OT - A Piece of Local History

[korab rules]

Lancaster.

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure about the South Carolina one, but I know a few years ago Georgia removed it from its own state flag, which I see as a sign of progress.

 

I know you can't regulate morality, but I think its up to the government to at least try not to contribute to a lack of it. I'll be straight: I don't think the Rebel flag has a place anywhere except in historical situations, such as museums and reenactments. Flying a Rebel flag in your front yard, like half of the population of Marilla does, doesn't make you anything other than a racist douche. If you're wearing a T-shirt with a Rebel flag and a monster truck on it, you obviously don't want to talk to anyone other than white people. And there is no way anyone can convince me otherwise, because attempting to do so would be ignorant.

 

Is the Rebel flag in its design supposed to be racist? No. But neither is the swastika, and we all know what reputation that symbol holds. Being "thick skinned" has nothing to do with its reception. It has to do with what these symbols represent in their most popular use: Hate. Hatred of ones' own brethren, hatred of progress, and hatred of people who are different. They cannot be associated with anything else.

 

I want other people to accept me. I don't want to alienate anyone if I can help it. I could run around all day defending the Rebel flag, and its historical background, but when it's all said and done with, nothing will change. The Rebel flag is symbol forever tainted. And defending its usage is not a noble cause.

My parents moved to Marilla a decade a ago - haven't seen a rebel flag there yet.

 

I'm not defending the use of the rebel flag - I just have a problem with government banning everything that annoys someone. Rebel flags, prayer in school, the pledge of allegiance, taking in god we trust off money, getting rid of Christmas vacation in favor of winter break.

 

You know what pisses me off? Douches who want to ban anything that someone else finds annoying. How do we ban them? Maybe I need to start a religion so I can claim I am oppressed by all the douches who want to ban stuff.

[X. Benedict]

quote name='korab rules' timestamp='1317055890' post='313874']

The Penal Law legislates conduct, not morality. You can punish people for their conduct, but not for their thoughts. Morality isn't what people do, its what they think.

 

- I think the standard deinition of morality is correct or incorrect behavior.

 

I would agree that thought and speech cannot and should not legislated.... But intent and criminal intent are cornerstones of our0 legal system.

 

As for the kangaroo bounty courts that worked against the Underground Railroad they were purposefully set up outside city limits and no witneses were allowed in these 'Property' hearings.

 

(NB the last thing I really want is for this to turn into a PPP board, but I do read the NEWS and thought the piece glossed over the backstory, which is even our area was complicit in the slave trade)

[korab rules]

The Penal Law legislates conduct, not morality. You can punish people for their conduct, but not for their thoughts. Morality isn't what people do, its what they think.

 

- I think the standard deinition of morality is correct or incorrect behavior.

 

I would agree that thought and speech cannot and should not legislated.... But intent and criminal intent are cornerstones of our0 legal system.

 

As for the kangaroo bounty courts that worked against the Underground Railroad they were purposefully set up outside city limits and no witneses were allowed in these 'Property' hearings.

Many definitions mention conduct - alternate definitions refer to principles and morals. I guess I am referring to it more in the philosophical sense. Conduct does not equal morals. Serial killers and psychopaths conform their behavior to the law for years on end. Just because they do does not mean they are moral. My point remains the same. Laws don't change how people think. Of late, gov't is trying to legislate morality - what people think - rather than just establishing a penal code. That's the problem I have. I don't need to the gov't to tell me how to think or when I'm allowed to think it. I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself, which is exactly what the gov't does NOT want me doing. With that, I'm bowing out of this discussion before I get myself in trouble.

[sabre4life]

It's tragic just how people will do such evil and wicked things because they're looking to make an extra buck here or there.

 

 

And yet it still goes on today...

[LastPommerFan]

Isn't the rebel flag still flown on the capital building in South Carolina? It's a historical reference - just because they have it doesn't mean it's racist - If we banned everything that anyone found offensive there wouldn't be anything left to ban.

