Dixie Flag controversy

[TheCount]

don't have a whole lot of faith in the government, sorry. they've not shown to give much of a damn about what people think.

and i'm belligerent cause i don't think banning all this is a good idea. ok. your right to think that.

I wasn't saying YOU were belligerent.

 

[iceberg]

Some of the states released declarations when they seceded. So, if you wanted to know why they seceded and directly from the states themselves, it's an interesting read.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

this is gonna take awhile but thank you. direct words help - just not frame the period that well. i'll keep working on that.

 

[iceberg]

I wasn't saying YOU were belligerent.

whew. but hey, i'd defend your right to do that if you were. may argue with you and be all stubborn about it... >g<

 

[TheCount]

Pot meet kettle.

HA!

 

[Manwiththeplan]

They fought to uphold states rights.

Unfortunately the "I'm superior" mindset was rampant in both south and north.

That's one of our weaknesses as human beings.

I'm not even going into your other statements. They indicate that you don't have a solid grasp of that time period of history.

Awesome, the I'm smarter than you argument

 

[iceberg]

Awesome, the I'm smarter than you argument

prove otherwise. i'm reading up on the history. are you? he's already said studying the time period is something he's done for a long time. i put credibility into those who research their arguments, not those who get emotionally bent.

if it makes you feel better, you can say you're smarter than me and get even. i'm ok with that.

 

[JoeKing]

Awesome, the I'm smarter than you argument

The argument and the reality.

 

[iceberg]

Did you ever see the "Dukes of Hazard" ever do or say anything that was racist... just some good ole boys never meaning no harm. Well, it's true. The Civil war was fought over so much more than slavery. Economic policies and practices, cultural values, the extent and reach of the Federal government... that flag represents a time when people stood for their convictions on such matter. For so many of the southern folks, the civil war had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with the federal government over stepping it's authority.

that was my understanding also. still reading but the words from the states are interesting. slavery was certainly on the table but it seems as an example of the whole, but some did seem focused on it also.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

prove otherwise. i'm reading up on the history. are you? he's already said studying the time period is something he's done for a long time. i put credibility into those who research their arguments, not those who get emotionally bent.

if it makes you feel better, you can say you're smarter than me and get even. i'm ok with that.

none of my posts suggest I'm emotionally bent. I haven't insulted anyone, questioned anyone's intelligence, or ability to understand. All I've done is give me opinion and not used generalizations like "everyone who uses the flag is racist" or "the civil war was only about slavery". the proof you're asking for, exists in the same format that MichaelWinicki got his from. He either read it in a history book and came to that conclusion or it was the opinion of a teacher of his, which is subject to the same bias' more source would be subject to.

 

[joseephuss]

prove otherwise. i'm reading up on the history. are you? he's already said studying the time period is something he's done for a long time. i put credibility into those who research their arguments, not those who get emotionally bent.
.

That made me chuckle. Your first few posts in this thread were all full of emotion.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Awesome, the I'm smarter than you argument

No, I'm not smarter than you.

I'm more well researched than you.

I applaud your interest in the topic.

And I would suggest more study into the topic.

Are you totally wrong on some of your points? No.

But the topic is far more complicated than just the slavery issue.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

that was my understanding also. still reading but the words from the states are interesting. slavery was certainly on the table but it seems as an example of the whole, but some did seem focused on it also.

If either side conceded on Slavery, was the war avoidable?

 

[iceberg]

That made me chuckle. Your first few posts in this thread were all full of emotion.

yea, i needed to calm down some. i am tired of the BAN EVERYTHING movement and do get passionate about it, but i don't want to be hypocritical also. in looking back i don't think i was being overly emotional, but i was stating facts line by line as i see them. i could well be wrong, i try to be open when someone responds intelligently, and if i came across that way, oops. not meant that way so appreciate the heads up.

 

[iceberg]

If either side conceded on Slavery, was the war avoidable?

except as far as i know (wicki tell me if i'm misunderstanding) the north wasn't as concerned about slavery as it was keeping the union together. there were a LOT of different things going on at the time and i feel like i need to work to understand them all as best i can before i can honestly answer that. so i can only say, i don't know.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

none of my posts suggest I'm emotionally bent. I haven't insulted anyone, questioned anyone's intelligence, or ability to understand. All I've done is give me opinion and not used generalizations like "everyone who uses the flag is racist" or "the civil war was only about slavery". the proof you're asking for, exists in the same format that MichaelWinicki got his from. He either read it in a history book and came to that conclusion or it was the opinion of a teacher of his, which is subject to the same bias' more source would be subject to.

You're right much of what I have learned has come from books, but does that make the books wrong?

If so we could render beliefs that Hitler was "good" and the Holocaust never existed because books state the opposite.

Two areas that I would suggest researching if you aren't comfortable reading the books that interpret the history is reading newspapers of the times, which still many exist in one form or the other and the letters from the actual soldiers, many of whom talk about their beliefs in their letters home to their loved ones.

 

[iceberg]

You're right much of what I have learned has come from books, but does that make the books wrong?

If so we could render beliefs that Hitler was "good" and the Holocaust never existed because books state the opposite.

Two areas that I would suggest researching if you aren't comfortable reading the books that interpret the history is reading newspapers of the times, which still many exist in one form or the other and the letters from the actual soldiers, many of whom talk about their beliefs in their letters home to their loved ones.

any links to the letters? the "mindset of the times" i was referring to - this would help a ton.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

none of my posts suggest I'm emotionally bent. I haven't insulted anyone, questioned anyone's intelligence, or ability to understand. All I've done is give me opinion and not used generalizations like "everyone who uses the flag is racist" or "the civil war was only about slavery". the proof you're asking for, exists in the same format that MichaelWinicki got his from. He either read it in a history book and came to that conclusion or it was the opinion of a teacher of his, which is subject to the same bias' more source would be subject to.

Ah, the old, I dont agree with what you've stated so its only valid to you but not to me argument. The mindset that says facts dont matter unless they're facts I like so Ill try to discredit them by attempting to drag them down to my level.

 

[Rockport]

Boy Amber you've just painted a topic with about as wide a brush as I've come across.

I've spent much of my life studying the American Civil War both from a political and military point of view and I dare say most of the participants on both North and South were not fighting for or against slavery, but for either the preservation of the Union or the protection of states rights. The number of soldiers in the Confederate army who owned slaves was incredibly small.

Slavery certainly made up a part of it and the flag has come to represent hatred over the years by a certain minority. You can't deny that and that's the ultimate point of this whole discussion.

 

[Rockport]

Did you ever see the "Dukes of Hazard" ever do or say anything that was racist... just some good ole boys never meaning no harm. Well, it's true. The Civil war was fought over so much more than slavery. Economic policies and practices, cultural values, the extent and reach of the Federal government... that flag represents a time when people stood for their convictions on such matter. For so many of the southern folks, the civil war had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with the federal government over stepping it's authority.

See post #158.

 

[JoeKing]

that was my understanding also. still reading but the words from the states are interesting. slavery was certainly on the table but it seems as an example of the whole, but some did seem focused on it also.

Shouldn't be a matter of dispute. The truth is many in the north were pro slavery too, they just cared more about the union's side of other issues. Doesn't make the Confederate flag any more racist than the American flag. Lincoln stated if he could have ended the ACW and kept the institution of slavery intact, he would have done it.