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.
Thank you for doing what I have little patience to do. Documents from those days showing how vested Confederates were in keeping the racial hierarchy and slavery.
Is it possible we have different ways of defining acts of courage?
No, I don't think so.
All i am saying is that southern fighters are legendary fighters. no more/less. So I can see why they flew that battle flag in ME. It has nothing to do with racism.
Like I said earlier, they dont do it here in the United States, they know better. They are not racists.
I've never said anything about "honor the flag" stop it.
Answer the question. Why should confederates in the civil war be honored while Torries in the revolutionary should not? Or if you believe both should be honored do you believe all combatants in all wars should be honored?
Answer the question. Why should confederates in the civil war be honored while Torries in the revolutionary should not? Or if you believe both should be honored do you believe all combatants in all wars should be honored?
Why should I answer any of your questions? I've never even thought about these questions. sheesh.
So were the Tories. Who numbered approximately the same as the rebels during the revolutionary war. Should we honor the British flag. Should we consider Benedict Arnold as a hero as the south honors R.E. Lee? That would be the equivalent.
The fact that you would consider Benedict Arnold, who turned traitor to the US out of bitterness and for profit , equal to Lee, who opposed secession but felt, as many in that day did, that his main loyalty was to his state first and then the alliance his state belonged to second , shows the lack of intelligent thought with which folks like you approach actual history.
I do understand the underlying reasons for the civil war. You claiming that others do not does not change that. The fact you do not mention the whole Sons of Confederacy attempt at changing the post war narrative shows how little civil war education and research you have done. The fact that you do not mention the KKK's involvement in changing that narrative shows what little knowledge you have.
You mention that I wrote a lot of words, then complain that I didn't write more? I could have delved into several postwar groups, but I didn't feel it was necessary. We can have a lengthy discussion in the History forum about it, if you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vacoder
The fact that some folks passed on stories as folk lores does not make them fact. The fact that some folks are duped into believing that they are honoring their honorable ancestors does not validate their misguided position.
This entire paragraph, when taken to its logical conclusion, invalidates history. All of history is a series of folktales passed down from one generation to the next. That doesn't make people's beliefs any less valid.
Wrong. Lincoln said many many times he was against slavery but that he did not want to divide the country over it. The North if they wanted could have instituted slavery but was morally against it. And the existence of slavery gave the south a severe economic advantage. Think about it. If the north could care less about slavery why not institute it?
you are full of B.S.
Lincoln said: " stated emphatically that he had "...no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Lincoln promised that there would be no use of force against the South unless it proved necessary for him to fulfill his obligation to "hold, occupy, and possess the property and places" belonging to the federal government and to collect legal duties and imposts. (TAXES, TAXES, TAXES, TAXES, TAXES,)
Protection of slavery: Lincoln explicitly stated that he had no objection to the proposed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which had already been approved by both houses of the United States Congress. This amendment would have formally protected slavery in those states in which it already existed, and assured to each state the right to establish or repudiate it. Lincoln indicated that he thought that this right was already protected in the original Constitution, and thus that the Corwin Amendment merely reiterated what it already contained.
Slavery in the Territories: Lincoln asserted that nothing in the Constitution expressly said what either could or could not be done regarding slavery in the territories. He indicated his willingness to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, so long as free blacks could be protected from being kidnapped and illegally sold into slavery through its misuse.
Do that sounds of a person who thinks slavery is morally wrong? or a person that didn't give a crap about slavery?....if the North was "morally" against slavery like you falsely wrote why did they passed with the support of Lincoln the Corwin Amendment, an amendment to make slavery a state's right forever and Congress could NEVER intervene just to get the South back in the Union and get a 40% cut of the revenues of the South.
That's like me saying, I'm against prostitution "morally" but keep it legal and I want a 40% cut of all the prostitute's revenues in the country......LOL
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.
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.