 

Life sucks and some people are a$$holes. You can't legislate morality. Get used to it, grow thicker skin, and move on.

 

Schwartz Rd, what is that, Lancaster school district? Clarence?

 

But they are.

 

 

My parents moved to Marilla a decade a ago - haven't seen a rebel flag there yet.

 

I'm not defending the use of the rebel flag - I just have a problem with government banning everything that annoys someone. Rebel flags, prayer in school, the pledge of allegiance, taking in god we trust off money, getting rid of Christmas vacation in favor of winter break.

 

You know what pisses me off? Douches who want to ban anything that someone else finds annoying. How do we ban them? Maybe I need to start a religion so I can claim I am oppressed by all the douches who want to ban stuff.

 

I wouldn't suggest banning any symbol, but using on public uniforms or the state capitol building is a legislative issue. The governments are currently choosing to put it on display. Certainly it would be acceptable for them to choose not to put that symbol on display. How could you argue otherwise?

[korab rules]

But they are.

 

so everyone in the state of South Carolina is a racist? Nice.

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't suggest banning any symbol, but using on public uniforms or the state capitol building is a legislative issue. The governments are currently choosing to put it on display. Certainly it would be acceptable for them to choose not to put that symbol on display. How could you argue otherwise?

How could I argue otherwise? First, understand that I am not arguing against its removal, I am arguing against potential reasoning for it. What I dislike is a small vocal group accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being bigoted against whatever that small group believes in, and getting their way. The rebel flag is only one example of that.

 

Majority rules in this country. If you don't have a majority of americans agreeing with you, then maybe your idea isn't very good.

 

The rebel flag is a symbol of a lot of bad things to some, but keeping it around isn't such a bad idea. Its a reminder of those things, and sometimes a reminder is necessary. How has banning the swastika worked out for the germans?

[LastPommerFan]

so everyone in the state of South Carolina is a racist? Nice.

 

No, just the powers in control of the state capital. Or at least the people those powers are pandering to. Don't believe me, live there for a few years.

 

 

 

How could I argue otherwise? First, understand that I am not arguing against its removal, I am arguing against potential reasoning for it. What I dislike is a small vocal group accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being bigoted against whatever that small group believes in, and getting their way. The rebel flag is only one example of that.

 

Majority rules in this country. If you don't have a majority of americans agreeing with you, then maybe your idea isn't very good.

 

The rebel flag is a symbol of a lot of bad things to some, but keeping it around isn't such a bad idea. Its a reminder of those things, and sometimes a reminder is necessary. How has banning the swastika worked out for the germans?

 

I think if you took a majority vote in this country that flag would be off the crest in Town Line and of the Capitol in Columbia. In fact, I am suggesting that a majority of South Carolinans would vote the flag off the building given the opportunity.

[Braedon]

Wow, where to start.

 

As a graduate of Town line Elementary and grandson to a 40 year veteran of their Fire Department until his death this year, I feel obliged to speak on the matter.

 

Contrary to 11's apt label, they/we are not "f*ing slave-side idiots." Just a very tiny Hamlet that boasts a pizzaria, shool, fire department, and a couple churches. Most align their business with either Lancaster or Alden. Maybe a states-rights/racial agenda existed, who can really know for sure. What I can say is that investigation points at least partly to a group of immigrant farmers scared/angered by the mandatory call to arms, secondary to the need for hands at home.

 

Moreover, prominent homes on Broadway in Town Line served as pit stops for the underground railroad. This lasted through the abolishment of slavery, which would make NO sense if Town Line was such a hotbed of racial intolerance. Truth be told, Rochester on west was infested with intelligence, and Route 20 remained the most streamlined route into Black Rock before jumping the border.

 

As for no African Americans in Town Line, what a skewed comment. Yes, it continues to be a predominantly white community......as does Lancaster, Alden, Clarence, Orchard Park, Akron, Warsaw, Darien, Alexander.......the point is that these towns are/were farming communities. Not much influx or outflow of people.

