Flying the Confederate battle flag - Just Don't Do It.

[texas skeeter]

L'dMAO!!

 

[bones_708]

Not wrong just brief which was apparently a source of misunderstanding. Saying the tariffs "were the same for everyone" is ignoring the intent in favor of the letter. An HOA rule outlawing clothesline is hardly transparently "equal" when but one household, often harassed, is the sole owner of a clothesline. The Southern controlled legislature did not impose the tariffs but did take steps to mitigate their impact. The movement toward secession had been brewing for quite a long time and encompassed many topics. When war was declared there was no mention of slavery except by the slave-owning elite in various secession documents, war was declared to halt secession which Lincoln knew the North could not survive financially. You are correct the tariffs wouldn't break the South, at their height Southerners simply traded with foreign nations instead, another infrequently discussed facet predicating the WBTS. It had little to do with "way of life" anymore so than us "bringing democracy to the world" is actual motivation to insinuate ourselves into foreign conflicts. Sounds good on paper though, reads well in history class.

Too brief if you want to blame tariffs for the South succeeding when the south set the tariff rate themselves. You say they traded with forign nations instead. You missed the point. The trade with foreign nations were what the tariffs were on. The war from the Union side was about the union. The succession was about slavery which led to the war. Those slave owning elites were the leaders of the south. Want me to post some sermons from the churches where the "regular" folk were worshiping? It was everything to do with a way of life. The Southerners place in society. their whole culture had been under attack for years. Dress it up how you want a pig is still a pig.

I have no idea who the "4/9 of the population" is referring to as there was no reference cited, didn't take it personally though. I would say most blacks are opposed to the KKK, those I know and have personal relationships with do not perceive the flag as strictly representing racism and for the most part take it as what it is - a hate group co-opting a common symbol to inflate their perceived presence.

African Americans. I geuss he figured most would get it. That every AA doesn't think of the flag as representing something in no way effects that the majority would and do. would you want to be a black kid in a car broke down and have a truck with a confederate flag flying in the bed pull up?

I was in no way insulting or dismissive, facetious perhaps but certainly addressing his comment. So far as "wrong, unpleasant, and part and parcel of a bullshit hit and run" I have no response but to question if it was really all that, maybe a bit flippant but you give far too much credit. I said nothing about leaving the state however feel free to do as you see fit, let me know if you need a hand packing, happy to help.

Maybe I viewed it as such because all the BS shoveled on this thread but as you can see it is hardly unwarranted and any conciliatory feelings gets trashed by the asshole remark at the end.

This is the first time I've ever seen Libtard tag teaming here!!

The 2 Yankee supporters are passionate.

You should get out of Texas. Move to NYC and have your lefty circle jerks up there. You can join the Hilary campaign.

Ain't from around here are ya'll? Carpetbaggers maybe, Southerners 'naw.

 

[Davetex]

 

[bones_708]

And nobody will because neither side is strong enough to beat the other or smart enough to leave.

I contend that the other side is to stupid to know they got beat but ...........

 

[satx78247]

bones_708,

I'm going to take one more shot at explaining to you WHY what you wrote is just WRONG & MEANINGLESS to a serious study of the tariff problem. - IF that doesn't get you to understand, I give up.

The tariff that MOST educated people are talking about is the EXPORT fees for RAW agricultural products like cotton, tobacco, rice, etc. that would sell abroad for FAR MORE than the Northern industrialists CHOSE to pay.
The Northern Industrialists therefore got HIGH export fees passed into law that assured that agricultural goods could NOT be sold abroad at a profit.

At the same time, there extant documents that PROVE to the satisfaction of 99% of neutral observers that the Northern industrialists conspired to assure that the southern States paid HIGH prices for manufactured goods made in the North AND to assure that IMPORT tariffs for similar goods were priced higher than the prices for US-made goods.

Somehow, I cannot see any Southern producer/consumer sitting still too long for that unbalanced/UNFAIR practice to long continue BUT with the coming of additional States made Southern producers believe that the situation was likely to become PERMANENT, especially given the MUCH larger population in the North.

That UNFAIR trade situation was ONE of the MANY reasons for secession that had little/NOTHING to do with "the peculiar institution".

yours, satx

 

[Whistler]

L'dMAO!!

Damn you and your videos! Don't you know us "slack-jawed yokels" have limited Internet out here in the sticks???

