Subscribe
Shop Local
Magazine
Gas Prices
Today's Poll!Blacks protest Confederate flags at Ga. cemetery
Thursday, August 11, 2011
ATLANTA (AP) — Black protesters called Wednesday for removing Confederate flags from a monument in an Atlanta cemetery where they recently buried the late president of a civil rights group co-founded by Martin Luther King Jr.
The flags at the Westview Cemetery fly over a sculpture of a Southern solider that memorializes the 400 Confederate veterans buried in the cemetery. The flagpole has an early version of the Confederate national flag and also its last flag, which contains the familiar stars-and-bars design carried by Confederate soldiers in the battlefield.
Mourners noticed the flags on Saturday while burying the Rev. Howard Creecy Jr., who died July 28 at age 57. His death came six months after he took the helm of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which King helped found. His funeral drew civil rights leaders such as SCLC president emeritus Joseph Lowery, U.S. Rep. John R. Lewis and former Atlanta mayor Andrew Young.
“Many persons were upset and asked me to come and do something,” the Rev. Benford Stellmacher, one of the protesters who gathered at the cemetery Wednesday, told WAGA-TV (http://bit.ly/qVGt31).
Some black protesters said they were particularly offended because they have family buried in the cemetery.
“For me, it is just an affront to everything that has happened for civil rights and justice for all people that are concerned that this flag still hangs,” said John H. Lewis.
Cemetery officials say they understand the complaints, but added they cannot take down the flags since the cemetery years ago sold the rights to erect and maintain the monument to Confederate veterans groups. The Sons of Confederate Veterans, whose members trace their ancestry to Southerners who fought in the Civil War from 1861 to 1865, says the flags will remain.
The Civil War was largely fought over the issue of slavery, and many blacks see the flag as a racist symbol.
“Those flags have flown there for many years and will continue to fly there for many years honoring our Confederate heroes and Confederate dead,” the organization told WAGA-TV. “It is not a racial issue.”
Marry Me
Comments
wow 1 year, 9 months ago
I'm sure this isn't the first time people have complained about the Confederate Flag being flown at this place. Fact is there have been numerous instances where people have asked/demanded that Confederate Flags or whatever be restricted from being flown/displayed by government agencies at all levels. So I don't believe " Mourners noticed the flags on Saturday while burying the Rev. Howard Creecy Jr.," and started complaining for the first time. I think this flag display is a reoccurring demonstration of someones sick desire to keep fanning the flames of racial hate. The city officials are claiming they are powerless to do anything to have the flags removed...which in part may be true. But it also eludes to there were and have always been Confederate supporters within the ranks of the US Government. This is further proven as Atlanta Officials claim their hands are tied because years ago they sold the rights to erect and maintain the monument to Confederate veterans groups.
So now the Confederate monument where the Confederate Flag is being flown is private property, which is true.....and the Confederate Flag flown on private property is a first amendment issue. Yet what these Confederate Supporters have ignored is this...even though the monument is owned by a private organization (Sons Of Confederate Soldiers)...it is located on city/state property. And since government agencies in this country are restricted from encouraging and or displaying items that cause public unrest and or promote or appear to promote racism...the recourse is simple. The monument and flag must be removed from city/state property......that way the city officials do their job and the monument/flag can then be replaced at a private location where it can be displayed and admired on private property.
spelchek 1 year, 9 months ago
Let's tear down the remaining concentration camps in Germany while we're at it. We'll put in a field of daisies and roses and just forget about those pesky Nazi's and what they did to the Jews. Southern blacks should support the flying of the confederate flag so future generations can be taught the horrendous struggles this country went through. Your line of thinking is dangerous. Censorship causes blindness.
xhepera 1 year, 9 months ago
Talk about a false equivalency. The former concentration camps are not kept intact and displayed with pride and arrogance. They are kept as reminders of the monsters that we humans can be. The Confederate flag lovers would have us believe that it is merely a symbol of their ancestors' vision of a noble "cause." If the people of Germany thought the same thing about the preserved concentration camps there would be a global outcry.
spelchek 1 year, 9 months ago
xhepera, you presume you know what Germans think, explain in detail why you are an expert on the German thought process. Moreover, MO State Historic Sites used to fly the flags with "pride and arrogance" until the beloved D. Gephart stated in S.C. that the confederate flag shouldn't be flown anywhere, anytime. To save the democrats face, all flags were ordered down, and another piece of history erased for a politician running for president and pandering a minority.