 

The "Last of the Rebels" is nothing more than a moniker that puts an infinitesimal community on the map. Because of an simple afterthought, they were truly the last area in the U.S. to re-enter the Union. Yes, I completely understand how it may be misconstrued by the politically correct. But get over it. We're talking about a patch on a fire department uniform donned by good people that save your lives. And glass houses people, many of your own communities were racially charged a century ago.

 

Lastly, I grew up in that town and never once encountered racial incidents or ideology. That came later when living in Cheektowaga, Buffalo, Cleveland....or here in the South.

[X. Benedict]

Wow, where to start.

 

As a graduate of Town line Elementary and grandson to a 40 year veteran of their Fire Department until his death this year, I feel obliged to speak on the matter.

 

Contrary to 11's apt label, they/we are not "f*ing slave-side idiots." Just a very tiny Hamlet that boasts a pizzaria, shool, fire department, and a couple churches. Most align their business with either Lancaster or Alden. Maybe a states-rights/racial agenda existed, who can really know for sure. What I can say is that investigation points at least partly to a group of immigrant farmers scared/angered by the mandatory call to arms, secondary to the need for hands at home.

 

Moreover, prominent homes on Broadway in Town Line served as pit stops for the underground railroad. This lasted through the abolishment of slavery, which would make NO sense if Town Line was such a hotbed of racial intolerance. Truth be told, Rochester on west was infested with intelligence, and Route 20 remained the most streamlined route into Black Rock before jumping the border.

 

As for no African Americans in Town Line, what a skewed comment. Yes, it continues to be a predominantly white community......as does Lancaster, Alden, Clarence, Orchard Park, Akron, Warsaw, Darien, Alexander.......the point is that these towns are/were farming communities. Not much influx or outflow of people.

 

The "Last of the Rebels" is nothing more than a moniker that puts an infinitesimal community on the map. Because of an simple afterthought, they were truly the last area in the U.S. to re-enter the Union. Yes, I completely understand how it may be misconstrued by the politically correct. But get over it. We're talking about a patch on a fire department uniform donned by good people that save your lives. And glass houses people, many of your own communities were racially charged a century ago.

 

Lastly, I grew up in that town and never once encountered racial incidents or ideology. That came later when living in Cheektowaga, Buffalo, Cleveland....or here in the South.

Thanks for weighing in.

[FogBat]

Wow, where to start.

 

As a graduate of Town line Elementary and grandson to a 40 year veteran of their Fire Department until his death this year, I feel obliged to speak on the matter.

 

Contrary to 11's apt label, they/we are not "f*ing slave-side idiots." Just a very tiny Hamlet that boasts a pizzaria, shool, fire department, and a couple churches. Most align their business with either Lancaster or Alden. Maybe a states-rights/racial agenda existed, who can really know for sure. What I can say is that investigation points at least partly to a group of immigrant farmers scared/angered by the mandatory call to arms, secondary to the need for hands at home.

 

Moreover, prominent homes on Broadway in Town Line served as pit stops for the underground railroad. This lasted through the abolishment of slavery, which would make NO sense if Town Line was such a hotbed of racial intolerance. Truth be told, Rochester on west was infested with intelligence, and Route 20 remained the most streamlined route into Black Rock before jumping the border.

 

As for no African Americans in Town Line, what a skewed comment. Yes, it continues to be a predominantly white community......as does Lancaster, Alden, Clarence, Orchard Park, Akron, Warsaw, Darien, Alexander.......the point is that these towns are/were farming communities. Not much influx or outflow of people.

 

The "Last of the Rebels" is nothing more than a moniker that puts an infinitesimal community on the map. Because of an simple afterthought, they were truly the last area in the U.S. to re-enter the Union. Yes, I completely understand how it may be misconstrued by the politically correct. But get over it. We're talking about a patch on a fire department uniform donned by good people that save your lives. And glass houses people, many of your own communities were racially charged a century ago.

