincoln made things worse by using a union army to further subject his will against them, showing himself as an invader of the south. That only reinforced the confederates desire to have the states be represented over a Fedetal body that's forcing its will upon them to comply. When you look at the exact wording of that proclamation it reads that the Federal Government would issue a proclamation to those STATES IN REBELLION that the President will free slaves in those states that don't comply with the north. The President yet again was using FORCE against those states in succession to force them to end their rebellion.

Read the proclamation carefully:
Lincoln issued a 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.

So according to the written proclamation warning of 1862 - IF the south had ended their rebellion against the north, President Lincoln would not end slavery and would not seek to free those slaves from among the states of the south. If these ARE the terms as it was clearly written, there is then NO BASIS to say that the initial Government will over the south had always centered around the need to end slavery.

Read that first proclamation to the south, look carefully to those conditions written regarding "slavery". Had the south ended their rebellion, Lincoln would NOT end slavery in those states. Now tell me again that the preservation of slavery was the reason why the south rejected the proclamation and continued to succeed against the north, when that very same "preservation" was promised to them as a condition by Lincoln himself for returning to the union. End your rebellion, and we will not free those slaves from among your states and thereby not seek to end slavery in this nation.

Interesting thought. We do know slavery is why they started the secession attempt because that is what their declaration of secession says.

It is "believed" to be the reason for secession. However if that's all it was about and that was the "central" issue, (1) the south would have joined the union (2) they would not be in rebellion against the north (3) and according to the proclamation no slaves would have been freed, but the south would have been able to keep their slaves.

However, the south rejected the idea of joining the north despite being told no slaves would be set free as a result. Why did the south reject rejoining the union? Slavery then could not have been the reason the south CHOSE to be driven to the cost of war. The evidence simply doesn't support what many have been told to believe. Also, Lincoln waited over one year to make the proclamation and make slavery the issue. History records Lincoln "changed his focus" (it's those small key words often have Ben overlooked) to then make the issue about slavery ... at a time when the war was already well under way.

I used to think the civil war was strictly and only about slavery, until I did some research of my own and the evidence no longer made that the simple answer. If President Lincoln's first proclamation would have allowed the south to keep their slaves, that would have without doubt have ended their rebellion based on the issue of slavery alone.

Remember now, history records that Lincoln afterwards tells that he changed his focus and made the issue of the war about slavery. (Small details like that raises questions that can lead you to look deeper into the war itself)

Remember- it takes two sides to make a war.

The North certainly did not go to war to end slavery. But the rebellious slave states seceded specifically to protect the institution of owning slaves- and it was that secession that led to the war.

President Lincoln opposed slavery personally but went into the Presidency thinking that maintaining slavery was the only way to avert the dissolution of the Union, but by the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, recognized that the best way to preserve the Union would be to abolish slavery in the rebel states- which also incidentally was part of the process which led to the 13th Amendment.

The North didn't go to war over slavery- but the South did.

Why did the south reject Lincoln's proclamation to rejoin the union if it meant keeping those slaves? They chose war and blood ahead and to establish their OWN Confeserate States instead of a United States with slavery promised as Lincoln's condition to end the rebellion

If it was soley about slavery you would have been able to quite easily have provided an answer by now.

No one is saying it was "soley about slavery" - however slavery was a key component leading to the south's secession - is was specifically stated, over and over, in the various declarations: The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

If slavery were such a minor issue, why was it specifically mentioned - sometimes at length in these declarations?

 

[Coyote]

It doesn't exactly work that way. For example, blacks are more likely to receive jail time or the death penalty than whites - for comparable crimes. This is particularly true in capital cases and research has shown that when the perpetrator is black, or the victim is white the penalty is substantially greater.

From: There's blatant inequality at nearly every phase of the criminal justice system

Black Americans are more likely to have their cars searched. Nationally, black drivers are also more likely to be pulled over and less likely to receive a reason for being stopped. In one Rhode Island study, black drivers were stopped more even though they were less likely to receive a citation.

Black Americans are more likely to be arrested for drug use. Police arrest black Americans for drug crimes at twice the rate of whites, according to federal data, despite the fact that whites use drugs at comparable rates and sell drugs at comparable or even higher rates.

Black Americans are more likely to be jailed while awaiting trial. A 2014 study in New York City showed that blacks were more likely than whites or nonblack minorities to be in jail while they await trial, even after controlling for the seriousness of charges and prior record. Other research suggests that this disparity is often due to the fact that black defendants cannot afford to pay bail. The temporary incarceration stigmatizes the defendant, disrupts family life and employment, and makes it harder for the defendant to prepare a defense.