 

[bones_708]

bones_708,

I'm going to take one more shot at explaining to you WHY what you wrote is just WRONG & MEANINGLESS to a serious study of the tariff problem. - IF that doesn't get you to understand, I give up.

The tariff that MOST educated people are talking about is the EXPORT fees for RAW agricultural products like cotton, tobacco, rice, etc. that would sell abroad for FAR MORE than the Northern industrialists CHOSE to pay.
The Northern Industrialists therefore got HIGH export fees passed into law that assured that agricultural goods could NOT be sold abroad at a profit.

At the same time, there extant documents that PROVE to the satisfaction of 99% of neutral observers that the Northern industrialists conspired to assure that the southern States paid HIGH prices for manufactured goods made in the North AND to assure that IMPORT tariffs for similar goods were priced higher than the prices for US-made goods.

Somehow, I cannot see any Southern producer/consumer sitting still too long for that unbalanced/UNFAIR practice to long continue BUT with the coming of additional States made Southern producers believe that the situation was likely to become PERMANENT, especially given the MUCH larger population in the North.

That UNFAIR trade situation was ONE of the MANY reasons for secession that had little/NOTHING to do with "the peculiar institution".

yours, satx

Again the south had control of the government that set the tariffs and in 1860 were at the lowest point in years. There were virtually no no excise taxes. They had been abolished by Jackson after the debt from the war of 1812 was paid off in 1834 and had never been a big issue except for the excise tax on whiskey (ie the Whiskey rebellion in 1791). You could make the point that there was massive concern that they would be increased, (and were after some southern states pulled their senators thus rendering them unable to block the merrell tariff) but you don't make that argument. Even if it were a concern it would still be a much smaller concern than the fear of ending slavery. You mention the new states, the ones that would increase the North's control over the South. But why would that be the automatic conclusion? Why would new states automatically be on the North's side? Oh wait a min. The govt wouldn't allow slavery in the new states! So the reason the states felt they needed to Succeed was slavery! Thanks for proving my point. So you have wrong facts as well as a poorly thought out conclusion that that actually supports my contention. Thanks!

 

[texas skeeter]

Still at it.... lol


[video]http://southpark.cc.com/clips/155225/slap-fight[/video]

 

[Vaquero]

I found CSA flags in stock today.
As soon as I've met my needs, I'll clue y'all in.
heh!

 

[zincwarrior]

Not wrong just brief which was apparently a source of misunderstanding. Saying the tariffs "were the same for everyone" is ignoring the intent in favor of the letter. An HOA rule outlawing clothesline is hardly transparently "equal" when but one household, often harassed, is the sole owner of a clothesline. The Southern controlled legislature did not impose the tariffs but did take steps to mitigate their impact. The movement toward secession had been brewing for quite a long time and encompassed many topics. When war was declared there was no mention of slavery except by the slave-owning elite in various secession documents, war was declared to halt secession which Lincoln knew the North could not survive financially. You are correct the tariffs wouldn't break the South, at their height Southerners simply traded with foreign nations instead, another infrequently discussed facet predicating the WBTS. It had little to do with "way of life" anymore so than us "bringing democracy to the world" is actual motivation to insinuate ourselves into foreign conflicts. Sounds good on paper though, reads well in history class.


I have no idea who the "4/9 of the population" is referring to as there was no reference cited, didn't take it personally though. I would say most blacks are opposed to the KKK, those I know and have personal relationships with do not perceive the flag as strictly representing racism and for the most part take it as what it is - a hate group co-opting a common symbol to inflate their perceived presence.

I was in no way insulting or dismissive, facetious perhaps but certainly addressing his comment. So far as "wrong, unpleasant, and part and parcel of a bullshit hit and run" I have no response but to question if it was really all that, maybe a bit flippant but you give far too much credit. I said nothing about leaving the state however feel free to do as you see fit, let me know if you need a hand packing, happy to help.

Really, you don't know that? The 4/9 is the amount of the Southern population that were enslaved.

 

[satx78247]

zinc warrior,

YEP. WHAT you either don't understand, are trying to ignore and/or just don't KNOW, it is generally accepted by scholars that SLAVERY was NOT a serious concern to more than 10-20,000 people in the entire USA & not 5,000 people were concerned enough to fight even a short skirmish to end or NOT end "the peculiar institution", much less a war.
(Slavery only became a "crusade" after it appeared that the UK & France would enter the war on the side of the CSA.)

TRUTH is that a VERY SMALL percentage of freepersons CARED at all about slavery, though they SHOULD have.

