U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-24-2010, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Southeast Arizona
3,191 posts, read 4,138,800 times
Reputation: 2108

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonjj View Post
hmmm. Arizona. The home of Wayne Newton, oops-I mean John McCain. The state that did not want a holiday for ML King. The state that wants to ban immigrants.
Opinions vary and yes, Maryland was at the center of a huge controversy and war in the mid-1800s.
Bet to say there are probably more confederate waving flags in Arizona than Maryland in today's times. Even more reason to mop up the sh!! with them.
I hate to go off topic. But even though I did vote for McCain in this last election, he was much better than the guy who ran against him in 2010. I can't totally speak for the MLK holiday fiasco here, that was before my time, but further proves things like that happen very often outside of the South. But when it comes to SB 1070, I support it, it is actually the measure to capture and deport confirmed illegals with prior criminal offenses, no problem there.

But when it comes to Confederate flags in Arizona, there are not many, the only one I can think of is on the highway here at the local Sons of Confederate Veterans chapter. I have two large ones myself, my family came from the Carolinas, Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee. So I see no problems with it, but respect is the key word here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-24-2010, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Portland, Maine
4,180 posts, read 13,057,943 times
Reputation: 1609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert kid View Post
I hate to go off topic. But even though I did vote for McCain in this last election, he was much better than the guy who ran against him in 2010. I can't totally speak for the MLK holiday fiasco here, that was before my time, but further proves things like that happen very often outside of the South. But when it comes to SB 1070, I support it, it is actually the measure to capture and deport confirmed illegals with prior criminal offenses, no problem there.

But when it comes to Confederate flags in Arizona, there are not many, the only one I can think of is on the highway here at the local Sons of Confederate Veterans chapter. I have two large ones myself, my family came from the Carolinas, Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee. So I see no problems with it, but respect is the key word here.
But, respect at what cost? Yes, many people in both the north and south died during the Civil War-a war of open hostility against the laws of this land. That flag is a symbol of division, a symbol of hate, a symbol used by many to further alienate the people of this country.
I happen to disagree with honoring a flag that proved to cost so many lives because the elite of the south chose to not follow the laws of the nation but rather continue their rightousnous of superiority and slavery.
I would rather honor the soldiers and citizens of this country that fought for our nation in World Wars I and II, Vietnam, the gulf, etc. They fought and died for the entire nation and it's ideals. I won't ever dishonor our nation's flag especially by waving some symbol of total disrespect to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2010, 12:11 PM
 
Location: Southeast Arizona
3,191 posts, read 4,138,800 times
Reputation: 2108
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonjj View Post
But, respect at what cost? Yes, many people in both the north and south died during the Civil War-a war of open hostility against the laws of this land. That flag is a symbol of division, a symbol of hate, a symbol used by many to further alienate the people of this country.

Now how exactly did they go against the laws of the land? Secession in 1861 wasn't considered illegal, and the whole idea of states rights was a very familiar concept to people across the south and the whole U.S. at the time. The Southern secession was legal as it could be during the Civil War. But personally, I feel it has no universal meaning, it means different things to different people, your interpretation is only yours and doesn't apply to everybody.

I happen to disagree with honoring a flag that proved to cost so many lives because the elite of the south chose to not follow the laws of the nation but rather continue their rightousnous of superiority and slavery.
I would rather honor the soldiers and citizens of this country that fought for our nation in World Wars I and II, Vietnam, the gulf, etc. They fought and died for the entire nation and it's ideals. I won't ever dishonor our nation's flag especially by waving some symbol of total disrespect to it.

It wasn't just southerners killing everybody, it was Northern troops invading southern states, diseases, raiding, total war, it happens. But even though I think the initial secession was foolhardy, it sure as hell wasn't illegal. And second, stop oversimplifying the causes of the war, it wasn't JUST only over slavery, there was very much more at stake at the time. But how exactly would a Confederate flag be of total disrespect to the American flag? I mean, many of the founders of the CSA had believed they were the continuation of the American revolution, their own colors were red, white and blue, the whole St. Andrews Cross part was their ideas of Jeffersonian politics with a regional twist to it.
All I'm saying is, I disagree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2010, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC NoVA
1,105 posts, read 1,949,218 times
Reputation: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by PGC301 View Post
I'm well aware of how the world worked for thousands of years. That doesn't mean that people today are required to respect many of the things that people back then did, whether it be genocide, slavery, forced conversion to the conqueror's religion, witch trials, etc... I understand how things worked back then, but it doesn't mean I respect or support a lot of the things that happened.
if you don't support how this country was created, then why do you continue taking advantage of what my ancestors created? that's like someone who hates animals being killed for meat still eating the meat. if you want to give the indians "their" land back, why don't you cut ties with this evil country and move back to whatever country your ancestors immigrated from so you can finally clear your conscience of the "barbarian" methods that created this country? oh, what's that, you don't want to? you'll complain about how it was created like we should've never have done it, yet you love taking advantage of what was created that would have never been created if it wasn't for the way we created it.

Quote:
As I've said several times already, if the only concept of "legal ownership" you understand is the one put in place by the US legal system, than of course it was legally unowned. They had their own concepts of land ownership.
british law wasn't the only legal system. there were legal systems all over the world. and throughout history, boundaries have been redrawn, taken over, and war is common in their creation. you lose the war, you lose. it doesn't matter who was their first or who it belonged to first. people invade you, you fight a war, you lose, it's no longer yours. thousands of years it has worked like that.

Quote:
For example, China has a different system of land ownership than the US does. This does not mean that you can go there and claim a piece of land for yourself and declare that it was "legally unowned" under the system of land ownership that you follow.
i know nothing about chinese law.