 

Lastly, I grew up in that town and never once encountered racial incidents or ideology. That came later when living in Cheektowaga, Buffalo, Cleveland....or here in the South.

This is the best post I've seen on this thread thus far. Thanks for setting the record straight. I'd hit the plus button a few times over if I could, but I guess once will suffice.

 

BTW, I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your grandfather.

[korab rules]

Wow, where to start.

 

As a graduate of Town line Elementary and grandson to a 40 year veteran of their Fire Department until his death this year, I feel obliged to speak on the matter.

 

Contrary to 11's apt label, they/we are not "f*ing slave-side idiots." Just a very tiny Hamlet that boasts a pizzaria, shool, fire department, and a couple churches. Most align their business with either Lancaster or Alden. Maybe a states-rights/racial agenda existed, who can really know for sure. What I can say is that investigation points at least partly to a group of immigrant farmers scared/angered by the mandatory call to arms, secondary to the need for hands at home.

 

Moreover, prominent homes on Broadway in Town Line served as pit stops for the underground railroad. This lasted through the abolishment of slavery, which would make NO sense if Town Line was such a hotbed of racial intolerance. Truth be told, Rochester on west was infested with intelligence, and Route 20 remained the most streamlined route into Black Rock before jumping the border.

 

As for no African Americans in Town Line, what a skewed comment. Yes, it continues to be a predominantly white community......as does Lancaster, Alden, Clarence, Orchard Park, Akron, Warsaw, Darien, Alexander.......the point is that these towns are/were farming communities. Not much influx or outflow of people.

 

The "Last of the Rebels" is nothing more than a moniker that puts an infinitesimal community on the map. Because of an simple afterthought, they were truly the last area in the U.S. to re-enter the Union. Yes, I completely understand how it may be misconstrued by the politically correct. But get over it. We're talking about a patch on a fire department uniform donned by good people that save your lives. And glass houses people, many of your own communities were racially charged a century ago.

 

Lastly, I grew up in that town and never once encountered racial incidents or ideology. That came later when living in Cheektowaga, Buffalo, Cleveland....or here in the South.

 

Amen - and thanks to your grandfather for his service. I always love watching the Townline Fire Department march in the Marilla Firemen's Carnival wearing their white hoods.

 

You forgot to add Elma, Marilla, Wales, South Wales, Holland, Akron Corfu, etc. etc. etc. to the list of predominantly white communitites in Western NY.

[...]

Some people need to get out of their urban confines. No matter where I've been in this country, north or south, if you spend any time out in the sticks of nearly any state, you will see very few "minorities" - period.

 

There are scarce numbers of "minorities" in Collins, NY, and in Llano, TX. Most that you see are farm workers - used to be called "migrant workers". There are still migrant worker shanties in the apple orchards of northern Niagara County.

 

Anyway, one of the reasons minorities are called "minorities" is because their population isn't as great as the majority. The latter being Caucasian, of course. Getting beyond the brain-washing and innocent ignorance of the matter, and using reason instead, since minorities gravitate toward urban centers, and since they are a minority population, it's only logical, based on the numbers, that you'd "see" fewer minorities in rural areas.

 

Also, with regards to causes of the Civil War, it's popular these days to revise our history in the light of political correctness. Of course slavery was an issue, but it was one of several issues. Southern states were reluctant to sign the original Constitution because it didn't have a Bill of Rights - so you can trace the States' Rights issue to the very beginning. The North - you, know, "big business" - put the shaft to the South with tariffs in the early 1800's. That was a massive blow to the Union, and delivered by the "enlightened" North. :rolleyes:

 

This is akin to the separation of Church and State myth. Even faced with the historical facts, people want to deny that separation of Church and State IS a myth, and prefer to believe what their similarly brain-washed teachers and the talking heads on IAMSTUPID-TV keep pushing.

 

And, let's not forget the war itself - really, the BIG BUSINESS NORTH was brutal against the po' Southerners, with all of its money and massive war machine. So much for Yankee peace and love then.