Black Americans are more likely to be offered a plea deal that includes prison time. The same study in New York found that black defendants are more likely to be offered plea deals that include prison time than whites or nonblack minorities. Even after controlling for many factors, including the seriousness of charges and prior record, blacks were 13 percent more likely than whites to be offered such deals. (note - this would certainly influence crime rate statistics where a white person might get a much lighter sentence for felonies, community service, fines, no prison time or the ability to have it expunged from the record after a certain number of years).

Black Americans may be excluded from juries because of their race. Researchers found that North Carolina prosecutors were excluding black people from juries in capital cases at twice the rate of other jurors, even when controlling for legitimate justifications for striking jurors, such as employment status or reservations about the death penalty. Other studies have shown that excluding black people from juries can influence deliberations and verdicts. For example, black defendants in capital cases with white victims are less likely to receive a death sentence if there is a black juror.

Black Americans are more likely to serve longer sentences than white Americans for the same offense.

A 2012 working paper found “robust evidence” that black male federal defendants were given longer sentences than comparable whites. Black men’s sentences were, on average, 10 percent longer than those of their white peers. This is partly explained by the fact that prosecutors are about twice as likely to file charges against blacks that carry mandatory minimum sentences than against whites.​

There is more in the article but all of these factors would have an effect on prison populations, skewed conviction rates and even arrest rates if blacks are more likely to have their cars searched or receive penalties for drug convictions.

Placing it all under racism would be oversimplifying it - many factors influence crime rates and arrest rates, for example poverty - which effects one's ability to mount a good defense or make bail (as just one example). However, when you read the article I cited above it is also quite clear that there are racist elements involved as well: striking blacks from juries, the disproportionate representation of blacks on death row and the way death sentences are given as well as sentencing for drug crimes and the offering of plea deals.

The Color of Crime is a problematic resource and I question it's scholarship: New Century Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tim Wise wrote the following rebuttal to it in The Color of Deception: Race, Crime and Sloppy Social Science

“A lie can travel half-way around the world while the truth is still pulling on its boots.”​

Stoking Fears About Interracial Crime — A Look at How Racists Do Math


Next, Taylor claims that most victims of black violent crime are white, and thus, that blacks are violently targeting whites. Furthermore, since only a small share of the victims of white criminals are black (only 4.4 percent in 2002, for example), this means that blacks are far more of a threat to whites than vice-versa. But there are several problems with these claims.


To begin with, the white victim totals in the Justice Department’s victimization data include those termed Hispanic by the Census, since nine in ten Latino/as are considered racially white by government record-keepers. Since Latinos and Latinas tend to live closer to blacks than non-Hispanic whites, this means that many “white” victims of “black crime” are Latino or Latina, and that in any given year, the majority of black crime victims would be people of color, not whites.


But even if we compute the white totals as Taylor does, without breaking out Hispanic victims of “black crime,” his position is without merit. In 2002, whites, including Latinos, were about 81.5 percent of the population (3). That same year, whites (including Latinos) were 51 percent of the victims of violent crimes committed by blacks, meaning that whites were victimized by blacks less often than would have been expected by random chance, given the extent to which whites were available to be victimized (4).


As for the claim that blacks victimize whites at rates that are far higher than the reverse, though true, this statistic is meaningless, for a few obvious but overlooked reasons, first among them the simple truth that if whites are more available as potential victims, we would naturally expect black criminals to victimize whites more often than white criminals would victimize blacks. Examining data from 2002, there were indeed 4.5 times more black-on-white violent crimes than the reverse (5). While this may seem to support Taylor’s position, it actually destroys it, because the interracial crime gap, though seemingly large, is smaller than random chance would have predicted. The critical factor ignored by Taylor is the extent to which whites and blacks encounter each other in the first place. Because of ongoing racial isolation and de facto segregation, the two group’s members do not encounter one another at rates commensurate with their shares of the population: a fact that literally torpedoes the claims in The Color of Crime.


As sociologist Robert O’Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white criminal for that matter) encountering a black person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a given black person (or black criminal) encountering a white person are nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent (6), meaning the actual interracial victimization gap between black-on-white and white-on-black crime is smaller than one would expect. In 2002, blacks committed a little more than 1.2 million violent crimes, while whites committed a little more than three million violent crimes (7). If each black criminal had a 57 percent chance of encountering (and thus potentially victimizing) a white person, this means that over the course of 2002, blacks should have been expected to victimize roughly 690,000 whites. But in truth, blacks victimized whites only 614,176 times that year (8). Conversely, if each white criminal had only a three percent chance of encountering and thus victimizing a black person, this means that over the course of 2002, whites would have been expected to victimize roughly 93,000 blacks. But in truth, whites victimized blacks 135,931 times: almost 50 percent more often than would be expected by random chance (9).