xhepera 1 year, 9 months ago
How pathetic that you would even go there, with meaningless drivel about the "German thought process," which never entered into my response. Sorry. I can't bring myself to use much of my time to argue with ill-informed ignorance with political axes to grind. As I said below, you'll need to find someone else to engage you. I won't be revisiting this topic. I've said what I had to say. You were wrong. You made a false equivalency, you were called on it. End of story. Bye.
spelchek 1 year, 9 months ago
"How pathetic that you would even go there, with meaningless drivel about the "German thought process," which never entered into my response." = "If the people of Germany thought the same thing about the preserved concentration camps..." -- Facts are pesky things. Bye.
gofish 1 year, 9 months ago
Agreed, keep the flags as is. One group doesn't have the right to disenfranchise another group from honoring their dead and what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
xhepera 1 year, 9 months ago
So, the good folks down in Georgia would be okay with the so-called "Afro-American" flag, created by Marcus Garvey in 1920, displayed in the cemetery? Ya think? I bet they'd accuse the people who displayed that flag as being separatist and ask the tired old questions of, "Why do they need to be different? They're not from Africa. Why can't they just be American?" Well, you know, just like that type loves to crow on about how slavery is over and so "yesterday," the same is true of the Confederacy and its treasonous attempt to destroy the Union.
TraceyT 1 year, 9 months ago
You have an interesting perspective, xhepera. Can you explain why the American colonies "treasonous attempt to destroy the Kingdom" (by leaving) was ok, but the Confederate state's "treasonous attempt to destroy the Union" (by leaving) wasn't ok? The fact is, the Civil War was not fought over slavery, it was fought over the right of self determination. Slavery may have been one of the biggest reasons for secession, but if the Union would not have attacked the southern states with the intent of forcing it's will on the seceded states, there would never have been a Civil War.
tonto 1 year, 9 months ago
The self-determination question was answered when the southern states joined the union. The constitution does and says all things in the name of the people, and the states gave up a siginficant part of their sovereignty to receive the benefits of the union for their people.
tonto 1 year, 9 months ago
Sure, let's let the Nazis fly their flag in Skokie, Illinois, too.
tonto 1 year, 9 months ago
Only when it is used to justify hatred and bigotry. Do you know what is significant about Skokie, Illinois?
Gabrielle 1 year, 9 months ago
No, tonto. What is the significance of Skokie, Illinois?
tonto 1 year, 9 months ago
Skokie is a predominantly Jewish community. The Nazis carried their flag in a parade there as an admitted provocation.
As I stated above, I believe free speech is a great thing until it is used as an excuse for hatred and bigotry. Flying the Confederate Battle Flag is not quite as obvious as a Nazi flag in a Jewish community but more of a wink and a nod to hatred and bigotry. Grace seems to support the unlimited version of free speech, so I do not know where (or if) she would support boundaries. Everyone likes to talk about the extreme and obvious cases but it's the marginal issues that really matter. How far can one side push the other?
Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago
I don't know - to answer your question. what is the difference between extreme and obvious cases and marginal? seems marginal and beyond includes extreme. also, there is Truth to Grace's statement about it - 'Free speech is free speech. If it is not allowed for some then it is a tool to be used to suppress other free speech'. Where do you think the line should be?
Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago
...and yes, it was insensitive for the Nazi group to intentionally carry the flag in a the setting you describe. As you know, we live in a world where people sometimes do that. There are a variety of ways to deal with insensitivities such as this.
tonto 1 year, 8 months ago
I am going to disagree with you on that one. A provocation like the Nazi parade in Skokie is an invitation to a fistfight. Calling it "insensitive" is more egregious than "misunderstanding" as the local euphemism for lying. I like Graceful's example of the abusive husband; I don't think anyone would call him just "insensitive" and we do not live in a world like that.