 

Sorry, I ramble, and shouldn't get into this thread. But I typed all of this, and now I have to hit the Add Reply button...

[X. Benedict]

Some people need to get out of their urban confines. No matter where I've been in this country, north or south, if you spend any time out in the sticks of nearly any state, you will see very few "minorities" - period.

 

There are scarce numbers of "minorities" in Collins, NY, and in Llano, TX. Most that you see are farm workers - used to be called "migrant workers". There are still migrant worker shanties in the apple orchards of northern Niagara County.

 

Anyway, one of the reasons minorities are called "minorities" is because their population isn't as great as the majority. The latter being Caucasian, of course. Getting beyond the brain-washing and innocent ignorance of the matter, and using reason instead, since minorities gravitate toward urban centers, and since they are a minority population, it's only logical, based on the numbers, that you'd "see" fewer minorities in rural areas.

 

Also, with regards to causes of the Civil War, it's popular these days to revise our history in the light of political correctness. Of course slavery was an issue, but it was one of several issues.

 

Without slavery there was no substatial obstacle to Union. Slavery is specifically mentioned 14 times in the secession of South Carolina.

 

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/south_secede/south_secede_southcarolina.cfm

 

States Rights is the largest revisionist argument of our day. The State Right they were protecting was specifically slavery. Was there another?

 

Southern states were reluctant to sign the original Constitution because it didn't have a Bill of Rights - so you can trace the States' Rights issue to the very beginning. The North - you, know, "big business" - put the shaft to the South with tariffs in the early 1800's. That was a massive blow to the Union, and delivered by the "enlightened" North. :rolleyes:

Except for the Tenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights was not much interested in States Rights. The Tenth is about as vague as they come.

 

This is akin to the separation of Church and State myth. Even faced with the historical facts, people want to deny that separation of Church and State IS a myth, and prefer to believe what their similarly brain-washed teachers and the talking heads on IAMSTUPID-TV keep pushing.

Myth?

You mean teachers that teach the establishment clause?

 

 

And, let's not forget the war itself - really, the BIG BUSINESS NORTH was brutal against the po' Southerners, with all of its money and massive war machine. So much for Yankee peace and love then.

 

Not loving Sherman? eh? :beer:

[LGR4GM]

 

This is akin to the separation of Church and State myth. Even faced with the historical facts, people want to deny that separation of Church and State IS a myth, and prefer to believe what their similarly brain-washed teachers and the talking heads on IAMSTUPID-TV keep pushing.

 

So you are saying that Separation of Church and State is a Myth? I am not saying not actually stated in the constitution but that there is no legal precedent or basis for it and it does not actually exist as law? Simply put is Separation of Church and State protected under the US Constitution? yes? or no?

[X. Benedict]

No, just the powers in control of the state capital. Or at least the people those powers are pandering to. Don't believe me, live there for a few years.

 

 

 

 

 

I think if you took a majority vote in this country that flag would be off the crest in Town Line and of the Capitol in Columbia. In fact, I am suggesting that a majority of South Carolinans would vote the flag off the building given the opportunity.

 

If I'm not mistaken South Carolina got rid of the Confederate Battle Flag about 10 years ago.

 

Of course they didn't fly it over the state house until the 1960's to support segregation.

So the new history with it was less than 30 years.

[LGR4GM]

If I'm not mistaken South Carolina got rid of the Confederate Battle Flag about 10 years ago.

 

Of course they didn't fly it over the state house until the 1960's to support segregation.

So the new history with it was less than 30 years.

kinda like the swastika pre-hitler wasn't a symbol of hate... same concept

 

"The confederate battle flag, originally placed over the dome during 1962, was moved to its present location on July 1, 2000." That location is over the on the north side for a monument to South Carolina's Confederate dead. Personally I think if the flag is over a confederate cemetary or monument then since those men died for the preservation of that flag and since this is the land of the free, let it fly as a symbol of the war and not of segregation or slavery as it has perhaps been redefined as.

