Opposition to the Confederate flag in the MS flag (Jackson: for sale, homes)

[Boris347]

Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock

The Confederate Flag represents another country that was at war with the United States. That would be about the same as putting a German flag or symbol or a Mexican flag on say New Mexicos flag to represent that states Mexican heritage.

The Confederate flag is as much a part of our History and Heritage as the US Flag is today. Your analogy is totally ridiculous and offending. Good AMERICANS died on both sides, and saying it represented NAZI Ideals is insulting to all Citizens. Maybe you should try being an "American" first, before you try to be critic of its people.

Using your "Logic" we should change the American Flag also, after the Bush Administration, because it did not represent American ideals at the time. Its ridiculous. What's next? Banning white bed sheets? Ridiculous.

[motownewave]

Confederates were despicable people. I have sympathy for a lot of separatist movements in the world (Quebec and Northern Ireland both come to mind) but as I understand the Civil War, it was the progressive, tolerant Northerners in a war against bigots. And no, it's not like the Southerners weren't aware of the inhumanity of slavery. The British Empire and Northern USA alike both got rid of slavery WAY before the South did. And neither of those other civilizations made a war (or even a debate) out of the issue.

[viverlibre]

Actually, the civil war was more about state rights (obviously deciding on when to end slavery was one of those rights) vs. a strong central government. You have imagine back to the times, The founders thought the central government should be weak, in fact Jefferson thought the strongest center of government should be local government. The confederates had no intention of continuing slavery, (they knew that age was coming to an end), it was the thought of a strong central government superseding state's rights that didn't sit well.

The vast majority of southerns were not slave owners and had no involvement in slavery.

[motownewave]

I personally feel the state of Washington should have been named after Lincoln instead. Especially with WA today being very liberal, partly due to migrants from New England settling it early on, Lincoln would be a much more fitting name, as George Washington was a slaveowner. And I will go as far as suggesting that Washington DC should have been renamed Lincoln, not because Lincoln was assassinated, but because he was a hero.

[Ivory Lee Spurlock]

Originally Posted by motownewave

I personally feel the state of Washington should have been named after Lincoln instead. Especially with WA today being very liberal, partly due to migrants from New England settling it early on, Lincoln would be a much more fitting name, as George Washington was a slaveowner. And I will go as far as suggesting that Washington DC should have been renamed Lincoln, not because Lincoln was assassinated, but because he was a hero.

Well you cant very well go back in history and undo George Washington and grace him with morals and standards that we have in the year of 2015.

Lincoln had little to no use for the blacks. He felt they were inferior to whites. He even said in a speech that he thought the white race was the superior race. Lincoln was as much a bigot as Washington was, if we are going to judge historical figures by todays standards. If so, then you might want to re-name Nebraska's capital city after somebody who is little more perfect than Lincoln, and not so controversial.

Just my opinion, but I think you're taking political correctness a little too far.

[sammyreynolds1977]

Originally Posted by motownewave

I personally feel the state of Washington should have been named after Lincoln instead. Especially with WA today being very liberal, partly due to migrants from New England settling it early on, Lincoln would be a much more fitting name, as George Washington was a slaveowner. And I will go as far as suggesting that Washington DC should have been renamed Lincoln, not because Lincoln was assassinated, but because he was a hero.

You have no sense of history. Lincoln's thought on black was they were inferior. The only reason he wanted to free them was so they could pay taxes like everyone else.

[motownewave]

I forgive Lincoln for that. Slavery is a million times worse than any kind of racism or segregation (except perhaps when either of those two lead to pogroms or any other violence). You do all realize that slavery amounted to WAY worse things than Africans being made to work for free, right? They were treated basically as prisoners of war their whole lives, often subjected to horrific physical abuse and psychological abuse. So how is Americans revering George Washington (perhaps the world's most famous slaveowner) any different from the Japanese revering Mutsuhiro Watanabe, the Japanese soldier in WWII seen in the recent movie Unbroken? Nationalism is drilled into Americans from a young age. The Pledge of Allegiance in schools is sickening and I think warps minds from a very young age to admire crimes against humanity. But I guess Americans aren't alone in looking up to historic evildoers... the Japanese today continue to admire men such as Watanabe.

And as a person of recent Native American descent, I am appalled that Mount Rushmore was built in a region with a huge Native American population. The whites might as well have built a giant middle finger (as a message to my people) at that spot. I would understand a monument to white heroes in a mainly white region such as Appalachia, but to my people, Mount Rushmore is as offensive to us as the Muslim building that was built AFTER 9/11, very close to the attack site, is to the local Jews. Very insensitive and out of place.

[JacksonPanther]

Originally Posted by viverlibre

Actually, the civil war was more about state rights (obviously deciding on when to end slavery was one of those rights) vs. a strong central government. You have imagine back to the times, The founders thought the central government should be weak, in fact Jefferson thought the strongest center of government should be local government. The confederates had no intention of continuing slavery, (they knew that age was coming to an end), it was the thought of a strong central government superseding state's rights that didn't sit well.

The vast majority of southerns were not slave owners and had no involvement in slavery.

Are you outright lying, or completely ignorant?

Please read the Mississippi Declaration of Succession. Within the first paragraph, it explains that succession is intimately tied into slavery. So please stop with the revisionist history that succession was about anything other than the South's desire to continue the institution of slavery.

The only States Right the South was interested in was the right to continue with slavery. Try actually reading historical documents, instead of spouting "facts" you heard on radio talk shows.

[sammyreynolds1977]

Originally Posted by JacksonPanther

Are you outright lying, or completely ignorant?

Please read the Mississippi Declaration of Succession. Within the first paragraph, it explains that succession is intimately tied into slavery. So please stop with the revisionist history that succession was about anything other than the South's desire to continue the institution of slavery.

The only States Right the South was interested in was the right to continue with slavery. Try actually reading historical documents, instead of spouting "facts" you heard on radio talk shows.

Exactly.

[JosephM1994]

Originally Posted by JacksonPanther

Are you outright lying, or completely ignorant?

Please read the Mississippi Declaration of Succession. Within the first paragraph, it explains that succession is intimately tied into slavery. So please stop with the revisionist history that succession was about anything other than the South's desire to continue the institution of slavery.

The only States Right the South was interested in was the right to continue with slavery. Try actually reading historical documents, instead of spouting "facts" you heard on radio talk shows.

To be honest what's wrong with that?

Those people were protecting their property...slaves were property, expensive property that were the cornerstone of their livelihoods. Imagine someone taking your car without compensation, it's the same thing.