Indeed, given relative crime rates as well as rates of interracial encounter, random chance would have predicted the ratio of black-on-white to white-on-black victimization at roughly 7.4 to one. Yet, as the data makes clear, there were only 4.5 times more black-on-white crimes than white-on-black crimes in 2002. In other words, given encounter ratios, black criminals victimize whites less often than could be expected, while white criminals victimize blacks more often than could be expected.​

Black Americans have to stop being so violent. A society has a right to protect itself regardless of political correctness and the self-righteousness of some of its members.

Of course society has a right to protect itself. Crazy damn gunrights nuts.

To be fair, not all blacks are nuts about guns. A lot of the thus are though, and a society needs to protect itself.

A lot of the thus? Who's thus? Roof? Lanza? Holmes? Loughner?

The point is that the authorities who are entrusted to protect society do not, and should not have the luxury of self-righteousness and the obligation to dispense justice according to system of quotas. When about 6% of the population {black males, duh} commit about 50% of murders and other violent crimes, it is perhaps better to look for ways to defend the public, including detaining those obviously more likely to murder.

Horrific, I'm sure, but there you go.

You are suggesting detaining innocent people soley on the basis of race and gender?

 

[BULLDOG]

And once again I will point out that the Southern Slave states seceded over the issue of slavery. The rest of the Union- including the non-rebellious slave states did not go to war over slavery.

Lincoln had no authority to free slaves that were legal in the non-rebellious states- he could do so in the areas in rebellion under his authority as Commander in Chief.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic decision- and a brilliant one at that. Lincoln always opposed slavery- but he was clear he was willing to endure slavery to maintain the Union- but when it became clear that the Union was better served by ending slavery, Lincoln took the actions he was able to take- the Emancipation Proclamation- and promoting the 13th Amendment.

We are better as a nation because of it.

If you read history regarding Lincoln, it says he "changed" his focus of the war and made it about slavery only after the proclamation was presented. When you look at the position of the south, they believed in a form of government that surrounded greater state's rights and representation over a Federal Government power that desired to subject IT'S will over the individual states. That Federal Government was viewed as squelching freedom and the rights of those states. Lincoln made things worse by using a union army to further subject his will against them, showing himself as an invader of the south. That only reinforced the confederates desire to have the states be represented over a Fedetal body that's forcing its will upon them to comply. When you look at the exact wording of that proclamation it reads that the Federal Government would issue a proclamation to those STATES IN REBELLION that the President will free slaves in those states that don't comply with the north. The President yet again was using FORCE against those states in succession to force them to end their rebellion.

Read the proclamation carefully:
Lincoln issued a 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.

So according to the written proclamation warning of 1862 - IF the south had ended their rebellion against the north, President Lincoln would not end slavery and would not seek to free those slaves from among the states of the south. If these ARE the terms as it was clearly written, there is then NO BASIS to say that the initial Government will over the south had always centered around the need to end slavery.

Read that first proclamation to the south, look carefully to those conditions written regarding "slavery". Had the south ended their rebellion, Lincoln would NOT end slavery in those states. Now tell me again that the preservation of slavery was the reason why the south rejected the proclamation and continued to succeed against the north, when that very same "preservation" was promised to them as a condition by Lincoln himself for returning to the union. End your rebellion, and we will not free those slaves from among your states and thereby not seek to end slavery in this nation.

Interesting thought. We do know slavery is why they started the secession attempt because that is what their declaration of secession says.

It is "believed" to be the reason for secession. However if that's all it was about and that was the "central" issue, (1) the south would have joined the union (2) they would not be in rebellion against the north (3) and according to the proclamation no slaves would have been freed, but the south would have been able to keep their slaves.

However, the south rejected the idea of joining the north despite being told no slaves would be set free as a result. Why did the south reject rejoining the union? Slavery then could not have been the reason the south CHOSE to be driven to the cost of war. The evidence simply doesn't support what many have been told to believe. Also, Lincoln waited over one year to make the proclamation and make slavery the issue. History records Lincoln "changed his focus" (it's those small key words often have Ben overlooked) to then make the issue about slavery ... at a time when the war was already well under way.

I used to think the civil war was strictly and only about slavery, until I did some research of my own and the evidence no longer made that the simple answer. If President Lincoln's first proclamation would have allowed the south to keep their slaves, that would have without doubt have ended their rebellion based on the issue of slavery alone.

Remember now, history records that Lincoln afterwards tells that he changed his focus and made the issue of the war about slavery. (Small details like that raises questions that can lead you to look deeper into the war itself)

Believed HELL. Read the declarations of secession from each of the states. It plainly says why they wanted to seceded. No matter what efforts were later made to try to end the conflict, the reason for it in the first place is and was never in doubt.