Quote:
Educate yourself- Adverse Possession Law
first off, that law didn't govern this land back then i'm sure. second off, if it did apply to this land back then, by you using that term you would justify my ancestors actions even more. "An encroachment could result in title to your property being transferred to an adverse possessor. Under these circumstances, you might have to bring a lawsuit for trespass in order to prevent your neighbor from getting title to your land through adverse possession. If you own land, it is important that you do not "sleep on your rights" since you could lose ownership of the land. (Adverse possession - what is it?)


Quote:
Look, in terms of nationality, we have some of the same ancestors. I'm Irish, Italian, and German. I understand that they may have done some great things, but that doesn't mean that I have to turn a blind eye to some of the atrocities they committed at the same time.
but what you think they did that was wrong was create this country. they created this country's boundaries no different than many other countries created their boundaries. you hate the fact that they forced "native" americans out, yet if they didn't force them back then this country wouldn't have been created because most native americans resisted our presence. so in the end it's almost as if you are against the creation of this country.

Quote:
It also seems very egotistical to demand that other people respect your ancestors. If somebody wants to respect mine, great. If not, oh well, it doesn't affect my life one way or the other.
i don't care if they don't respect them in their head because i won't know about it. i care if they don't respect them and make it known, i care if they fly their stupid flag in my face.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2010, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Portland, Maine
4,180 posts, read 13,057,943 times
Reputation: 1609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert kid View Post
All I'm saying is, I disagree.
The cause of the Civil War in a nutshell: The white aristocratic elite of the south wanting to hold on to and expand their property including humans as property. They couldn't care less of what people are reading into their motives and cause of the war. Follow the money trail.

And I would want to wave some flag that supports that? Not going to happen. I use that flag for what it's worth: picking up sh!!.

Oh by the way goofus, the reason why the elite of the south chose to secede was because of the laws of the land. They didn't "go against the laws of the land". They chose to ignore the laws of the land and secede.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2010, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Southeast Arizona
3,191 posts, read 4,138,800 times
Reputation: 2108
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonjj View Post
The cause of the Civil War in a nutshell: The white aristocratic elite of the south wanting to hold on to and expand their property including humans as property. They couldn't care less of what people are reading into their motives and cause of the war. Follow the money trail.

And I would want to wave some flag that supports that? Not going to happen. I use that flag for what it's worth: picking up sh!!.

Oh by the way goofus, the reason why the elite of the south chose to secede was because of the laws of the land. They didn't "go against the laws of the land". They chose to ignore the laws of the land and secede.
The Civil War in no way was a "nutshell", slavery played a huge part but it wasn't the only huge part.

But how exactly is seceding "ignoring the laws of the land"? Explain please. But, I use that flag for what it's worth, rememberance, heritage, history and the South.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2010, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Portland, Maine
4,180 posts, read 13,057,943 times
Reputation: 1609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert kid View Post
The Civil War in no way was a "nutshell", slavery played a huge part but it wasn't the only huge part.

But how exactly is seceding "ignoring the laws of the land"? Explain please. But, I use that flag for what it's worth, rememberance, heritage, history and the South.

You seem to be fixated on the idea that I am saying "slavery is the cause of the Civil War". I have never said that. I told you my opinion of the cause: the white elite wanting to hold on to their property and wealth. Ultimately, that's the reason why so many had to die. You forget to mention that it was also that same elite that chose to secede and take every other southerner kicking and screaming with them regardless if they believed in the cause or not.
Your question: "How exactly is seceding ignoring the laws of the land?" is a bit redundant don't you think? I mean, if the nation chose to approve of the southern white elite's demands, there would never have been a war or secession.
This was not a war between the north and the south. It was a war against a fraction of the south: the wealthy slave owners of the south.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2010, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC NoVA
1,105 posts, read 1,949,218 times
Reputation: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonjj View Post
You seem to be fixated on the idea that I am saying "slavery is the cause of the Civil War". I have never said that. I told you my opinion of the cause: the white elite wanting to hold on to their property and wealth. Ultimately, that's the reason why so many had to die. You forget to mention that it was also that same elite that chose to secede and take every other southerner kicking and screaming with them regardless if they believed in the cause or not.
Your question: "How exactly is seceding ignoring the laws of the land?" is a bit redundant don't you think? I mean, if the nation chose to approve of the southern white elite's demands, there would never have been a war or secession.
This was not a war between the north and the south. It was a war against a fraction of the south: the wealthy slave owners of the south.
i'd really really like to know where you found this piece of ignorant information.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2010, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Portland, Maine
4,180 posts, read 13,057,943 times
Reputation: 1609
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticGermanicPride View Post
i'd really really like to know where you found this piece of ignorant information.

Oh lord, not another one. You actually believe that all southerners agreed to secede from the union because of states rights. That is truely sad. Most wars are a result of greed--not ideology. Who exactly prompted the movement for secession? Farmer Joe in Tennessee eking out a living and barely surviving? The unfortunate remainder of Native Americans left in the south? The slaves wanted to revolt against those nasty northerners?

The war was the result of the wealthy white elistist slave owners wanting to hold on to their aristocratic claims. Read more and perhaps you would be more hesitant to call out someone about information you have not yet learned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2010, 01:57 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,991 posts, read 42,018,377 times
Reputation: 14811
While you shouldn't use one Confederate leader to generalize the views of all of the Confederacy, the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens (vice-president of the Confederacy) was a good indicator of the reasons for the founding of the Confederacy. It makes clear that the immediate cause of succession were issues about slavery.An excerpt:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man.

Cornerstone Speech by Alexander H. Stephens
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top