asb 1 year, 9 months ago
Given the location and history of this monument, it's not fair to call it racist. The fact that most rebel flags that are pasted, hung, and flown do express their owners' destructive views toward race, government, education, human rights, and thinking doesn't matter here. Flying the #$@% thing in a mixed race cemetary is nothing worse than exceedingly bad taste and IS offensive, even if no offense is publicly offered. A lot of symbols fit under the umbrella of homage to the war dead. I wonder how long the crackers would tolerate a monument to the natives who were slaughtered or shipped like cattle out west; or to the yanks who died there also. Perhaps a minaret in memory of the handful of Mohammadans who died in our civil war.
xhepera 1 year, 9 months ago
Ah, Graceful, but there's the rub. I have yet to see a single display of that flag around these parts anyway, that has anything to do with "thinking people." If defenders of that flag are so adamant about it being only a "symbol of Southern heritage" why don't they protest when it's used, as it so very often is, as a symbol of hatred and bigotry? I've yet to hear one advocate of that flag vigorously speak out against its frequent use by racist, Jew-hating, anti-Catholics. And I'm not young. I've been around for quite a while. And I'll let you in on a little secret. . .there are not as many "thinking" people flying that flag as you'd like to think.
online_editor 1 year, 9 months ago
Not that I know of. Leave off w w w and h t t p in any web addresses because the spam filter catches those. Usually those aren't needed by modern browsers in order to work right anyway.
justme13 1 year, 9 months ago
ok
justme13 1 year, 9 months ago
well this "cracker" thinks the Crazy Horse monument is pretty cool.....
muleman 1 year, 9 months ago
The civil war or war between the states was over states rights more than the slavery issue; Folks decided the feds were getting too big for their britches, very similar to what we think today
xhepera 1 year, 9 months ago
Wrong. That myth has been put to rest time and time again. Right now, with the sesquicentennial going on, more than ever has it been proved untrue. You will find no serious, legitimate or honest historian or academic in agreement with that myth. It's of use only to those who wish to remain ignorant or follow the words of those who do. The very primary source records of the Confederacy itself give the lie to it. Documents written in their own words, not those of the "Yankees," or "Reconstructionists," or whatever latter-day label (probably "liberal") is fashionable among the Confederate sympathizers of today. The "states rights" tale is a post-bellum construct that, in conjunction with the Lost Cause mythos, was created to allow the south to retain at least SOME measure of face after their failed insurrection.
spelchek 1 year, 9 months ago
'...allow the south to retain at least SOME measure of face after their failed insurrection." -- You mean like how slave owning democrat plantation owners still keep blacks enslaved in poverty via the chains of entitlements and welfare?
xhepera 1 year, 9 months ago
Dear Spelchek, I've seen enough of your ill-informed rhetoric to know enough not to take the bait. I am extremely well-informed on the subject at hand. You are not. If you wish to tout your political views and espouse neo-confederate mythology, you'll have to find someone else to engage you. I'm out. Bye.
asb 1 year, 9 months ago
So everybody on welfare is a slave? Everyone getting social security or disability, or farm subsidies, or tax break welfare is a slave. C'mon there! What a wonderful abortion of words to attack federal programs in the name of fighting slavery! Wow!
asb 1 year, 9 months ago
Not at all, it's just how you see the poor. Corporate, agricultural, development, and internaltional aid all supposedly serve an economic benefit. Leaving these benificiaries completely on their own might be appropriate in some climates, but not doing so no more makes them slaves than someone getting help from the police or a doctor. Left entirely on our own, we'd not exist. We are a social species. The view that welfare enslaves is extremism and anti-social.
John 1 year, 9 months ago
Not sure who xhepera is, but it is patently obvious he/she has no clue what they are writing about. Nearly EVERY historian recognizes that a MAJOR cause of the civil war was: States Rights, Economics, Slavery. . . . The Civil War, War Between the States, the War of Northern Aggression, cannot be defined by saying it was about this or was about that. It was a highly complex evolution that, at a minimum, obviated the deep divide as to whether a strong Federal Gov't had the right to tell it's partners how to govern their portion of the country. Oh, and before you get on your high horse, Right does not make Right. So,. just because the North "won" (whatever that means) does not mean they were right, only that they won a fight.
tonto 1 year, 9 months ago
John,
You are mistaken. Every one of the so-called other reasons for the Civil War was based on slavery. States' rights = the right to have slavery. No other issue was that important. Economics = the south was a one-crop region and that crop required slaves to be economically feasible. Even tradition = slavery because it was traditional in the south.