[Weave]

And this is why I got out of the conversation early. The problem with conversations about racism is that if you disagree with a point you get branded as a racist or ignorant and are automatically put on the defensive. Believe that a state's rights component was part of the reason for the civil war? Simple, you're a ###### racist. Flew a rebel flag in the back of your truck when you were 19? Yep, douchebag racist. Celebrating the historical uniqueness of your little burg? Racist. Vol fireman in Town Line and wear the patch? ....... Racism requires intent. Is there intent in the folks wearing that patch? Is there intent in recognizing a states rights element to the civil war? Or in the instance of Town Line, is there intent behind the folks who seceded because they weren't going to go to war?

 

It's not possible to have an adult conversation with someone who's decided what you are before hearing you out. And we've seen several instances of that in a 2 page thread already.

 

 

For the record, I can't support anyone who wants to fly that flag. Not because I think they are a racist, but because it has way too much negative connotation behind it and brings too much negative attention. I won't brand anyone racist until they've actually shown me racist intent.

[deluca67]

And this is why I got out of the conversation early. The problem with conversations about racism is that if you disagree with a point you get branded as a racist or ignorant and are automatically put on the defensive. Believe that a state's rights component was part of the reason for the civil war? Simple, you're a ###### racist. Flew a rebel flag in the back of your truck when you were 19? Yep, douchebag racist. Celebrating the historical uniqueness of your little burg? Racist. Vol fireman in Town Line and wear the patch? ....... Racism requires intent. Is there intent in the folks wearing that patch? Is there intent in recognizing a states rights element to the civil war? Or in the instance of Town Line, is there intent behind the folks who seceded because they weren't going to go to war?

 

It's not possible to have an adult conversation with someone who's decided what you are before hearing you out. And we've seen several instances of that in a 2 page thread already.

 

 

For the record, I can't support anyone who wants to fly that flag. Not because I think they are a racist, but because it has way too much negative connotation behind it and brings too much negative attention. I won't brand anyone racist until they've actually shown me racist intent.

You don't need "intent" to be racist. Racism is so ingrained into this country that people are often unaware when then are being racist. Adding a qualifier like "intent" is just a way to excuse poor judgement.

 

The confederate flag is a symbol of hatred. It's a symbol of the oppression and terrorism suffered by millions. Whatever innocence it may have once had is long gone.

[Weave]

You don't need "intent" to be racist. Racism is so ingrained into this country that people are often unaware when then are being racist. Adding a qualifier like "intent" is just a way to excuse poor judgement.

 

I can accept this. I'm not sure how I would re-word what I posted above to include this concept but I still think it boils down to some form of intent (for lack of a better word) in most cases.

[...]

You don't need "intent" to be racist. Racism is so ingrained into this country that people are often unaware when then are being racist. Adding a qualifier like "intent" is just a way to excuse poor judgement.

 

Really? Just this country? Is it just white folks "racism" toward black folks, or can it go any way with you? Can black folks be racist toward white folk? Does it stop with race, or does ethnicity apply? For example, what do you call the Japanese ethno-centric view of "outside persons"? What about Islam's views toward homosexuals?

 

 

 

The confederate flag is a symbol of hatred. It's a symbol of the oppression and terrorism suffered by millions. Whatever innocence it may have once had is long gone.

 

Being a symbol it has no real meaning. If people agree that a certain shape, or aggregate of shapes and color, equals a particular idea, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that interpretation stands for all people. To Southerners, the Confederate Flag stands for a time when Southern Brothers took up arms to fight for their freedom from the federal government, the issues at hand not-withstanding. Your interpretation, to me, represents the interpretation of someone looking for a bogeyman; socially "acceptable" reasons to hate something or someone.

[deluca67]

Really? Just this country? Is it just white folks "racism" toward black folks, or can it go any way with you? Can black folks be racist toward white folk? Does it stop with race, or does ethnicity apply? For example, what do you call the Japanese ethno-centric view of "outside persons"? What about Islam's views toward homosexuals?