You got to look deeper, all the evidence doesn't make it that simple. If it were the rebellious states would have accepted Lincoln's offer and rejoined the union. No one has provided an answer as to why the offer was rejected.

What reason would the south have to reject joining the union and keeping their slaves? Instead they chose to go to war. No one on this thread has offered a reason the south rejected joining the union when they would have kept their slaves if they had. They say it's about slavery, but the south didn't go along with Lincoln's proposal to "end their rebellion with the north", now did they? Even IF in doing so meant keeping their slaves.

The evidence doesn't make it as strong an argument as you would like.

I have no idea why they chose to continue the war, but the reason they started it is unquestionable. The reason was plainly laid our in their declarations. Are you suggesting they didn't list all their grievances for trying to seceded in those documents? Why would they do that?

 

[Meathead]

Black Americans have to stop being so violent. A society has a right to protect itself regardless of political correctness and the self-righteousness of some of its members.

Of course society has a right to protect itself. Crazy damn gunrights nuts.

To be fair, not all blacks are nuts about guns. A lot of the thus are though, and a society needs to protect itself.

A lot of the thus? Who's thus? Roof? Lanza? Holmes? Loughner?

The point is that the authorities who are entrusted to protect society do not, and should not have the luxury of self-righteousness and the obligation to dispense justice according to system of quotas. When about 6% of the population {black males, duh} commit about 50% of murders and other violent crimes, it is perhaps better to look for ways to defend the public, including detaining those obviously more likely to murder.

Horrific, I'm sure, but there you go.

You are suggesting detaining innocent people soley on the basis of race and gender?

I am not suggesting arresting innocent people, let alone detaining them. Most people being detained are so for parole violation, thus, people who are convicted criminals given a chance who fucked up. These are the very often the guys who murder, not the innocents.

 

[JoeB131]

Not soon after the massacre, a picture of Dylann Roof was found where he was sporting a Confederate flag, and then again not soon after, liberals behaved as if banning that flag would somehow bring those poor souls who died in Charleston back to life. It didn't. If it were only that simple.

But when a black gay man kills two people on live TV, what would have been the reaction if people began calling for a ban of the Gay Pride Flag? This flag does represent him, does it not?

Uh, no.

Vester Flanagan didn't kill his two coworkers because he was gay.

He killed them because they got him fired and he was crazy. And, oh yeah, he was able to get a gun despite being crazy.

Also, no one said that banning the Confederate Flag would bring anyone back to life. They just asked the question why were we still glorifying a symbol of racism.

 

[JoeB131]

Of course, but we're missing the bigger picture here. If we're going to display that much outrage over that one flag, why not the gay flag? Hmm? The man claimed to be gay, and that flag is a banner for the LGBT movement. Why this kind of absurdity, why this double standard?

Because the Gay flag wasn't used as hatred of Fluffy Newcasters.

The Confederate Flag was used as a symbol of hating black people.

 

[Rotagilla]

Of course, but we're missing the bigger picture here. If we're going to display that much outrage over that one flag, why not the gay flag? Hmm? The man claimed to be gay, and that flag is a banner for the LGBT movement. Why this kind of absurdity, why this double standard?

Because the Gay flag wasn't used as hatred of Fluffy Newcasters.

The Confederate Flag was used as a symbol of hating black people.

No. It's a symbol of patriotism.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm not even referring to what happened in the SC state capitol. I am referring to all of the other displays of the flag that were removed or taken down because of the shooting in Charleston (oka: a kneejerk reaction).

And just for kicks, why this, and why did it take a shooting to make this happen?

Probably because AFTER the shooting, all the silly claims of dumb ass southerners that this was about "Southern Pride" just sounded a bit silly.

 

[JoeB131]

No. It's a symbol of patriotism.

Patriots don't rebel against their government because they lost an election.

The word you are looking for is "Traitors". "Traitors" rebel against their government when they lose an election.

OH SHIT THE HUMAN TORCH IS BLACK!!!!

 

[JoeB131]

Sentiments that until then never really amounted to anything. I disagree with this assertion. Nobody started banning the flag until after Roof killed those 9 people in the church. No online retailers were taking it off the shelf before then. Nobody cared until then. Yeah, the distaste was there, but people really didn't care.

Uh, yeah, a lot of people cared. It's just after the shooting, your whining and hissy fits stopped counting.

 

[Meathead]

Vester Flanagan didn't kill his two coworkers because he was gay.

He killed them because they got him fired and he was crazy. And, oh yeah, he was able to get a gun despite being crazy.

He, like you Joey, had serious mental issues and a persecution complex His was brought on by his being gay and black. I'm sure the reasons for the manifestation of your complex is different, but the result are clearly similar.