The regulation of interstate and international commerce by one central government rather than by individual states was crucial to the economic health of the country. Under the Articles of Confederation, states tried to enforce their own trade policy and their own foreign policy, and it didn't work very well.
Finally, the abject failure that was the Articles of Confederation led to the Constitutional convention that resulted in the Constitution of 1789 with its Supremacy Clause and strong central government. The thirteen original colonies ratified that constitution as a whole, and later states were admitted to the union with the understanding that the Constitution was binding on them. It wasn't a situation where states got to pick and choose which parts they liked and would choose to follow. It still isn't.
John 1 year, 9 months ago
It really amazes me that, at least, two of you cannot have rational discussions. You simply argue and restate simply to try and make sure you end up just as you started.
You have limited scope of understanding if you equate "states rights" only with slavery. That in itself indicates you are attempting to attend a battle of wits even though you are unarmed.
The articles fo confederation "failed" your words, because of the war between the states. Again, might does NOT make right, it only means that someone won a fight.
You want a really good time, compare the arguement of states rights with the arguements of Libertarians and those beliefs of the Tea Party. You will find that the arguement of "states rights" (has nothing to do with slavery) has NOT be solved.
Oh, to the other responder, because I lay out the historic facts of an arguement over "states rights" you have decided I "believe in slavery"? How silly is that?
tonto 1 year, 9 months ago
John,
Facts matter. The Articles of Confederation I referred to was the document setting up the US government between 1781 and 1788. The Confederate States of America (1861-1865) adopted a constitution very similar to the US Constitution of 1789, with the addition of several provisions protecting slavery.
There are many websites out there that promote states rights, but the League of the South website does the best job of presenting the threadbare arguments in favor of state sovereignty and the states' rights to secede from the northern (union) government. The League of the South website even describes the efforts of delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, to undermine and eliminate states' rights.
Historians generally believe that the southern confederacy died of states' rights because state governments declined to put their troops under the control of the central confederate government. (Another nail in that states' rights coffin.)
John 1 year, 9 months ago
Oh, and by the way, your statement, "The regulation of interstate and international commerce by one central government rather than by individual states was crucial to the economic health of the country." is absolutely incorrect. It was vital only to the "economic health of the" Northern states because they could not compete with the South's production. While slavery (ANY kind of slavery) is inherently wrong, the fact is, slavery was killing the North economically. That reason (not the only one, but probably at the very top of the list) indicates the greed exhibited by those in the North. For too long, the North has placed themselves up on some kind of pedistal. In actuallity the Northerners were every bit of hard, nasty, evil, and corrupt toward the black man and especially the recently freed blacks of the war.
John 1 year, 9 months ago
Sorry, I was so busy typing that I misstated what I intended to write about the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation failed because of the very arguement that you are attempting to put forth. All of the colonies (joined together to avoid hunger) were suspicious of any kind of strong federal power. It is obvious in there method of gov't. Each of them had their own laws within their own boundaries.
tonto 1 year, 9 months ago
Show me where the right to secede is defined, anywhere in the US Constitution. Please.
tonto 1 year, 9 months ago
You are correct that there are no provisions for dissolution or secession, but:
The Constitution (in article 7) specifically addresses ratification by the original states, and (in article 4) the admission of new states. It is doubtful that the absence of a provision for secession was left out by mistake since the constitution provided for a perpetual union. Finally, applying the vague Tenth Amendment to this specific issue is not logical because of more recent events.
In 1861 there was the unconditional surrender at Appomattox Courthouse, effectively ending the Civil War and cancelling the secession of the Confederate states. Then in 1868, the Supreme Court issued their "indestructible union" decision in Texas v. White, holding that even Texas which was a formally recognized republic before it joined the union, could not secede.
So - I have specific constitutional provisions, an unconditional surrender, and a supreme court case. You have wishful thinking and a discredited theory. You are also contradicting your normal laundry-list (if it's not in the constitution, it was not meant to be) approach to constitutional issues here.
muleman 1 year, 9 months ago
If the war was only about owning slaves, why didnt the war end as soon as Lincooln freed the slaves ?
tonto 1 year, 9 months ago
Lincoln did not have effective control, at that time, over the southern states which were the target of the emancipation proclamation. The proclamation was intended to keep France from entering the war on the side of the south, and it worked. That's why it only affected the confederate states. The proclamation also impoverished the confederacy because most of its wealth was in slaves and in plantations which needed slave labor to be successful.
tonto 1 year, 9 months ago
That's not a question with a simple yes or no answer. The emancipation proclamation freed the slaves in the confederacy but only became effective regarding those slaves with the end of the civil war. The immediate impact of the proclamation was to keep France from supporting the Confederacy with military assets which would have made it more difficult for the north to win.