ADDENDA: As I've said elsewhere, hardly anybody to my knowledge asked the slaves for their opinion of slavery or whether it was "a serious moral problem" OR how they felt, as the vast majority of citizens saw "non-whites" (Asians, Latinos, NA, et.al.) as sub-human & their opinions therefore were deemed unworthy of serious discussion.

Lincoln said in public speeches & in his private correspondence that he considered Amer-Indians, African-Americans, Asians, Jews, Latinos, Mormons & Roman Catholics to be NON-PERSONS, "-------- who are to be driven from our domains forever or exterminated, as they have neither immortal souls or even humanity."
(Letter to TOBIAS PUCKE of the Republican Party of Boston, MA in Apr 1863.)

In another letter of 1864, to a ward-heeler in NYC, Lincoln said that he particularly was devoted to, "----- the complete extermination of the Red Savages, as no civilized nation would accept them for settlement."

Lincoln & most Americans were "stone racists", especially when compared to 2015.

The general disinterest in "chattel slavery", as a "moral issue" in the USA is the main reason that it was NOT either the MAIN or even a MAJOR cause of TWBTS. ===> That "disinterest" is why the major thesis of The Radical Revisionist School is a huge FAIL & frankly a KNOWING LIE.

yours, satx

 

[rushthezeppelin]

L'dMAO!!

It's like a tennis match....just without racquets, a ball, a court and a net

 

[bones_708]

In 1855, Lincoln wrote to Joshua Speed, a personal friend and slave owner in Kentucky:

You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. . . How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty— to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/speed.htm

So now where can I find the letters you referenced?

 

[satx78247]

bones_708,

The "Tobias Pucke" letter formerly belonged to Dee Brown, bestselling author of BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE. - Frankly after his death in 2002, I don't know what disposition that was made of his property.

The "Red Savages" letter currently belongs to The Sac-Fox Nation of Oklahoma (as far as I know), and was displayed during The Oklahoma Statehood Centennial celebration at the old State Capitol at Guthrie, OK in 2007.

Both letters were read & discussed at the Civil War Roundtable of Baltimore, MD by a University of MD professor in 1998
and
The letters have been published by INDIAN COUNTRY TODAY, THE NAVAHO TIMES, THE NATIVE AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL SERVICE (Chicago, IL), THE SEMINOLE TRIBUNE and by other Amer-Indian publications over the years.

yours, satx

 

[satx78247]

J Fred; ALL,

According to the FT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM, the district judge postponed ANY decision on the Jeff Davis statue until after 27AUG15.
(Despite the "mouth-flapping" of the TV/radio "talking heads", the judge gave NO clue as to how/what he planned to rule, then.)

yours, satx

 

[J. Fred]

J Fred; ALL,

According to the FT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM, the district judge postponed ANY decision on the Jeff Davis statue until after 27AUG15.
(Despite the "mouth-flapping" of the TV/radio "talking heads", the judge gave NO clue as to how/what he planned to rule, then.)

yours, satx

Hope he takes the time to read the agreement and tunes out the non-stop whining from the history revisionist book burning cowardly turn coat libtard sissy bedwetters who just give lip service to honoring Texas & and it's whole history.

 

[Sugar Land]

You all crack me up... And to think we voted to bring politics back to the forum...

 

[Savage805]

Do we have another vote every four years?

54 pages of good solid content webmaster has to love it.

 

[zincwarrior]

Hope he takes the time to read the agreement and tunes out the non-stop whining from the history revisionist book burning cowardly turn coat libtard sissy bedwetters who just give lip service to honoring Texas & and it's whole history.

UT is well within its rights to abrogate the agreement. If it becomes an issue I am sure they will.

 

[satx78247]

zinc warrior,

Get ready for UT, the UT president, all the members of the UT board (both severally and individually) to be sued by the SCV and for a HUGE pile of $$$$$$$. - IF the judge follows the civil law relative to contracts, UT and all of those people as individuals will have a HUGE bill to pay.
(This is NOT my opinion but reportedly that of the professors of the UT law school.)

"Big-time" law firms don't take cases "on spec" that they believe that they will lose at law.

MY serious suggestion to every UT "big-shot" is to SHUT UP & QUIETLY leave the statues where they are, rather than pay a HUGE (the amount sued for is 10 million per person & 100 million against UT as an institution.) amount that the University/people will very likely lose.
(At the very least, it will cost UT a HUGE legal fee to defend against the SCV's attorneys.)

just my opinion, satx