 

 

 

 

Being a symbol it has no real meaning. If people agree that a certain shape, or aggregate of shapes and color, equals a particular idea, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that interpretation stands for all people. To Southerners, the Confederate Flag stands for a time when Southern Brothers took up arms to fight for their freedom from the federal government, the issues at hand not-withstanding. Your interpretation, to me, represents the interpretation of someone looking for a bogeyman; socially "acceptable" reasons to hate something or someone.

A "symbol" is an object/person that has been given a greater meaning. The blood of the millions of innocents that has been spilled over the decades has stained that flag and given the symbol it's meaning. Those that choose to wear or salute that symbol are well aware of it's meaning. Ignorance is no longer an excuse.

 

Those "Southern Brothers" were fighting for their "freedom" to "enslave" others. Those "Southern Brothers" were so deeply entrenched in their belief that slaves were nothing more than chattel that they were willing to kill their fellow man to hold on to that belief.

 

Racism is no "bogeyman." It remains a social pandemic that effects millions each day. It is a disease born and spread through ignorance. It should never be excused. It should always be shown for what it is and it should be dealt with harshly.

[LGR4GM]

Really? Just this country? Is it just white folks "racism" toward black folks, or can it go any way with you? Can black folks be racist toward white folk? Does it stop with race, or does ethnicity apply? For example, what do you call the Japanese ethno-centric view of "outside persons"? What about Islam's views toward homosexuals?

 

 

 

 

Being a symbol it has no real meaning. If people agree that a certain shape, or aggregate of shapes and color, equals a particular idea, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that interpretation stands for all people. To Southerners, the Confederate Flag stands for a time when Southern Brothers took up arms to fight for their freedom from the federal government, the issues at hand not-withstanding. Your interpretation, to me, represents the interpretation of someone looking for a bogeyman; socially "acceptable" reasons to hate something or someone.

interesting but can you clarify the separation of church and state thing you said?

[Weave]

interesting but can you clarify the separation of church and state thing you said?

 

Just what we need. Two volatile discussions in one thread. :blink:

[...]

Without slavery there was no substatial obstacle to Union. Slavery is specifically mentioned 14 times in the secession of South Carolina.

 

This is going to read wrong to those who don't debate, but, the act of enslaving another human notwithstanding, slavery as an issue was an economic issue for the South. While the North was going industrial, the South was content to maintain the status quo economically.

 

The times were different then, obviously, and the Constitution wasn't an academic exercise, but a binding contract as far as the South was concerned. Groups in the North were aggressive in their abolitionist activities, threatening the economy of the South which was already beaten up.

 

This Wiki entry is really good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War

 

 

 

States Rights is the largest revisionist argument of our day. The State Right they were protecting was specifically slavery.

 

Says the Washington Post. :rolleyes:

 

Was there another?

 

 

 

See above. Of course, slavery was a pivot point, but to say it was slavery alone is nonsensical. And to apply contemporary "enlightenment" to the mindset of the whole country at the time is by all means revisionism whether ignorant or intentional.

 

The dynamics of the country at the time were a lot more complex - but, of course, it's easy, now, to say it was all slavery, and Rednecks want their slaves back.

[darksabre]

A "symbol" is an object/person that has been given a greater meaning. The blood of the millions of innocents that has been spilled over the decades has stained that flag and given the symbol it's meaning. Those that choose to wear or salute that symbol are well aware of it's meaning. Ignorance is no longer an excuse.

 

Those "Southern Brothers" were fighting for their "freedom" to "enslave" others. Those "Southern Brothers" were so deeply entrenched in their belief that slaves were nothing more than chattel that they were willing to kill their fellow man to hold on to that belief.

 

Racism is no "bogeyman." It remains a social pandemic that effects millions each day. It is a disease born and spread through ignorance. It should never be excused. It should always be shown for what it is and it should be dealt with harshly.

 

Thank you. At least you get it.