Gabrielle 1 year, 9 months ago
please elaborate.
tonto 1 year, 9 months ago
That's really all there is to it. Successful war strategy. Another poster wrote that the Civli War was the first "modern" war. That would be correct if "modern" refers to the use of public relations, economics, and other non-military tactics in addition to more effective killing of the other side's military personnel.
wow 1 year, 9 months ago
A few nutcases kill a few hundred people on Sept 11, 2001 and Americans are considered "patriotic" for pouring in the streets to make sure "peace loving Muslims" can't build a Mosque near ground zero. What a joke!
Yet when a few people make educated, legit complaints about the US Government displaying the very symbol that represents the system that promoted millions of innocent, unarmed men women and children being kidnapped and for centuries sold into slavery followed by generations of the United States Government forcing them to live in the sub-human conditions of Jim Crow and Black Codes.... those concerned people are told to get over it. Are you kidding me?
Can ya get over Sept 11, 2001? Can ya get the Oklahoma bombing? Can ya get over the Tahliban beheading US troops? Can ya get over the horrible crimes committed by Adolf Hitler? Can ya get over the criminal acts of Mr Stalin? Can ya get over the BS that Casey Anthony just walked away from? How bout we start flying Swastika's over the White House. Or better yet, how about President Obama starts being introduced after the Parliament song "Chocolate City" as the Red, Black and Green flag cascades in the breeze? If any of that is alright with you..then ya need help.
The United States Government should not be promoting any part of a Confederate celebration at all! I fought and bled for this nation...and I'd gladly do so again....I gave my oath to defend these United States of America unto death, against all enemies of this nation, be they foreign or domestic. Which one do you think the Confederacy falls under? Get rid of that "Confederate rag"...there is nothing honorable about it or the Confederacy. If it's to be celebrated in America...then let it be done on private property and in private.
spelchek 1 year, 9 months ago
"The United States Government should not be promoting any part of a Confederate celebration at all! I fought and bled for this nation...and I'd gladly do so again....I gave my oath to defend these United States of America unto death, against all enemies of this nation, be they foreign or domestic." -- Explain how a flag flying at a cemetery is a celebration. Moreover, you apparently were not defending the 1st amendment.
wow 1 year, 9 months ago
Just for the record...the head line " Blacks protest Confederate flags at Ga. cemetery" is BS! It makes it seem like only "blacks have an issue with the United States government promoting the Confederacy...and even though I cannot tell who's who, based on these comments and my use of common sense, I feel comfortable saying not every body sharing my point of view is black. So your head line is about as correct as saying the birth date of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr is a national holiday for all Americans, but not every American state government agency has to recognize that holiday or "illegal immigrants" are all Mexicans. Not complaining, I'm just pointing out what could be viewed as the continued systematic attempt of 'the man" trying to keep a brotha down:)
online_editor 1 year, 9 months ago
I think you raise a valid point. I sense there are two issues at work here that can be problematic. #1 It's the nature of headlines to be brief and oversimplify. They traditionally use a kind of compressed speech style, such as omitting a verb or qualifiers like "a" or "some" or "these." Headlines are meant to function as teasers for readers scanning to make a quick decision. By compressing the main idea, headlines unfortunately can sometimes fall short of clearly representing the story. #2 In stories like this one, how relevant is identifying the race of the persons or group involved? It's AP's and general news policy to identify race only if race is a relevant factor in the controversy or conflict. But that raises additional questions. Is it relevant to identify certain individuals by race (say, those most directly at odds in the controversy) and others not? Is it accurate to describe a whole group by racial composition? How does a reporter even know he's correctly identifying the race of various individuals? How much does a reporter's own racial perceptions and biases affect his ability to craft the story in a neutral, informational fashion, even when he's trying hard to do an ethical job? Etc. IMHO, all are issues that should be pondered but not necessarily easy to answer.
wow 1 year, 9 months ago
Then perhaps stating something like "Alabama citizens protest Confederate flags at Ga. cemetery", would be better. The story can get more in depth describing the make up of who is doing what. I'm not saying the reporters are on one side or another. I was just pointing out that some people look for reasons to argue sensitive issues. Over all...this is a good news article and it generated some good comments. Yet I am concerned that in this day, "Americans" are still so ready and willing to defend the evil system and symbol that produced the "American terrorist" who committed the most horrific crimes against innocent people. Although evidence of these crimes was available, very few of these murders were ever brought to justice and punished. Slavery killed millions, and I'm trying to get over that. But as the Confederate Flag waved in the breeze, rallying those who loved the better days, Jim Crow and Black Codes killed many more and lasted much longer..I can't get over that, especially when some people want to act like it never happened! Peace
wow 1 year, 9 months ago
Amazed...I'm curious...does AA mean African American and PC = political correctness? If so, are you eluding to African Americans only care about political correctness when it's to their benefit? If not please tell me what your message...then me and others can better respond. However remember according to the rules of this Blog...whatever it is you are commenting about. It has to be related to this article.
m2thadsr 1 year, 9 months ago
As i have said before everytime an article like this gets printed the inner racism in people just oozes out like they can't control it. IT IS ALL IGNORANCE. I understand the protest but as a biracial person ( black & white). If the southern people want to put a confederate flag in the cemetery to fly and represent what their ancestors fought for so be it. Get the #$%& over it and let them. That is what makes this country so great is our freedoms. This falls under freedom of speech and that should be the end of it.
If you were born here your not any color first. FIRST U R AN AMERICAN!!!!
Gabrielle 1 year, 9 months ago
What are you calling 'inner racism'?
asb 1 year, 9 months ago
Like it or not, might does make right - the winners do get the spoils, including the history books - and, above all, the rule of law. This is Darwin at the cultural and social scale. I am also curious to hear about that part of the constitution (the one put in place after the first weak one nearly died) giving the states the right to go their own way. I think everybody in this thread should go back and read Tonto's excellent and compact statements on the Civil War, he has it nailed. It was a war of aggression, wherein the United States aggressively subdued the armies of an insurgent group who illegally seceded. It was also the first modern war, and by far the most horrible in our history. And, while the winners view is the most prominent, the South's viewpoints are recorded, documented, and well defined in history. No losing side in a rebellion ever had such a heroic or protected history as our South, because they are us, not separate.
TraceyT 1 year, 9 months ago
asb, being strong doesn't make one correct. It does, as you said, allow one to write the history books in a fashion that makes them look good. They might sound good, but they are still wrong. If might actually did make right, then murder would be right. I am curious though about your statement that secession was illegal. If no prohibition of secession existed (prior to 1860) in the constitution or other federal law, then secession can not reasonably be construed as illegal. The mere absence of a law that allows (or recognizes the legitimacy of) a right, privilege, or action is not the same as a prohibition of said action. If there is any question regarding that, application of the tenth amendement should resolve the question. That being said, if you are aware of any law that actually prohibited secession, I would honestly be interested in reading into it and would appreciate it if you would provide information about said law.
By the way, if secession was illegal, why did the Union wait so long to stop it?
Gabrielle 1 year, 9 months ago
Gosh - maybe we need a new flag. They are all reminiscent of the ugly past - that will take care of all this, now wouldn't it?
Gabrielle 1 year, 9 months ago
If history is written by the winners and we conclude it is an inaccurate representation of what happened, how can on legitimately say another's understanding of history is 'wrong' 'inaccurate' 'warped' etc... AND do we go with the general concensus of historians to determine what the facts are? AND when we do that.....then what? What has been accomplished? What is the purpose?
tonto 1 year, 9 months ago
That's exactly right. The orthodox view of Missouri's status in the Civil War is incorrect because it is based on one book which missed a couple of key factors. The military historian omitted the vote to stay in the Union and reported the subsequent vote to secede which was made by the rump government that had fled to Texas in advance of Sterling Price's troops. That all became moot once Price established martial law. You can find copies of the documents in the capitol building.
tonto 1 year, 9 months ago
Facts matter. I have read the actual documents. A majority of the elected government voted to stay in the union.
tonto 1 year, 9 months ago
So which is it? You say that marshall law was wrong because there is no explicit constitutional authority, but secession is ok because of some imaginary implicit authority. You can't have it both ways.
tonto 1 year, 9 months ago
Strict vs loose? Nah. I won't give it that much credit. That poster can't or won't separate facts, wildly exaggerated claims, and outright fabrication from one another. I am looking for the source of all of that poster's amazing (so to speak) revelations. The Onion needs someone like that.
Gabrielle 1 year, 9 months ago
No, my point is not that history is irrelevant and Yes, people can learn from history if they accurately understand it. Given the lack of a clear understanding as to the why's of the Civil War, what can we really conclude from it?
When it comes to history in general, there are times when an accurate understanding is crucial to getting to the root of the problem to resolve it. There are other times when an accurate understanding of history for resolution is unnecessary. So my question comes up again - what is the purpose?
I value the conversation here about the Civil War, The Constitution and where we are now. I am enjoying it. Thanks to all of you who comment.
Gabrielle 1 year, 9 months ago
Just to elaborate - what serious damage can be done if one does not have an accurate understanding of history yet puts into motion actions that prove to be harmful to others... all b/c one was acting on an inaccurate judgement/determination/conclusion. Facts are important, So many times people talk as if things are based on fact and they are not.
wow 1 year, 9 months ago
Here's are some fact's we do know, the period leading up to the Civil war era was about money, the northern money came from industry built with cheap and "free" labor and the southern money came in crops and was built on "free forced" labor... Neither side treated white women, poor whites, or non-whites equally. The cheap labor was provided by hard working whites who were manipulated into thinking non whites were not their equal and only wanted to take what was rightfully the property of white men. This manipulation often took place at rallies held in northern and southern, churches, town gatherings, schools, or at the thousands of public government sanctioned celebratory events which took place. These event's usually culminated with the beating, selling, whipping or lynching of some poor innocent person of color who was publicly brutalized or murdered for the crowds pleasure.
After the Civil War these same type of events continued!! Can somebody please tell me why? If slavery, which was based on the color of a persons skin wasn't the cause of the Civil War. Then tell me what caused the shameless horrors of those centuries of legalized Jim Crow and Black Codes and racial segregation? Why was it every time some American Leader spoke of keeping blacks in their place of inferiority...the "Confederate Flag" was swinging in the breeze. It's obvious the message of racial hate was being preached and practiced long before Hale Barber, Strom Thurman and many others began keeping this evil tradition alive. Why after bearing witness to the horrors of the Revolutionary War and the Civil War....both of which are championed as being fought for American freedom's. Then why did the United States Government sit idle as innocent people were being butchered in the streets simply because they had a darker hue to their skin? If the Civil War/Confederacy wasn't about skin color, can you honestly say the murderous years that followed were not as well? I don't think so.
miracl 1 year, 9 months ago
You are so right,Graceful. I would recommend the book, Lies the Government Told You. It really opened my eyes and these facts were never in my history books. I challenge every true American to read this book and then comment on slavery. written by Judge Andrew P Napolitano. If you are not a reader,just read pages 9-13.
tonto 1 year, 9 months ago
That Fox News personality was a New Jersey Superior Court judge for eight years, holding a job that is similar to a Missouri Circuit judge. His knowledge of the US Constitution, federal law, and history has been questioned by more accomplished attorneys and judges.
tonto 1 year, 9 months ago
Nor does her new sock-puppet nic. Do I need to list them for anyone?
tonto 1 year, 9 months ago
Last time I did that, the moderator Graceful was really quick to delete my AMAZED2 post. I believe that making such miracl things clear to all the players is fair. You can tell a lot about a person by the way they use and misuse words, by the sources they cite, attack, and defend, and by the way they try to link related and unrelated concepts.
tonto 1 year, 9 months ago
History books are mostly boring once you get through the pictures, but history is a competitive topic with lots of good writers and publishers who want to sell their books. The judge gave up his job to advance his writing and TV career. So why do you believe "these facts" (your terminology) were never in your history books? Is it because most of it is fabrication?
Gabrielle 1 year, 9 months ago
If we look further into the past and across the Atlantic, we see this was never about the amount of pigment in one's skin. In general terms, to some involved in the slave trade - ie the slave traders - it was about money - or maybe we can call it greed. The Africans who captured the enslaved may have had several reasons for participating.
For me, it is impossible to make sense of all of this. That is - to answer the why's. What is important is what we do NOW. All this 'race stuff' that is going on nowadays grew out of this nonracial greed. The people who created it are dead. WE, on the other hand, are alive and well and left with this mess. Look at what is going on. 'They' really have us going now. Look at the mess! I just wonder what WE are going to do about it. How long are WE going to 'allow' 'them' to have this affect on us? And another thing - how much is really about 'race'? How much is 'race baiting'? What are we calling 'racism' these days? Is it really racism? At some point here, WE are responsible for what is going on. Individually and collectively. We are now beyond the bondage of slavery. We are now beyond the Civil Rights Act implementation. When do we - individually and collectively - act like it? It is all very divisive and at some point it needs to stop. I say that time is NOW.
wow 1 year, 9 months ago
Ok Graceful, let's just say I buy into your SWAG that the Civil War wasn't about Slavery or race (I don't buy that for one minute), but I'll be make pretend and be your Patsy. But Graceful...I'd like you or someone to tell me this.....tell me what caused the shameless horrors of those centuries that followed the Civil War. What caused the era of legalized Jim Crow and Black Codes and racial segregation? Why was it every time some American Leader spoke of keeping blacks in their place of inferiority...the "Confederate Flag" was swinging in the breeze. Why after bearing witness to the horrors of the Revolutionary War and the Civil War....both of which are championed as being fought for American freedom's. Tell me why the United States Government and the majority of Americans sat idle as innocent people were being butchered in the streets simply because they had a darker hue to their skin? For SAG's let's conclude that the Civil War/Confederacy wasn't about skin color. Can you honestly say the same for the centuries of blacks suffering leagalyzed inequality, segregation, inability to vote or get an education, beatings, mutilations, lynchings and rapes?
wow 1 year, 9 months ago
Graceful....racism did and does exist in the north and south. It also exists east and west. But to keep on topic...please stop the double talk. What's with this BS insult about? "Southerners were being lambasted and attacked" and that's what helped start the Civil War. Do you mind telling which Negro ripped one of these Southern Gentlemen from their family and forced them to work in the cotton fields until they died? Which Negro took one of these Southern Bells away from her mate, raped her, impregnated her and forced her to watch as her innocent child was sold at the auction? Which Negro terrorist group visited these good God fearing white folks and told them to forget about voting, equality, education or leaving the plantation? Southerner's were attacked by who...and if they were attacked why didn't they simply go after the people who attacked them? Why did they have to hate, and hurt people that never did anything wrong to them? I'm trying to stay calm...but sir/mam your last statement has me real emotional about now.
Then you further insult those who apply common sense by stating "the repression of blacks after the war was a reaction to the loss of the war and the efforts by the federal government to dictate life in the south. It is readily understandable as to why. It is also readily understandable based on human nature. My opinion is that had the north let the south go, in the long run things would have evolved and with less violence and hatred". Where did that %%$##@%%# response come from? Look I understand this is a very touchy subject and we do not have to agree on things. But surely you don't believe for one minute I consider your last statement as being rational, cause I don't. It's like this...if you cannot converse intelligently and truthfully...I'm finished even trying to exchange thoughts with you. YNHMF!
asb 1 year, 9 months ago
That particular tome doesn't need the left to be discredited, many scholars on the right take issue with it's primary statements. Even Glen Beck (not a scholar BTW) took issue with the Judge.
tonto 1 year, 9 months ago
Glen Beck was probably jealous - Judge Napolitano makes inflammatory but uninformed commentary as well as he does.
tonto 1 year, 9 months ago
That's Ann Coulter's whole premise. I think she has it copyrighted and/or trademarked. The book covers and the adjectives just keep escalating. If you believe or want to believe that kind of thing, that writer provides lots of pages but little new content. Andrew Napolitano and Glenn Beck are way outgunned there.
tonto 1 year, 8 months ago
I've seen her newest book. There is lots of volume and lots of repitition. It's soothing to the true believers to have their notions reinforced in such an aggressive manner. but the rest of us would like some new ideas. It's not enough to have fingers pointed, no matter how shrill the pointer makes it.
spelchek 1 year, 9 months ago
Censorship causes blindness.
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID