In this war mostly the young blacks and whites fought and many died. They fought under the flag representing their government's will. They fought as they were told as in all wars unless you believe all military youngsters are politically savvy about the war they are fighting. The fight may be wrong but make no mistake the fighters honor themselves and the flag they are under. Now they are gone, some try to disgrace the banner under which they gave their all. How pathetic?
@FightinRebel14 - thanks. Hopefully you can post something a bit more substantive next time? Besides, isnt it true that most comments prefaced by some shrill, over-the-top reference to God are terribly annoying? ;-)
@atemikage - you are opposed to the right of a state to fly a flag that is a part of its heritage on or over its own capitol? Sorry, cannot agree with you there. As long as it is not flown either in lieu of or over the state flag and American flag, it is a right of the people to fly the flag. It is their capitol.
@atemikage - yes. The issue comes up almost every election cycle, and the people and / or their representatives reaffirm that the flag is ok to fly, although it no longer flies over the capitol building, but in a memorial on the capital land. There is nothing wrong with a state flying flags which bear historical significance to the state as long as they fly below the official state flag and the American flag flies on top.
Doesn't the Confederate Flag represent seperation from the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (UNION)? So, its okay to fly the flag of a group that fought AGAINST! the US? Hmmmm?
@jasonlbutler - No, the Confederate flag represents an effort return to the founding principles which established the USA. Govt has continually strayed from these principles. Such as, the principle that any power not specifically granted to the fed govt is reserved for the states (sovereignty of the states/states rights). That's why we are the UNITED States of America - not the FEDERATED States of America, and we will only remain united as long as the states retain their individual sovereignty.
@acchokiefan - Classy. Each of your allegations is as false as the other, but it is apparent to anyone who reads your drivel that you don't allow facts to get in the way of your faulty opinions. Thank you for showing everyone the level of intellect typically indicative of those who share your views. You have done more for my argument in two lines than I could have with several paragraphs.
@acchokiefan So who is it offensive to? The millions of black people that take pride in it and carry it around? Or the family loving white people that show no racism?
@TheCaliCapitalist - Sorry, your perspective is unique, but not at all common. In fact, the flag highlights the hypocrisy of the left, who call it a racist symbol while they themselves espouse hatred for Blacks and Jews.
I can assure you that I am as Conservative as they come, and I would not insult the flag by associating it with today's democrat party.
people assume the flag is racist because the KKK uses it. If you fly the 1st national confederate flag then people won't know what it is, black people won't be pissed and call us racists, southerners will be happy. I personally don't care what people think, I'll fly my flag in front of anybody and if they call me racist I'll explain it to them.
All I know is I had to serve 22 days in a mental health facility because I was drinking too much booze and taking too many pills. Apparently, I was a danger to myself and others. Afterwards, I had to go to outpatient classes for about four months. Alcohol abuse and drug abuse are monsters haunting all our lives in some way. If you are an abuser, get help today. If you know someone who is an abuser, get them to get help today. Jalen Rose, go to AA for the rest of your life.
as an Englishman and viewing this from the outside , i think lots of flags are hijacked by different groups in other countries , the union jack being one of them . that does not make the pride i have for it any less . be proud of who you are and your history . the flag was a battle flag and never ever represented anything other than the southern army .
the south is one of thousands of cultures that had slaves. does that mean that we should prohibit flying England's flag or France's flag? the Danish flag? How about the US flag, as we tolerated slavery as a nation for more than 50 years. If we banned all flags of societies that used to have slavery, almost no African flags would be permitted to fly!
@DixiesBest - you are one ignorant punk. Real brave behind a keyboard, aren't you? Why don't you wear a sign with those words on it, so everyone can see you for the piece of crap you are, and treat you accordingly...
I live in SC, and no person man, woman or child should be anyone's slave, period. World history does tell us that there were slaves of all races, creeds and religions. It is just wrong. The issue of the flag however is a different issue, it is about Southern pride and honoring the war dead. The shame is the people that do dishonor it by making it racial. So there is another fight, dumb rednecks against southerners that are just honorable. Always controversy.
@KayBeeEee1983 - you were doing fine until you chose to reveal your own juvenile character. Thanks for your constructive input, but you have now overstayed your welcome.
Unfortunately there are many people who use the flag as a racist symbol. Here in Maryland, many racists use it, but I know many people from the Deep South just use it to mean their Southern heritage. The US Government, under the 1st Amendment, can not tell South Carolina to take it down. Period. And I am no racist, just kicking the facts.
@BigUpsKonviction if the confederate flag represents southern heritage, i guess the nazi flag represents german heritage. i guess people who sport the swastika aren't racist either.
@pandala420 The flag of the United States of America, "Old Glory", flew over every slave-trading ship that ever brought slaves into the waters of the continental US. The Confederate flag was never flown on slavers. Yankee slavers, from New England, did fly the Stars & Stripes of this country. Like Ann Coulter said, the Confederate flag is a Battle Flag, a flag of honor under which brave men fought and died. I would not deny the same to the Yankee guidons which flew over northern regiments.
@Cionaodh57 difference is that "old glory" didn't represent a country whose constitution was founded on the belief that the right to own "negroes" as slaves should not be infringed. furthermore, you're comparing a country which at the time had an 85 year run leading up to the civil war to a country which only existed for 5 years.
@pandala420 The US Constitution guaranteed the right to purchase and own slaves. General George Washington, our first President, owned up to 200 slaves when he died. You can never deny that the US flag flew over New England slavers. The US national flag is a SLAVE TRADING FLAG.
@Cionaodh57 where does the u.s. constitution guarantee the right to purchase and own slaves??? now you're making stuff up to prove a point that has no basis.
@pandala420 US Constitution--> Article 1, Section 2; Article 1, Section 9; Article 4, Section 2. That's why it was a completely legal institution in the glorious union until the enactment of the 13th amendment to the Constitution, which the state of Delaware refused to ratify after the end of the War Between the States.
@Cionaodh57 of all the articles yo mentioned, the only thing that comes close to giving anyone slave rights is article 4 section 2 clause 3 which says runaway slaves are to be returned to the state which they escaped from. none of the articles, sections, and clauses guarantee anyone the right to have slaves.
@pandala420 Article 1, Section 2, clause 3--it states "free persons" thereby distinguishing free persons from those not free or held in a condition of slavery. This clause also lists another category eligible for consideration for the number of representatives to be accorded a province: three-fifths of all other persons!!! It's there---read it again.
@pandala420 One of the very early criticisms of the 13 Colonies and their demands for liberty from the British Crown, was that they would not and did not extend that same liberty to those held in their charge as slaves. Samuel Johnson made that accusation. It certainly applied to General and President George Washington.
The sections that you pointed out do not allow for slavery because the slaves were not legitimately bound to service or labor. Also, the word 'free' refers to legal residents and non-criminals and not slaves.
The founders didn't think the logical implications of their text outlawed slavery, but as mathematicians misapply their own theorems, the founders misapplied their own documents and laws.
@MegaAstrodude Art 1 sec 2: "representatives.....3/5s of all other persons" known as the Ben Franklin compromise, counting the total slave population of a region @ 3/5 their total number for the purpose of assessing representation in Congress. So yes this article does refer to slavery, just not explicitly. Art 1, sec 9: "...tax or duty imposed on such importatiojn, not exceeding $10 for each person." Free person weren't assessed an importation tax. Art 4, sec 2, clearly refers to slavery.
Where do those articles say slavery is legal? They don't. They implicitly acknowledge slavery's existence, but they do not sanction it. Individual founders sanctioned slavery temporarily for transitional purposes, but the articles of the original Constitution actually outlaw it. Article I: section 10 banned slavery because it interfered with contractual obligations. Article I: section 10 banned slavery because it is the result of an illegal bill of attainder. We can go on...
@MegaAstrodude Those clauses both acknowledge slavery, which existed in all 13 colonies and thereby grant it's legality. If it did not it would have been overruled as an illegal condition for human beings. So if slavery is stated to be legal then it is therefore legal. If the Constitution banned slavery, then it was illegally practiced in Massachusetts and other New England states at the US Republic's inception in 1787, and there was no need for the Missouri Compromise or the Kansas-Nebr Act.
@Cionaodh57 I stated part of that incorrectly---I had meant to state If slavery is not stated to be illegal, then it is therefore legal. Especially so, when those specific clauses serve to regulate the practice of slavery to a small degree, even specifying the amount of the total slave population (3/5ths) which may be counted for representation in a district.
"If the Constitution banned slavery, then it was illegally practiced in Massachusetts and other New England states at the US Republic's inception in 1787, and there was no need for the Missouri Compromise or the Kansas-Nebr Act."
This is correct except for the fact that slavery was illegal in Massachusetts under her courts' interpretation of the 1780 state Constitution. Just see "Commonwealth v. Jennison".
@pandala420 - your ignorance is astounding. At America's founding, slavery was legal throughout the entire world, including America. The CSA was not founded on any sort of racial basis. It was founded solely to protect the Constitutional principle of states rights; to not have the issue dictated by a power-bloated federal government. The culture regarding the treatment of Blacks was no better in the North than it was the South. North = good: South = bad, right? You are supremely naive.
@DavidDLPE "The CSA was not founded on any sort of racial basis."
Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the CSA, stated precisely the opposite on March 21, 1861:
"its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
@KayBeeEee1983 - Yet another quote game... Since when have ever relied upon quoting Vice-Presidents to establish historical truths? If that is the case, then I suppose you think it is US policy that only Indians/Middle-Easterners should run convenience stores, since Joe Biden said so?
The historical truth is that the CSA was founded first and foremost on the Constitutional principle of the sovereignty of the states, and federal infringement on those rights.
@KayBeeEee1983 - No one is denying that racial elements existed, but those elements existed on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. Anyone who believes otherwise is displaying deep-seeded naivete, and an entrenched position. When one examines the sum total of all existing conditions at the time of secession, it is ludicrous to conclude that racism, or even slavery, was the sole issue at hand.
@pandala420 - That is a gross misrepresentation of what the South stood for. The Confederacy stood for the right of the states to decide those issues, whichever way. There is no doubt that, by the late 1800s, slavery would have been abolished in the South on a voluntary basis without losing over half a million lives...
Your assessment of the history leading up to the war is true, and I am not a fan of those who try to disparage Old Glory in an attempt to defend the Stars and Bars.
@BigUpsKonviction i never said you said that it's a symbol of their heritage. i was addressing the comment that some people perceive it as a symbol of their heritage. if you're so offended by my criticism of the heritage claim, how do you think african americans feel when they see a flag that stands for the subversion of their ancestors to the lowest level a human being could be subverted to???
@pandala420 I was offended by the fact that your post assumed I was on either side of the argument. And you know something? I know exactly how Black people feel about slavery because I have a ton of black friends. I see both sides of the issue.
@BigUpsKonviction this is how i see it. the confederate constitution is the best way to determine what that flag stands for, and by reading their constitution, it's quite obvious that the confederacy stood for slavery. that's what it was founded on and that's what they fought for. slavery was literally seen as the "cornerstone" of the confederacy by the people who founded it. for anyone to say the confederacy was not about slavery is either ignorant, deceptive, or both.
@pandala420 - again you are wrong. Slavery was a catalyst issue. It was the manner in which the fed govt was imposing a solution in violation of states rights. This is a classic example of missing the forest for the trees. You also apparently know nothing of the Morrill Tariff. As the Union won the war, the political spin has revolved around slavery. But was the passage of the Morrill Tariff which set in motion the wheels of secession. Slavery was just the political football.
@pandala420 - some facts of history for you: Lincoln had been consistent in his position on slavery - ambivalent. He felt it was wrong, but his clearly-stated goal was to preserve the union. Where he drew the line was collection of taxes. He sent tens of thousands of troops to ft sumpter for that purpose, which eventually provoked the South to attack. Lincoln only made the war about slavery after it was well underway, and northern troops suffered heavy losses and low morale.
The war was not over slavery. The war was to prevent southern states from leaving, since they were refusing to pay taxes to the union they had left for constitutional reasons.
The Confederacy fought for slavery and the Union fought to preserve the union, industry, and to defend itself from Confederate incursion after the Confederacy attacked east Tennessee, West Virginia, and Fort Sumter.
The majority of seceding states explicitly seceded because of slavery and most Confederate apologists opposed states rights to secede. Just read the Articles of Secession of South Carolina, which was the catalyst.
@MegaAstrodude - so you were taught / indoctrinated... this has been argued ad nauseum on this channel, and it boils down to this: either you believe in the sovereignty of the states or you don't. Slavery was on the way out in both the South and North - just not as fast in the South. The South seceded for the right of self-determination and fair taxation (see Morrill Tariff). Lincoln imposed the will of the Union upon the South. This was not a "Civil War" - or did you not know that?
@DavidDLPE "The South seceded for the right of self-determination and fair taxation."
I think you're the one who's been indoctrinated. Read the Declarations of Causes of Secession. It was centered around slavery. South Carolina, the leader of the south, didn't mention a damn thing about taxation. They were pissed that the North wasn't returning their runaway slaves and they assumed Lincoln wasn't going to enforce the fugitive slave act. When they say the Constitution was a compact which becomes
@KayBeeEee1983 - Citing the Declaration of Causes of Secession only reveals your own indoctrination. That is a piece of the puzzle; not the whole puzzle. Granted, that point makes the case that slavery was a factor. However, to cite this and use it to make the case that it was the entire reason is sheer ignorance and spin. Even as slavery was at issue, my statement on the ultimate reason for secession still stands - the South wanted the right to allow the sovereign states to resolve the issue.
@DavidDLPE void when one side doesn't live up to their end, that's what they're talking about. The Fugitive Slave Act.
Slavery wasn't dying in the south. The majority of the populations of South Carolina and Mississippi were slaves!
How can a state be sovereign if the Constitution doesn't allow it to "keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace" without Congressional consent or "enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State" without Congressional consent? (Article One, Section 10)
@KayBeeEee1983 - "Slavery wasn't dying in the south. The majority of the populations of South Carolina and Mississippi were slaves!"
A ludicrous claim. Rather than argue such statistics, let me just ask you... The war began in 1861. Had the war not been fought, and the South had been allowed peaceful secession from the Union, how long do you think slavery would have remained legal in the South?
Your position that it was growing goes against even respected scholars on YOUR SIDE of the argument.
@DavidDLPE "Your position that it was growing goes against even respected scholars on YOUR SIDE of the argument."
Could you provide the names of those scholars, please?
In the 11 states which would comprise the future Confederate States of America, the slave population was growing faster than the free population. Between 1850 and 1860, the free population increased 23.6%, the slave population increased 27.6%.
@JimFreedman63 - no idea what you're referencing. Is your case that because the slave population was growing, that slavery was more popular? Are you one of those who believe that had the South won the war, or had there been no war, slavery would still be legal in the South?
@DavidDLPE The only way that slavery would die "naturally" would be if it were no longer financially beneficial to the slaveholders, right? Well, the slaves were multiplying, suggesting that the financial benefit of slaves exceeded their upkeep costs. In fact, they were multiplying RAPIDLY (faster than the free population) which suggests that the financial benefit FAR exceeded the upkeep costs. Slavery was indeed dying in Maryland & Delaware. In 1860, they had fewer slaves than they did in 1790.
@JimFreedman63 - so you are claiming that as long as the population increases, then slavery is becoming more entrenched. This is very narrow thinking. Your opening statement is correct:
"The only way that slavery would die "naturally" would be if it were no longer financially beneficial to the slaveholders, right?" There are many ways this can happen. Even historians on YOUR SIDE agree that slavery in the South would not have survived into the 1900s, even if they won the war.
@DavidDLPE I don't know about being "more entrenched", but it's a clear sign that slavery is still very profitable. The fact that there was still slavery at all shows that it was still profitable. The fact that the slave population was growing shows that it was still VERY profitable. It's not narrow thinking, it's common sense. A slave owner isn't going to let his slaves reproduce if having more slaves isn't more profitable.
@DavidDLPE I think I could make myself clearer. If a slaveholder is breeding his slaves, that means the money gained from adding a new slave exceeds the cost to keep the slave. "more slaves" = "more money". A slaveholder wouldn't allow his slaves to breed if adding a new slave didn't significantly increase output because he would lose money. A growing slave population indicates that slavery is growing. A slave population growing faster than the free population indicates that slavery is EXPLODING
@JimFreedman63 - still limited thinking. A growing slave population means the farm is profitable. It does not mean the farm would not convert to other options. It just would not happen on an imposed timetable, and our country would not have been forced to recover from the catastrophic effects of a war which would claim over 3/4 million casualties and a ravaged land. Lest you forget, many countries only abandoned slavery upon the imposition of economic sanctions, even after the war.
@DavidDLPE "It does not mean the farm would not convert to other options."
I don't really know what you mean.
"It just would not happen on an imposed timetable, and our country would not have been forced to recover from the catastrophic effects of a war which would claim over 3/4 million casualties and a ravaged land."
It took 40 years to invent an efficient mechanical cotton picker, and that was after slavery had been abolished. If slavery were still legal, it would have taken even longer.
@JimFreedman63 - you seem like a smart enough guy, so do your own research. Surely you're not so entrenched in your own side of the argument that you are unable to attack it from the opposing view? There are many resources which voice logical arguments as to how slavery would have been abandoned in the South without war. Most agree it would not have survived into the 1900s. Moreover, we would not have seen the racial bitterness which existed for more than 100 years after the war ended.
@DavidDLPE Could you clarify what you meant when you said "Even historians on YOUR SIDE agree that slavery in the South would not have survived into the 1900s, even if they won the war."
What do you mean "[MY] SIDE"? Unionists? Northerners? Abolitionists? What beliefs of mine have I conveyed to you, other than the belief that slavery wasn't dying? I'm kind of confused. I don't think I'm nearly as smart as you think I am.
@DavidDLPE "do your own research. Surely you're not so entrenched in your own side of the argument that you are unable to attack it from the opposing view?"
That's offensive. I've done research and I've never found a single historian who thought that slavery was dying and supported it with facts.
"There are many resources which voice logical arguments as to how slavery would have been abandoned in the South without war."
Could you name one of those arguments? Or point me in the right direction?
@JimFreedman63 - I have already supplied you with one such title, within the very comment you claim is offensive. Your problem is with your entrenched position based on population numbers, which is only one of many factors. What are your sources for these numbers, and what is their agenda in citing them? What is your goal in stating this argument? The point of this channel is to address whether the Confederate flag is a racist symbol. It isn't. Why is this peripheral issue so important to you?
@JimFreedman63 - you're a smart guy, so don't be so entrenched in only your position. Be willing to attack your own arguments from the opposing view. It is not for me to do your research for you - it is your knowledge to increase or remain unchallenged. I have already been down this road on this issue. Probably the best fact-based overview on this is " How Lincoln Could Have Prevented Civil War" by Sanderson Beck. Nothing is perfect or exhaustive, but this is a good start.
@DavidDLPE "I have already been down this road on this issue."
Then why can't you give me any guidance? I've done a lot of research and I have obviously failed miserably. If I can't find any of those historians you speak of, and you refuse to give me any names/works, then I must assume that the search is futile. For all I know, you could be leading me on a wild goose chase. I appreciate the Beck essay, but there's not a single source citation in the entire thing. I'm looking for FACTS.
@JimFreedman63 - the Beck article is replete with facts. It also employs common sense. Without that, even facts are useless. I have serious doubts about your claims, but I have chosen not to argue with you on the point because it is moot. Even if the population was growing, that does not mean slavery could not have been abandoned in the South without war. As the Beck article states accurately, the US was the only country which resorted to war to resolve its slavery issue...
@JimFreedman63 - is it your contention that the slave population was in decline in every single society where it had been instituted and abandoned? If so, then let's see your data. I am sure you will find that the decline was brought on by an action taken by the people. It stands to reason that left unchecked, the slave population will grow in any society where it is instituted. The South could buck world trends only for so long, and only 5% owned slaves to begin with. Do the math.
@MegaAstrodude - there is a difference in "fighting for slavery" as you say, as opposed to being allowed to work out the issue on a state-by-state basis, just as they had done in the North.
Your version of events is at odds with the truth. Lincoln sent troops to the South to impose an unfair tax structure crippling to the South, which was the purpose of Ft Sumter. The Confederacy, having seceded, viewed this as an act of aggression, rightfully so. Get your facts straight.
@KayBeeEee1983 - "Lincoln didn't send troops to the south until AFTER South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter."
"To have awaited further strengthening of their position by land and naval forces, with hostile purpose now declared, for the sake of having them “fire the first gun” would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one’s breast, until he has actually fired." - J. Davis
@DavidDLPE "Lincoln had been consistent in his position on slavery - ambivalent."
Lincoln wasn't ambivalent! His position on slavery was very straightforward and clear. He felt that it was wrong but that the Constitution protected it.
"He sent tens of thousands of troops to ft sumpter for that purpose, which eventually provoked the South to attack."
There were 85 Union troops inside Fort Sumter when SC attacked. Lincoln sent a supply ship to Fort Sumter, and told SC that he was doing it.
@KayBeeEee1983 - "Lincoln had been consistent in his position on slavery - ambivalent." - I could have chosen my words better - you are correct on his "position" on slavery. His "policy" however, was ambivalent.
"In his inaugural speech, given weeks before the attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln threatened to invade the seceded states if they didn’t continue to pay federal “duties and imposts” (the tariff)..."
I encourage you to look up SouthernHeritage411 (dot) com for the FULL story...
Also more slaves were bought, sold, beaten and abused under the "United" States flag than under the Confederate States Flag for about 200 years opposed to the 4 year existance of the CSA, let's ban the US flag too...
@Chevy4x4shortbox - you are vulgar and ignorant and your posts are not welcome here. understand this ... no 1 cares whether you care. you are clearly not important, and it is pretty obvious that you are aware that you're not that important. get lost.
Hate groups also use the Flag of the United States as well. Just saying, symbols can mean something good, but be used by total idiots for a terrible cause and the meaning can change.
@XxSceneHavokJonasxX - thanks for calling me a nigger. I'm going to leave that comment up so that your ignorance remains on full display for all to see. Of course, if your balls ever drop and you develop enough backbone to speak to me in person, I am sure we can find a way to "resolve our differences."
Ever notice how every book written by/for republicans does nothing but bash democrats? and all the books written by democrats tries to disprove god. sooo... what does that get done? it kinda tells me political people are trying to distract us from something.
@XxSceneHavokJonasxX - I think you are engaging in hyperbole - "every book ever written by/for republicans..."?
Also, you failed to state a point - from what are we being distracted?
If you start off knowing actual history and not the revised garbage liberal academia is trying to shove down our throats, then you will easily see that there is an abundance of conservative literature consistent with accurate historical representation. Efforts to distort our heritage deserve bashing.
@XxSceneHavokJonasxX - I realize that - thus the word, "hyperbole." The problem is that, unless you can explain what you think we are being distracted from, then there was no point to your comment.
The fact is that, just as what those who are trying to do to the Confederate flag by revising history, the democrat party and socialist liberals in power are trying to revamp our nation's heritage and remake this country into something that is destined to fail, along with all other socialist empires.
The total sickness of this is, the "anti-Confederate Flag" people always use the fact the Southern KKK rallies use it in their meetings. They forget the Ohio branch of the clan also use it, and Nothern and southern branches of the KKK use the AMERICAN FLAG! Shall we ban the American Flag as well, because the KKK use it in their rallies?
@BigOldScout - sorry, I was using yt on my phone and accidentally voted down when I meant to vote up. My apologies, and thanks for a good comment and a great point.
McCain is an idiot and a useless politician who might as well join his socialist Democrat friends on the Left. Stop calling yourself a conservative "John". You insult everyone's intelligence when you do.
@rokee1979 - I would argue that what it stands for is even more American than the government now in place in America. The flag stands for the sovereignty of the states over a centralized federal government, which bears a striking resemblance to the government created in the Constitution. Is that what we see in America today?
Of course, that is not the debate on this channel. We might disagree on your comments, but I appreciate that you did not attempt to disparage the flag as a racist symbol.
Pat caddell is a ninny. Yes the SC flag is rooted in the American Revolution, and we're proud of it. But that's also why we fly the Confederate Flag. We honor all who defended our state.
Justice Brewer even wrote a book years later to make his point clear that Christianity was not favored in this country. And even in the language of the ruling, IF YOU READ THE WHOLE CASE, you will see them talk about honoring all religions. you really need to educate yourself through unbiased sources, or you will continue to remain a confused individual and a pawn for those in power who pray on the misinformed. Namely you. Your opinions are shockingly wrong. Good day and good luck, friend.
@flipgood89 - We honor all religions insofar as Christ set the example. Unlike Mohammed, the leader of Christianity never forced anyone to convert at the point of a sword, nor did He advocate for anyone else so doing.
Our model for religious freedom was served by the example of Christ.
As such, "freedom of religion" allows for worshiping God as you see fit, and by default, not worshiping Him, or even worshiping false gods. But it does not provide for other religions to trample Christianity.
@DavidDLPE ....dude, cmon our constitution says all religions should be respected in this country. What are you saying, exactly. The wording in the 1892 ruling was clumsy, I think. Thats why Justice Brewer went back and clarified his words in the book he wrote a few years later, and in that book he laid his opinion bare and straight.
@flipgood89 - You may also find this at vtfonline:
Justice David Josiah Brewer
and the Holy Trinity Opinion
The eulogies of the other justices reveal that "America was a Christian nation by the way the Supreme Court eulogized a Christian Supreme Court Justice who declared for a unanimous Court that America was a Christian nation."
@flipgood89 - Justice Brewer on religion and the constitution:
"Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors."
One justice, Brewer, made that statement and he said that because at the time Christianity was the dominant religion and it wasnt likely that a christian would be discriminated against (which was the thrust behind the case). What he was not advocating was Christianity being the privileged or endorsed religion of America. Thats not even including what the founding fathers said about freedom of religion!
@flipgood89 - How you get that from the text of the decision, which is so plainly evident on its face, is a quite remarkable stretch.
The Court refers directly to Mohammed (along with the Dali Lama) as an "impostor."
The thrust of the case was the misapplication of the law on two fronts; first, that the law allegedly violated was to be applied to menial labor. Second, that our laws were never intended to prevent the spread of the Gospel.
Read the opinion, not someone's opinion of the opinion!
@flipgood89 - you are hilariously stupid. It is one thing to be wrong; it is quite another to be so completely arrogant in your ignorance. You glory in it!
"Free labor"? - Let me guess, you have bought into the lie that all slave owners whipped and flogged their slaves? That was an overwhelmingly minor percentage. The vast majority of slave owners provided a home for the slaves, and his/her families, as well as food and clothing.
I'm not condoning slavery, but let's get the facts straight.
@franksinclair1 ....this is a great video because whenever conservatives pull this "golly gee, we're not racist, why dont blacks vote for us" bullshit, this provides a great rebuttal. They're practically KKK sympathizing here by turning a flag that was used as almost a universal symbol to terrorize blacks, and which led to some of the more inhumane acts in American history (recent history I might add), into some sort of symbol of "heritage." This is overtly coded language and rhetoric here.
coming from a person of color, if the confederate flag is banned because of slavery and racism, then maybe every country that condoned slavery and had racism (basically every flag in the western hemisphere) should be banned (including our stars and stripes). the confederate flag should be left alone. the north and the south had both evil people and good people. and both had african american soldiers, the difference being that the in the confederacy they werent officially enlisted.
@DavidDLPE ...conservatives have no problem with the confederate flag, which is considered a terrorist symbol to blacks, but they came out in unison to combat the building of a "mosque" in NYC which basically denied freedom of religion to many Americans based on the actions of very few within the religion. hmmm.....
@flipgood89 - "...the confederate flag, which is considered a terrorist symbol to blacks..."
Those who think that way, be they Black or White, are mired in ignorance.
"but they came out in unison to combat the building of a "mosque" in NYC which basically denied freedom of religion to many Americans based on the actions of very few within the religion"
There is so much ignorance contained in this statement, I am forced to respond in parts:
1) The actions of terrorists are rooted in the koran.
@flipgood89 - "but they came out in unison to combat the building of a "mosque" in NYC which basically denied freedom of religion to many Americans based on the actions of very few within the religion"
2) "Freedom of religion" was never intended by the founders to protect the doctrines of anti-Christian religions. "Freedom of religion" represents the freedom to worship God - the Biblical God - in the way you see best fit...
@flipgood89 - 2) (CONTINUED) - Even the US Supreme Court supported this notion when they ruled, in 1892, that "America is a Christian nation..."
Let me quote for you:
"Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama..."
Buckle up, you are going to be blown away by the rest of the quote...
"...and for this plain reason that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors."
- US Supreme Court, 1892
3) Finally, Even with all this in mind, no one, including me, is advocating that muslims should not be allowed to build a mosque. Only that it not be built on or near the site, nor in any way should it honor the attacks of 9/11.
@DavidDLPE ...Im not trying to insult you, but you are SEVERELY and TRAGICALLY misinformed my friend. I say this in earnest and with all sincerity. First, your assertion that only a minority of slave owners mistreated their slaves is an embarrassing opinion. You come across like a low-rent bigot...thats nazi sympathizing levels right there when they dismiss the holocaust. I would stop, but I have to correct you on that Supreme court decision in 1892. You need to read that case again....
@flipgood89 - coming from one who is so obviously ignorant of the facts, I accept your opinion of me as being misinformed. On that, I am perfectly comfortable with agreeing to disagree.
As to your characterization of me as a low-rent bigot, you have again revealed your heightened ignorance. We can disagree on what percentage of the slaves were beaten - that makes neither of us a bigot.
The fact you played that card reveals your own narrow-mindedness.
@DavidDLPE ...dude, saying that an overwhelming minority of slave owners abused their slaves is a really insulting opinion my man. I said you came across as a low-rent bigot and I stand by that when you say crap like that.
@flipgood89 - Do you have any sources you can cite, or are you simply regurgitating the post-war propaganda you were fed as a child, to which you have not applied even the slightest critical thought?
The post-war teachings handed down include gross exaggerations of neo-abolitionists who were trying to further their cause.
Frederick Law Olmsted found in 3 journeys to the South, during the 1850s, that the slaves of the South were "better fed and housed than any proletarian class in the world..."
Respect for the South? Get real. Yankees piss on us every damn day of the week. How did the North respect the South when they burned our farms, raped our women, and stole and pillaged across our states?
For all those who were saying the south was about to free the slaves then why was there the need for Jim Crow laws and what about segregation, and lynchings?
@Rbigray1 - I understand your point, but you miss a really big factor...
The war, and the aftermath, (reconstruction), left a great deal of bitterness. The South had been fairly prosperous, prior to the War Between the States. That was decimated. I am not saying it is right, just a reality.
Your use of those realities as evidence that the South was not about to abort slavery is deceptive. There would have been a different atmosphere had the states been allowed to resolve the issue on their own.
@DavidDLPE If the states would of resolved it on thier own then slaverly may still be around today or at least Jim crow would still be domaninting. Its like you said the south was prosperous because of slaverly what reason would they have had for getting rid of it? The reality is the south left the union because of slaverly and the fact thier economy was relient on it. When the war ended and the south was forced to go legit with thier economy they treated the ex slaves and thier kids like.....
@Rbigray1 Second class citizens. The south can attempt to whitewash thier racist past as much as they want but it will never happen thier is to much evidence to the contrary.
@Rbigray1 - "The South can attempt to whitewash their racist past..."
slavenorth (dot) com/profits (dot) htm
"Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery..."
" The financial base of New England's antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping... largely acquired... from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean."
@Rbigray1 - There is no evidence to support your assertion. First, the South was not prosperous "because of" slavery. The nature of slavery in the South was different than in the North, and slavery was entrenched in the Southern economy because it was largely agricultural.
You are deluded if you think Blacks found friendly attitudes in the North any more than in the South prior to the war.
Obviously, you think the treatment of Blacks as second class citizens was limited to the South. Ignorant.
@DavidDLPE i never said in my post that blacks were only treated like second class citizens in the south. But since we are talking about the south lets leave it thier. You contrideicted yourself in your first paragraph you state that the south was not prosperous because of slaverly. But then assert that because the southern economy was agriculturally based slavery was deeply entrenched. who were they employing to pick the cotton "Mexicans"? Cotton accounted for 75% of the souths exports.
@DavidDLPE We are talking about the south here!!! The video is about South Carolina you have a problem with staying on topic if the video was talking about the north then I would comment on that. Cotton accounted for 75% of the exports of the south. Matter of fact cotton was so important that the south actually tried to use it to get Great Britian and france to intervene on thier behalf. Lets be serious here and not attempt to ignore facts.
@Rbigray1 - "Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands."
@Rbigray1 Also u have no evidence to support that the south would of gotten rid of slaves everything points to the contrary. The economy , Jim crow laws, Lynchings, the burning down of black towns. what more evidence do you need? read a book and stop trying to spin history cause it wont work.
Prior to the War, Virginia had just missed passing abolishment by 1 vote in its legislature.
Most historians agree that slavery would have been abolished 1900, without war. Perhaps even sooner.
Once Virginia fell, there would be a domino effect.
As it was, the Confederacy was only made up of, what - 11 states?
If Virginia votes to abolish in the 1860's, as it most certainly would have, then the rest of the Southern states in the North would have soon followed.
@DavidDLPE source please. And this is based on speculation that the rest of the south would have followed suit remember as well that at this time Va had not yet spilt up and that part of the state still had influence in the legislature.
@DavidDLPE You talk about facts and have not listed ONE to support your asseration that the south would of had an ephiny and released all slaves and embraced them as equals get real and stop trying to spin .my evidence is history and facts yours is whitewash and spin.
@Rbigray1 - it is called deductive reasoning. You should look into it.
11 states in the Confederacy. Had there been no war, the Southern states to the North, including Virginia would have abolished slavery by 1870. That would have included N Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky, along with Virginia.
That would have left 7 states holding slavery to be legal, with mounting pressure for its abolishment.
@Rbigray1 - "Long after the U.S. slave trade officially ended, the more extensive movement of Africans to Brazil and Cuba continued. The U.S. Navy never was assiduous in hunting down slave traders... slave traders continuing to bring human cargo to Brazil and Cuba generally did so under the U.S. flag. They also did so in ships built for the purpose by Northern shipyards, in ventures financed by Northern manufacturers."
In this war mostly the young blacks and whites fought and many died. They fought under the flag representing their government's will. They fought as they were told as in all wars unless you believe all military youngsters are politically savvy about the war they are fighting. The fight may be wrong but make no mistake the fighters honor themselves and the flag they are under. Now they are gone, some try to disgrace the banner under which they gave their all. How pathetic?
justoldthatsall 4 weeks ago
@justoldthatsall - excellent post, and great point. Well said - thank you for your comment.
DavidDLPE 3 weeks ago
God. Ann's voice is so annoying
FightinRebel14 4 weeks ago
@FightinRebel14 - not nearly so annoying as your comment.
DavidDLPE 4 weeks ago
@DavidDLPE Good "argument" there!
FightinRebel14 4 weeks ago
@FightinRebel14 - thanks. Hopefully you can post something a bit more substantive next time? Besides, isnt it true that most comments prefaced by some shrill, over-the-top reference to God are terribly annoying? ;-)
DavidDLPE 4 weeks ago
It 'a great symbol, flag of honor and tradition. Long live the Confederation.
62jorel 1 month ago 2
I'm not from the US and if I see this flag anywhere I would run like hell and I wouldn't care what it represents
corbinyanick 1 month ago
@corbinyanick - "I'm not from the US..." Enough said.
DavidDLPE 1 month ago 2
It does not belong on the capital because it is no longer relevant (South Carolina is no longer part of the Confederacy). People however may use it.
atemikage 2 months ago
@atemikage - you are opposed to the right of a state to fly a flag that is a part of its heritage on or over its own capitol? Sorry, cannot agree with you there. As long as it is not flown either in lieu of or over the state flag and American flag, it is a right of the people to fly the flag. It is their capitol.
DavidDLPE 2 months ago
@DavidDLPE Did a majority vote for it?
atemikage 1 month ago
@atemikage - yes. The issue comes up almost every election cycle, and the people and / or their representatives reaffirm that the flag is ok to fly, although it no longer flies over the capitol building, but in a memorial on the capital land. There is nothing wrong with a state flying flags which bear historical significance to the state as long as they fly below the official state flag and the American flag flies on top.
DavidDLPE 1 month ago
Ann Coulter rocks and still is Hot as Hell !!! And let the REBEL FLAG FLY ITS HERITAGE NOT HATE.
00buck45013 2 months ago
Ann "Cunter" is a b!+&h!!!
FutureGirl2033 3 months ago
@FutureGirl2033 - thank you for another example of liberal sophistication and civility.
DavidDLPE 2 months ago
@DavidDLPE I came here to troll but I like your damn comments too much to do it, and LOL! @parafleet... so random...
DrinkElectrolytes 3 months ago
@DrinkElectrolytes - Thanks, I think...
DavidDLPE 3 months ago
Doesn't the Confederate Flag represent seperation from the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (UNION)? So, its okay to fly the flag of a group that fought AGAINST! the US? Hmmmm?
jasonlbutler 3 months ago
@jasonlbutler - No, the Confederate flag represents an effort return to the founding principles which established the USA. Govt has continually strayed from these principles. Such as, the principle that any power not specifically granted to the fed govt is reserved for the states (sovereignty of the states/states rights). That's why we are the UNITED States of America - not the FEDERATED States of America, and we will only remain united as long as the states retain their individual sovereignty.
DavidDLPE 3 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@jasonlbutler -you are talking about something different
southerneroak 2 months ago in playlist Civil War
Another fox news porn queen, a four eyed idiot and hannity the TRUTHBENDERS with a SMIRK. The confederate flag is offensive. Burn it.
acchokiefan 4 months ago
@acchokiefan - Classy. Each of your allegations is as false as the other, but it is apparent to anyone who reads your drivel that you don't allow facts to get in the way of your faulty opinions. Thank you for showing everyone the level of intellect typically indicative of those who share your views. You have done more for my argument in two lines than I could have with several paragraphs.
DavidDLPE 4 months ago 3
@acchokiefan So who is it offensive to? The millions of black people that take pride in it and carry it around? Or the family loving white people that show no racism?
samuriguy909 4 months ago
Every single conservative that Ive talk to say that the confederate flag symbolizes racist liberal democrats. Funny how they always defend it more.
TheCaliCapitalist 5 months ago 4
@TheCaliCapitalist You never met me. I've always been a "Concervative" and I've always said it is a beutiful flag.
BigOldScout 4 months ago
@TheCaliCapitalist - Sorry, your perspective is unique, but not at all common. In fact, the flag highlights the hypocrisy of the left, who call it a racist symbol while they themselves espouse hatred for Blacks and Jews.
I can assure you that I am as Conservative as they come, and I would not insult the flag by associating it with today's democrat party.
DavidDLPE 3 months ago
why can't we use a american flag or our actually flag a mean the flag a lot of times represents racism,slavery, and treason agaisnt america
sting1056ify 5 months ago
@sting1056ify - Must have been a really wild party...
DavidDLPE 5 months ago
people assume the flag is racist because the KKK uses it. If you fly the 1st national confederate flag then people won't know what it is, black people won't be pissed and call us racists, southerners will be happy. I personally don't care what people think, I'll fly my flag in front of anybody and if they call me racist I'll explain it to them.
dukenukem423 6 months ago
All I know is I had to serve 22 days in a mental health facility because I was drinking too much booze and taking too many pills. Apparently, I was a danger to myself and others. Afterwards, I had to go to outpatient classes for about four months. Alcohol abuse and drug abuse are monsters haunting all our lives in some way. If you are an abuser, get help today. If you know someone who is an abuser, get them to get help today. Jalen Rose, go to AA for the rest of your life.
parafleet 6 months ago
@parafleet - Very insightful and illuminating. Thanks.
DavidDLPE 5 months ago
as an Englishman and viewing this from the outside , i think lots of flags are hijacked by different groups in other countries , the union jack being one of them . that does not make the pride i have for it any less . be proud of who you are and your history . the flag was a battle flag and never ever represented anything other than the southern army .
dave2806 6 months ago
the south is one of thousands of cultures that had slaves. does that mean that we should prohibit flying England's flag or France's flag? the Danish flag? How about the US flag, as we tolerated slavery as a nation for more than 50 years. If we banned all flags of societies that used to have slavery, almost no African flags would be permitted to fly!
Welsh77 6 months ago
Fuck you ya god damn nigger lovers
DixiesBest 6 months ago
@DixiesBest - you are one ignorant punk. Real brave behind a keyboard, aren't you? Why don't you wear a sign with those words on it, so everyone can see you for the piece of crap you are, and treat you accordingly...
DavidDLPE 6 months ago
if anyone comes to my house and says i cant have my confederate flag they are going to get 2oz of lead to there chest thats my stand
cowboyfromky 6 months ago
I live in SC, and no person man, woman or child should be anyone's slave, period. World history does tell us that there were slaves of all races, creeds and religions. It is just wrong. The issue of the flag however is a different issue, it is about Southern pride and honoring the war dead. The shame is the people that do dishonor it by making it racial. So there is another fight, dumb rednecks against southerners that are just honorable. Always controversy.
debzeppeliniv 6 months ago
I was born in the south and ill die in the south God bless the CSA(:
thefresh50 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - you were doing fine until you chose to reveal your own juvenile character. Thanks for your constructive input, but you have now overstayed your welcome.
DavidDLPE 7 months ago
Unfortunately there are many people who use the flag as a racist symbol. Here in Maryland, many racists use it, but I know many people from the Deep South just use it to mean their Southern heritage. The US Government, under the 1st Amendment, can not tell South Carolina to take it down. Period. And I am no racist, just kicking the facts.
BigUpsKonviction 8 months ago
@BigUpsKonviction if the confederate flag represents southern heritage, i guess the nazi flag represents german heritage. i guess people who sport the swastika aren't racist either.
pandala420 8 months ago
@pandala420 The flag of the United States of America, "Old Glory", flew over every slave-trading ship that ever brought slaves into the waters of the continental US. The Confederate flag was never flown on slavers. Yankee slavers, from New England, did fly the Stars & Stripes of this country. Like Ann Coulter said, the Confederate flag is a Battle Flag, a flag of honor under which brave men fought and died. I would not deny the same to the Yankee guidons which flew over northern regiments.
Cionaodh57 8 months ago
@Cionaodh57 difference is that "old glory" didn't represent a country whose constitution was founded on the belief that the right to own "negroes" as slaves should not be infringed. furthermore, you're comparing a country which at the time had an 85 year run leading up to the civil war to a country which only existed for 5 years.
pandala420 8 months ago 3
@pandala420 The US Constitution guaranteed the right to purchase and own slaves. General George Washington, our first President, owned up to 200 slaves when he died. You can never deny that the US flag flew over New England slavers. The US national flag is a SLAVE TRADING FLAG.
Cionaodh57 8 months ago
@Cionaodh57 where does the u.s. constitution guarantee the right to purchase and own slaves??? now you're making stuff up to prove a point that has no basis.
pandala420 8 months ago
@pandala420 US Constitution--> Article 1, Section 2; Article 1, Section 9; Article 4, Section 2. That's why it was a completely legal institution in the glorious union until the enactment of the 13th amendment to the Constitution, which the state of Delaware refused to ratify after the end of the War Between the States.
Cionaodh57 8 months ago
@Cionaodh57 of all the articles yo mentioned, the only thing that comes close to giving anyone slave rights is article 4 section 2 clause 3 which says runaway slaves are to be returned to the state which they escaped from. none of the articles, sections, and clauses guarantee anyone the right to have slaves.
pandala420 8 months ago
@pandala420 Article 1, Section 2, clause 3--it states "free persons" thereby distinguishing free persons from those not free or held in a condition of slavery. This clause also lists another category eligible for consideration for the number of representatives to be accorded a province: three-fifths of all other persons!!! It's there---read it again.
Cionaodh57 8 months ago
@pandala420 Re Article 1, Section 9: what do you think "importation of persons" refers to if not slaves?????
Cionaodh57 8 months ago
@pandala420 One of the very early criticisms of the 13 Colonies and their demands for liberty from the British Crown, was that they would not and did not extend that same liberty to those held in their charge as slaves. Samuel Johnson made that accusation. It certainly applied to General and President George Washington.
Cionaodh57 8 months ago
@Cionaodh57,
The sections that you pointed out do not allow for slavery because the slaves were not legitimately bound to service or labor. Also, the word 'free' refers to legal residents and non-criminals and not slaves.
The founders didn't think the logical implications of their text outlawed slavery, but as mathematicians misapply their own theorems, the founders misapplied their own documents and laws.
MegaAstrodude 7 months ago
@MegaAstrodude Art 1 sec 2: "representatives.....3/5s of all other persons" known as the Ben Franklin compromise, counting the total slave population of a region @ 3/5 their total number for the purpose of assessing representation in Congress. So yes this article does refer to slavery, just not explicitly. Art 1, sec 9: "...tax or duty imposed on such importatiojn, not exceeding $10 for each person." Free person weren't assessed an importation tax. Art 4, sec 2, clearly refers to slavery.
Cionaodh57 7 months ago
@Cionaodh57,
Where do those articles say slavery is legal? They don't. They implicitly acknowledge slavery's existence, but they do not sanction it. Individual founders sanctioned slavery temporarily for transitional purposes, but the articles of the original Constitution actually outlaw it. Article I: section 10 banned slavery because it interfered with contractual obligations. Article I: section 10 banned slavery because it is the result of an illegal bill of attainder. We can go on...
MegaAstrodude 7 months ago
@MegaAstrodude Those clauses both acknowledge slavery, which existed in all 13 colonies and thereby grant it's legality. If it did not it would have been overruled as an illegal condition for human beings. So if slavery is stated to be legal then it is therefore legal. If the Constitution banned slavery, then it was illegally practiced in Massachusetts and other New England states at the US Republic's inception in 1787, and there was no need for the Missouri Compromise or the Kansas-Nebr Act.
Cionaodh57 7 months ago
@Cionaodh57 I stated part of that incorrectly---I had meant to state If slavery is not stated to be illegal, then it is therefore legal. Especially so, when those specific clauses serve to regulate the practice of slavery to a small degree, even specifying the amount of the total slave population (3/5ths) which may be counted for representation in a district.
Cionaodh57 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Cionaodh57,
"If the Constitution banned slavery, then it was illegally practiced in Massachusetts and other New England states at the US Republic's inception in 1787, and there was no need for the Missouri Compromise or the Kansas-Nebr Act."
This is correct except for the fact that slavery was illegal in Massachusetts under her courts' interpretation of the 1780 state Constitution. Just see "Commonwealth v. Jennison".
MegaAstrodude 7 months ago
@MegaAstrodude "Article I: section 10 banned slavery because it interfered with contractual obligations."
How does slavery interfere with contractual obligations?
"Article I: section 10 banned slavery because it is the result of an illegal bill of attainder."
How is slavery the result of a bill of attainder?
JimFreedman63 5 months ago
@pandala420 - your ignorance is astounding. At America's founding, slavery was legal throughout the entire world, including America. The CSA was not founded on any sort of racial basis. It was founded solely to protect the Constitutional principle of states rights; to not have the issue dictated by a power-bloated federal government. The culture regarding the treatment of Blacks was no better in the North than it was the South. North = good: South = bad, right? You are supremely naive.
DavidDLPE 7 months ago
@DavidDLPE "The CSA was not founded on any sort of racial basis."
Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the CSA, stated precisely the opposite on March 21, 1861:
"its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - Yet another quote game... Since when have ever relied upon quoting Vice-Presidents to establish historical truths? If that is the case, then I suppose you think it is US policy that only Indians/Middle-Easterners should run convenience stores, since Joe Biden said so?
The historical truth is that the CSA was founded first and foremost on the Constitutional principle of the sovereignty of the states, and federal infringement on those rights.
DavidDLPE 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - No one is denying that racial elements existed, but those elements existed on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. Anyone who believes otherwise is displaying deep-seeded naivete, and an entrenched position. When one examines the sum total of all existing conditions at the time of secession, it is ludicrous to conclude that racism, or even slavery, was the sole issue at hand.
DavidDLPE 7 months ago
@pandala420 I hope you know that union generals like Grant and Sherman owned slaves while General Lee released his before the war started
suspicioususer 3 months ago 2
@pandala420 - That is a gross misrepresentation of what the South stood for. The Confederacy stood for the right of the states to decide those issues, whichever way. There is no doubt that, by the late 1800s, slavery would have been abolished in the South on a voluntary basis without losing over half a million lives...
Your assessment of the history leading up to the war is true, and I am not a fan of those who try to disparage Old Glory in an attempt to defend the Stars and Bars.
DavidDLPE 3 months ago 2
@BigUpsKonviction i never said you said that it's a symbol of their heritage. i was addressing the comment that some people perceive it as a symbol of their heritage. if you're so offended by my criticism of the heritage claim, how do you think african americans feel when they see a flag that stands for the subversion of their ancestors to the lowest level a human being could be subverted to???
pandala420 8 months ago
@pandala420 I was offended by the fact that your post assumed I was on either side of the argument. And you know something? I know exactly how Black people feel about slavery because I have a ton of black friends. I see both sides of the issue.
BigUpsKonviction 8 months ago
@BigUpsKonviction this is how i see it. the confederate constitution is the best way to determine what that flag stands for, and by reading their constitution, it's quite obvious that the confederacy stood for slavery. that's what it was founded on and that's what they fought for. slavery was literally seen as the "cornerstone" of the confederacy by the people who founded it. for anyone to say the confederacy was not about slavery is either ignorant, deceptive, or both.
pandala420 8 months ago
@pandala420 The Confederate Battle flag did not exist when the Confederate Constitution was adopted.
Cionaodh57 8 months ago
@pandala420 - again you are wrong. Slavery was a catalyst issue. It was the manner in which the fed govt was imposing a solution in violation of states rights. This is a classic example of missing the forest for the trees. You also apparently know nothing of the Morrill Tariff. As the Union won the war, the political spin has revolved around slavery. But was the passage of the Morrill Tariff which set in motion the wheels of secession. Slavery was just the political football.
DavidDLPE 7 months ago
@pandala420 - some facts of history for you: Lincoln had been consistent in his position on slavery - ambivalent. He felt it was wrong, but his clearly-stated goal was to preserve the union. Where he drew the line was collection of taxes. He sent tens of thousands of troops to ft sumpter for that purpose, which eventually provoked the South to attack. Lincoln only made the war about slavery after it was well underway, and northern troops suffered heavy losses and low morale.
DavidDLPE 7 months ago
War Between the States began? 1861
Emancipation Proclamation? 1863
The war was not over slavery. The war was to prevent southern states from leaving, since they were refusing to pay taxes to the union they had left for constitutional reasons.
DavidDLPE 7 months ago
@DavidDLPE,
The Confederacy fought for slavery and the Union fought to preserve the union, industry, and to defend itself from Confederate incursion after the Confederacy attacked east Tennessee, West Virginia, and Fort Sumter.
The majority of seceding states explicitly seceded because of slavery and most Confederate apologists opposed states rights to secede. Just read the Articles of Secession of South Carolina, which was the catalyst.
MegaAstrodude 7 months ago
@MegaAstrodude - so you were taught / indoctrinated... this has been argued ad nauseum on this channel, and it boils down to this: either you believe in the sovereignty of the states or you don't. Slavery was on the way out in both the South and North - just not as fast in the South. The South seceded for the right of self-determination and fair taxation (see Morrill Tariff). Lincoln imposed the will of the Union upon the South. This was not a "Civil War" - or did you not know that?
DavidDLPE 7 months ago
@DavidDLPE "The South seceded for the right of self-determination and fair taxation."
I think you're the one who's been indoctrinated. Read the Declarations of Causes of Secession. It was centered around slavery. South Carolina, the leader of the south, didn't mention a damn thing about taxation. They were pissed that the North wasn't returning their runaway slaves and they assumed Lincoln wasn't going to enforce the fugitive slave act. When they say the Constitution was a compact which becomes
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - Citing the Declaration of Causes of Secession only reveals your own indoctrination. That is a piece of the puzzle; not the whole puzzle. Granted, that point makes the case that slavery was a factor. However, to cite this and use it to make the case that it was the entire reason is sheer ignorance and spin. Even as slavery was at issue, my statement on the ultimate reason for secession still stands - the South wanted the right to allow the sovereign states to resolve the issue.
DavidDLPE 7 months ago
@DavidDLPE void when one side doesn't live up to their end, that's what they're talking about. The Fugitive Slave Act.
Slavery wasn't dying in the south. The majority of the populations of South Carolina and Mississippi were slaves!
How can a state be sovereign if the Constitution doesn't allow it to "keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace" without Congressional consent or "enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State" without Congressional consent? (Article One, Section 10)
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - "Slavery wasn't dying in the south. The majority of the populations of South Carolina and Mississippi were slaves!"
A ludicrous claim. Rather than argue such statistics, let me just ask you... The war began in 1861. Had the war not been fought, and the South had been allowed peaceful secession from the Union, how long do you think slavery would have remained legal in the South?
Your position that it was growing goes against even respected scholars on YOUR SIDE of the argument.
DavidDLPE 7 months ago
Comment removed
JimFreedman63 5 months ago
@DavidDLPE "Your position that it was growing goes against even respected scholars on YOUR SIDE of the argument."
Could you provide the names of those scholars, please?
In the 11 states which would comprise the future Confederate States of America, the slave population was growing faster than the free population. Between 1850 and 1860, the free population increased 23.6%, the slave population increased 27.6%.
Source: 1860 US Census (page 599)
census[DOT]gov
JimFreedman63 5 months ago
@JimFreedman63 - no idea what you're referencing. Is your case that because the slave population was growing, that slavery was more popular? Are you one of those who believe that had the South won the war, or had there been no war, slavery would still be legal in the South?
DavidDLPE 5 months ago
@DavidDLPE The only way that slavery would die "naturally" would be if it were no longer financially beneficial to the slaveholders, right? Well, the slaves were multiplying, suggesting that the financial benefit of slaves exceeded their upkeep costs. In fact, they were multiplying RAPIDLY (faster than the free population) which suggests that the financial benefit FAR exceeded the upkeep costs. Slavery was indeed dying in Maryland & Delaware. In 1860, they had fewer slaves than they did in 1790.
JimFreedman63 5 months ago
@JimFreedman63 - so you are claiming that as long as the population increases, then slavery is becoming more entrenched. This is very narrow thinking. Your opening statement is correct:
"The only way that slavery would die "naturally" would be if it were no longer financially beneficial to the slaveholders, right?" There are many ways this can happen. Even historians on YOUR SIDE agree that slavery in the South would not have survived into the 1900s, even if they won the war.
DavidDLPE 5 months ago
@DavidDLPE I don't know about being "more entrenched", but it's a clear sign that slavery is still very profitable. The fact that there was still slavery at all shows that it was still profitable. The fact that the slave population was growing shows that it was still VERY profitable. It's not narrow thinking, it's common sense. A slave owner isn't going to let his slaves reproduce if having more slaves isn't more profitable.
What historians are you referring to?
JimFreedman63 5 months ago
@DavidDLPE I think I could make myself clearer. If a slaveholder is breeding his slaves, that means the money gained from adding a new slave exceeds the cost to keep the slave. "more slaves" = "more money". A slaveholder wouldn't allow his slaves to breed if adding a new slave didn't significantly increase output because he would lose money. A growing slave population indicates that slavery is growing. A slave population growing faster than the free population indicates that slavery is EXPLODING
JimFreedman63 5 months ago
@JimFreedman63 - still limited thinking. A growing slave population means the farm is profitable. It does not mean the farm would not convert to other options. It just would not happen on an imposed timetable, and our country would not have been forced to recover from the catastrophic effects of a war which would claim over 3/4 million casualties and a ravaged land. Lest you forget, many countries only abandoned slavery upon the imposition of economic sanctions, even after the war.
DavidDLPE 5 months ago
@DavidDLPE "It does not mean the farm would not convert to other options."
I don't really know what you mean.
"It just would not happen on an imposed timetable, and our country would not have been forced to recover from the catastrophic effects of a war which would claim over 3/4 million casualties and a ravaged land."
It took 40 years to invent an efficient mechanical cotton picker, and that was after slavery had been abolished. If slavery were still legal, it would have taken even longer.
JimFreedman63 5 months ago
@JimFreedman63 - you seem like a smart enough guy, so do your own research. Surely you're not so entrenched in your own side of the argument that you are unable to attack it from the opposing view? There are many resources which voice logical arguments as to how slavery would have been abandoned in the South without war. Most agree it would not have survived into the 1900s. Moreover, we would not have seen the racial bitterness which existed for more than 100 years after the war ended.
DavidDLPE 5 months ago
@DavidDLPE Could you clarify what you meant when you said "Even historians on YOUR SIDE agree that slavery in the South would not have survived into the 1900s, even if they won the war."
What do you mean "[MY] SIDE"? Unionists? Northerners? Abolitionists? What beliefs of mine have I conveyed to you, other than the belief that slavery wasn't dying? I'm kind of confused. I don't think I'm nearly as smart as you think I am.
JimFreedman63 5 months ago
@DavidDLPE "do your own research. Surely you're not so entrenched in your own side of the argument that you are unable to attack it from the opposing view?"
That's offensive. I've done research and I've never found a single historian who thought that slavery was dying and supported it with facts.
"There are many resources which voice logical arguments as to how slavery would have been abandoned in the South without war."
Could you name one of those arguments? Or point me in the right direction?
JimFreedman63 5 months ago
@JimFreedman63 - I have already supplied you with one such title, within the very comment you claim is offensive. Your problem is with your entrenched position based on population numbers, which is only one of many factors. What are your sources for these numbers, and what is their agenda in citing them? What is your goal in stating this argument? The point of this channel is to address whether the Confederate flag is a racist symbol. It isn't. Why is this peripheral issue so important to you?
DavidDLPE 5 months ago
@JimFreedman63 - you're a smart guy, so don't be so entrenched in only your position. Be willing to attack your own arguments from the opposing view. It is not for me to do your research for you - it is your knowledge to increase or remain unchallenged. I have already been down this road on this issue. Probably the best fact-based overview on this is " How Lincoln Could Have Prevented Civil War" by Sanderson Beck. Nothing is perfect or exhaustive, but this is a good start.
DavidDLPE 5 months ago
@DavidDLPE "I have already been down this road on this issue."
Then why can't you give me any guidance? I've done a lot of research and I have obviously failed miserably. If I can't find any of those historians you speak of, and you refuse to give me any names/works, then I must assume that the search is futile. For all I know, you could be leading me on a wild goose chase. I appreciate the Beck essay, but there's not a single source citation in the entire thing. I'm looking for FACTS.
JimFreedman63 5 months ago
@JimFreedman63 - the Beck article is replete with facts. It also employs common sense. Without that, even facts are useless. I have serious doubts about your claims, but I have chosen not to argue with you on the point because it is moot. Even if the population was growing, that does not mean slavery could not have been abandoned in the South without war. As the Beck article states accurately, the US was the only country which resorted to war to resolve its slavery issue...
DavidDLPE 5 months ago
@JimFreedman63 - is it your contention that the slave population was in decline in every single society where it had been instituted and abandoned? If so, then let's see your data. I am sure you will find that the decline was brought on by an action taken by the people. It stands to reason that left unchecked, the slave population will grow in any society where it is instituted. The South could buck world trends only for so long, and only 5% owned slaves to begin with. Do the math.
DavidDLPE 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Slavery wasn't dying in the south. The majority of the populations of South Carolina and Mississippi were slaves!"
"A ludicrous claim."
In 1860, in Mississippi, the free population was 354,674. The slave population was 436,631. (55.2% slave).
In 1860, in South Carolina, the free population was 301,302. The slave population was 402,406. (57.2% slave).
Source: 1860 US Census (pages 598-599)
JimFreedman63 5 months ago
@MegaAstrodude - there is a difference in "fighting for slavery" as you say, as opposed to being allowed to work out the issue on a state-by-state basis, just as they had done in the North.
Your version of events is at odds with the truth. Lincoln sent troops to the South to impose an unfair tax structure crippling to the South, which was the purpose of Ft Sumter. The Confederacy, having seceded, viewed this as an act of aggression, rightfully so. Get your facts straight.
DavidDLPE 7 months ago
@DavidDLPE "Lincoln sent troops to the South to impose an unfair tax structure crippling to the South, which was the purpose of Ft Sumter."
Lincoln didn't send troops to the south until AFTER South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter. What does Fort Sumter have to do with taxation?
"The Confederacy, having seceded, viewed this as an act of aggression, rightfully so."
The Union, being the rightful owners of Fort Sumter and the land on which it was built, viewed the bombardment as an act of aggression.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - "Lincoln didn't send troops to the south until AFTER South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter."
"To have awaited further strengthening of their position by land and naval forces, with hostile purpose now declared, for the sake of having them “fire the first gun” would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one’s breast, until he has actually fired." - J. Davis
DavidDLPE 7 months ago
@DavidDLPE "Lincoln had been consistent in his position on slavery - ambivalent."
Lincoln wasn't ambivalent! His position on slavery was very straightforward and clear. He felt that it was wrong but that the Constitution protected it.
"He sent tens of thousands of troops to ft sumpter for that purpose, which eventually provoked the South to attack."
There were 85 Union troops inside Fort Sumter when SC attacked. Lincoln sent a supply ship to Fort Sumter, and told SC that he was doing it.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - "Lincoln had been consistent in his position on slavery - ambivalent." - I could have chosen my words better - you are correct on his "position" on slavery. His "policy" however, was ambivalent.
"In his inaugural speech, given weeks before the attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln threatened to invade the seceded states if they didn’t continue to pay federal “duties and imposts” (the tariff)..."
I encourage you to look up SouthernHeritage411 (dot) com for the FULL story...
DavidDLPE 7 months ago
the klan uses the cross but no one has a problem because of ignorance...
the kkk usesthe US flag but do we hate that flag? pick your poison i guess!! blacks hate the flag because of...
but they got no prob w/ the cross or the US flag?
bluegrassreb1 8 months ago
Also more slaves were bought, sold, beaten and abused under the "United" States flag than under the Confederate States Flag for about 200 years opposed to the 4 year existance of the CSA, let's ban the US flag too...
CNS2 8 months ago
The Klan uses the "United" States flag too (actually as much or more than the CSA Flag) let's ban that.
CNS2 8 months ago
@Chevy4x4shortbox - you are vulgar and ignorant and your posts are not welcome here. understand this ... no 1 cares whether you care. you are clearly not important, and it is pretty obvious that you are aware that you're not that important. get lost.
DavidDLPE 8 months ago
ANN KICKS ASS!!!
bluegrassreb1 9 months ago
Hate groups also use the Flag of the United States as well. Just saying, symbols can mean something good, but be used by total idiots for a terrible cause and the meaning can change.
POWSTER55 9 months ago
@XxSceneHavokJonasxX - thanks for calling me a nigger. I'm going to leave that comment up so that your ignorance remains on full display for all to see. Of course, if your balls ever drop and you develop enough backbone to speak to me in person, I am sure we can find a way to "resolve our differences."
Coward.
DavidDLPE 11 months ago
Ever notice how every book written by/for republicans does nothing but bash democrats? and all the books written by democrats tries to disprove god. sooo... what does that get done? it kinda tells me political people are trying to distract us from something.
XxSceneHavokJonasxX 11 months ago
@XxSceneHavokJonasxX - I think you are engaging in hyperbole - "every book ever written by/for republicans..."?
Also, you failed to state a point - from what are we being distracted?
If you start off knowing actual history and not the revised garbage liberal academia is trying to shove down our throats, then you will easily see that there is an abundance of conservative literature consistent with accurate historical representation. Efforts to distort our heritage deserve bashing.
DavidDLPE 11 months ago
@DavidDLPE It's an exaggeration.
XxSceneHavokJonasxX 11 months ago
@XxSceneHavokJonasxX - I realize that - thus the word, "hyperbole." The problem is that, unless you can explain what you think we are being distracted from, then there was no point to your comment.
The fact is that, just as what those who are trying to do to the Confederate flag by revising history, the democrat party and socialist liberals in power are trying to revamp our nation's heritage and remake this country into something that is destined to fail, along with all other socialist empires.
DavidDLPE 11 months ago
@DavidDLPE nigger
XxSceneHavokJonasxX 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The total sickness of this is, the "anti-Confederate Flag" people always use the fact the Southern KKK rallies use it in their meetings. They forget the Ohio branch of the clan also use it, and Nothern and southern branches of the KKK use the AMERICAN FLAG! Shall we ban the American Flag as well, because the KKK use it in their rallies?
Get real people.
BigOldScout 11 months ago 7
@BigOldScout - sorry, I was using yt on my phone and accidentally voted down when I meant to vote up. My apologies, and thanks for a good comment and a great point.
DavidDLPE 11 months ago
@BigOldScout Amen!
CNS2 8 months ago 2
McCain is an idiot and a useless politician who might as well join his socialist Democrat friends on the Left. Stop calling yourself a conservative "John". You insult everyone's intelligence when you do.
topjimmy72 1 year ago
It is a symbol of a defeated nation. It is not necassary and seems slightly unamerican.
rokee1979 1 year ago
@rokee1979 - I would argue that what it stands for is even more American than the government now in place in America. The flag stands for the sovereignty of the states over a centralized federal government, which bears a striking resemblance to the government created in the Constitution. Is that what we see in America today?
Of course, that is not the debate on this channel. We might disagree on your comments, but I appreciate that you did not attempt to disparage the flag as a racist symbol.
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
Pat caddell is a ninny. Yes the SC flag is rooted in the American Revolution, and we're proud of it. But that's also why we fly the Confederate Flag. We honor all who defended our state.
SinandSatan 1 year ago 2
We are a band of brothers
And native to the soil...
McCain and Romney are doodoo. Right along with Al Sharpton.
SinandSatan 1 year ago
if you dont like the confederate flag go to the north im from missouri and there are alot of places here that do fly the confederate flag
876arch 1 year ago
@flipgood89 - You can spread your false assumptions and assertions, but not here. Thanks for your input, but the horse is now dead.
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
Justice Brewer even wrote a book years later to make his point clear that Christianity was not favored in this country. And even in the language of the ruling, IF YOU READ THE WHOLE CASE, you will see them talk about honoring all religions. you really need to educate yourself through unbiased sources, or you will continue to remain a confused individual and a pawn for those in power who pray on the misinformed. Namely you. Your opinions are shockingly wrong. Good day and good luck, friend.
flipgood89 1 year ago
@flipgood89 - We honor all religions insofar as Christ set the example. Unlike Mohammed, the leader of Christianity never forced anyone to convert at the point of a sword, nor did He advocate for anyone else so doing.
Our model for religious freedom was served by the example of Christ.
As such, "freedom of religion" allows for worshiping God as you see fit, and by default, not worshiping Him, or even worshiping false gods. But it does not provide for other religions to trample Christianity.
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
@DavidDLPE ....dude, cmon our constitution says all religions should be respected in this country. What are you saying, exactly. The wording in the 1892 ruling was clumsy, I think. Thats why Justice Brewer went back and clarified his words in the book he wrote a few years later, and in that book he laid his opinion bare and straight.
flipgood89 1 year ago
@flipgood89 - your ignorance grows sharper with every post. Clumsy? Are you again relying on some other's opinion, and simply regurgitating it here?
Google this:
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S.
143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226
Feb. 29, 1892
Look for vtfonline (dot) org, where you can read the full text of the Court opinion. It is so clear, even you can understand it...
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
@flipgood89 - You may also find this at vtfonline:
Justice David Josiah Brewer
and the Holy Trinity Opinion
The eulogies of the other justices reveal that "America was a Christian nation by the way the Supreme Court eulogized a Christian Supreme Court Justice who declared for a unanimous Court that America was a Christian nation."
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
@flipgood89 - Justice Brewer on religion and the constitution:
"Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors."
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
One justice, Brewer, made that statement and he said that because at the time Christianity was the dominant religion and it wasnt likely that a christian would be discriminated against (which was the thrust behind the case). What he was not advocating was Christianity being the privileged or endorsed religion of America. Thats not even including what the founding fathers said about freedom of religion!
flipgood89 1 year ago
@flipgood89 - How you get that from the text of the decision, which is so plainly evident on its face, is a quite remarkable stretch.
The Court refers directly to Mohammed (along with the Dali Lama) as an "impostor."
The thrust of the case was the misapplication of the law on two fronts; first, that the law allegedly violated was to be applied to menial labor. Second, that our laws were never intended to prevent the spread of the Gospel.
Read the opinion, not someone's opinion of the opinion!
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
@flipgood89 - you are hilariously stupid. It is one thing to be wrong; it is quite another to be so completely arrogant in your ignorance. You glory in it!
"Free labor"? - Let me guess, you have bought into the lie that all slave owners whipped and flogged their slaves? That was an overwhelmingly minor percentage. The vast majority of slave owners provided a home for the slaves, and his/her families, as well as food and clothing.
I'm not condoning slavery, but let's get the facts straight.
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
There is nothing honorable about the Confederate Flag, unless you think slavery segregation, treason, and blind hatred are honorable.
That flag should be burned.
franksinclair1 1 year ago
@franksinclair1 - in addition to your ill-informed opinion, thank you for demonstrating the meaning of "blind hatred..."
That term is well-suited for your post.
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
@franksinclair1 might as well say the American flag represents that
casperryan95 1 year ago
@franksinclair1 ....this is a great video because whenever conservatives pull this "golly gee, we're not racist, why dont blacks vote for us" bullshit, this provides a great rebuttal. They're practically KKK sympathizing here by turning a flag that was used as almost a universal symbol to terrorize blacks, and which led to some of the more inhumane acts in American history (recent history I might add), into some sort of symbol of "heritage." This is overtly coded language and rhetoric here.
flipgood89 1 year ago
coming from a person of color, if the confederate flag is banned because of slavery and racism, then maybe every country that condoned slavery and had racism (basically every flag in the western hemisphere) should be banned (including our stars and stripes). the confederate flag should be left alone. the north and the south had both evil people and good people. and both had african american soldiers, the difference being that the in the confederacy they werent officially enlisted.
musique1226 1 year ago
@musique1226 - thank you for your comment. Well said.
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
@DavidDLPE ...conservatives have no problem with the confederate flag, which is considered a terrorist symbol to blacks, but they came out in unison to combat the building of a "mosque" in NYC which basically denied freedom of religion to many Americans based on the actions of very few within the religion. hmmm.....
flipgood89 1 year ago
@flipgood89 - "...the confederate flag, which is considered a terrorist symbol to blacks..."
Those who think that way, be they Black or White, are mired in ignorance.
"but they came out in unison to combat the building of a "mosque" in NYC which basically denied freedom of religion to many Americans based on the actions of very few within the religion"
There is so much ignorance contained in this statement, I am forced to respond in parts:
1) The actions of terrorists are rooted in the koran.
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
@flipgood89 - "but they came out in unison to combat the building of a "mosque" in NYC which basically denied freedom of religion to many Americans based on the actions of very few within the religion"
2) "Freedom of religion" was never intended by the founders to protect the doctrines of anti-Christian religions. "Freedom of religion" represents the freedom to worship God - the Biblical God - in the way you see best fit...
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
@flipgood89 - 2) (CONTINUED) - Even the US Supreme Court supported this notion when they ruled, in 1892, that "America is a Christian nation..."
Let me quote for you:
"Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama..."
Buckle up, you are going to be blown away by the rest of the quote...
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
@flipgood89 - 2) (CONTINUED)
"...and for this plain reason that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors."
- US Supreme Court, 1892
3) Finally, Even with all this in mind, no one, including me, is advocating that muslims should not be allowed to build a mosque. Only that it not be built on or near the site, nor in any way should it honor the attacks of 9/11.
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
@DavidDLPE ...Im not trying to insult you, but you are SEVERELY and TRAGICALLY misinformed my friend. I say this in earnest and with all sincerity. First, your assertion that only a minority of slave owners mistreated their slaves is an embarrassing opinion. You come across like a low-rent bigot...thats nazi sympathizing levels right there when they dismiss the holocaust. I would stop, but I have to correct you on that Supreme court decision in 1892. You need to read that case again....
flipgood89 1 year ago
@flipgood89 - coming from one who is so obviously ignorant of the facts, I accept your opinion of me as being misinformed. On that, I am perfectly comfortable with agreeing to disagree.
As to your characterization of me as a low-rent bigot, you have again revealed your heightened ignorance. We can disagree on what percentage of the slaves were beaten - that makes neither of us a bigot.
The fact you played that card reveals your own narrow-mindedness.
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
@DavidDLPE ...dude, saying that an overwhelming minority of slave owners abused their slaves is a really insulting opinion my man. I said you came across as a low-rent bigot and I stand by that when you say crap like that.
flipgood89 1 year ago
@flipgood89 - Do you have any sources you can cite, or are you simply regurgitating the post-war propaganda you were fed as a child, to which you have not applied even the slightest critical thought?
The post-war teachings handed down include gross exaggerations of neo-abolitionists who were trying to further their cause.
Frederick Law Olmsted found in 3 journeys to the South, during the 1850s, that the slaves of the South were "better fed and housed than any proletarian class in the world..."
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
Respect for the South? Get real. Yankees piss on us every damn day of the week. How did the North respect the South when they burned our farms, raped our women, and stole and pillaged across our states?
rtgoodson 1 year ago
For all those who were saying the south was about to free the slaves then why was there the need for Jim Crow laws and what about segregation, and lynchings?
Rbigray1 1 year ago
@Rbigray1 - I understand your point, but you miss a really big factor...
The war, and the aftermath, (reconstruction), left a great deal of bitterness. The South had been fairly prosperous, prior to the War Between the States. That was decimated. I am not saying it is right, just a reality.
Your use of those realities as evidence that the South was not about to abort slavery is deceptive. There would have been a different atmosphere had the states been allowed to resolve the issue on their own.
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
@DavidDLPE If the states would of resolved it on thier own then slaverly may still be around today or at least Jim crow would still be domaninting. Its like you said the south was prosperous because of slaverly what reason would they have had for getting rid of it? The reality is the south left the union because of slaverly and the fact thier economy was relient on it. When the war ended and the south was forced to go legit with thier economy they treated the ex slaves and thier kids like.....
Rbigray1 1 year ago
@Rbigray1 Second class citizens. The south can attempt to whitewash thier racist past as much as they want but it will never happen thier is to much evidence to the contrary.
Rbigray1 1 year ago
@Rbigray1 - "The South can attempt to whitewash their racist past..."
slavenorth (dot) com/profits (dot) htm
"Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery..."
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
@Rbigray1 - (continued)
" The financial base of New England's antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping... largely acquired... from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean."
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
@Rbigray1 - There is no evidence to support your assertion. First, the South was not prosperous "because of" slavery. The nature of slavery in the South was different than in the North, and slavery was entrenched in the Southern economy because it was largely agricultural.
You are deluded if you think Blacks found friendly attitudes in the North any more than in the South prior to the war.
Obviously, you think the treatment of Blacks as second class citizens was limited to the South. Ignorant.
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
@DavidDLPE i never said in my post that blacks were only treated like second class citizens in the south. But since we are talking about the south lets leave it thier. You contrideicted yourself in your first paragraph you state that the south was not prosperous because of slaverly. But then assert that because the southern economy was agriculturally based slavery was deeply entrenched. who were they employing to pick the cotton "Mexicans"? Cotton accounted for 75% of the souths exports.
Rbigray1 1 year ago
@Rbigray1 - No, you did say expressly that the South was trying to whitewash its racist past, as if the North has not already done exactly that.
I did not contradict myself at all, you just have a problem with basic reading skills.
To say that slavery was entrenched in the economy is not the same as saying that slavery was the reason for the prosperity. Think.
When slavery was lawful in America, it became more deeply entrenched in the Southern economy...
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
@DavidDLPE We are talking about the south here!!! The video is about South Carolina you have a problem with staying on topic if the video was talking about the north then I would comment on that. Cotton accounted for 75% of the exports of the south. Matter of fact cotton was so important that the south actually tried to use it to get Great Britian and france to intervene on thier behalf. Lets be serious here and not attempt to ignore facts.
Rbigray1 1 year ago
@Rbigray1 - "Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands."
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
@Rbigray1 - You finally stumble across some fact.
Yes, cotton was one of the South's most valuable commodities. How did it get to England?
I just showed you.
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
@Rbigray1 Also u have no evidence to support that the south would of gotten rid of slaves everything points to the contrary. The economy , Jim crow laws, Lynchings, the burning down of black towns. what more evidence do you need? read a book and stop trying to spin history cause it wont work.
Rbigray1 1 year ago
@Rbigray1 - Here is evidence:
Prior to the War, Virginia had just missed passing abolishment by 1 vote in its legislature.
Most historians agree that slavery would have been abolished 1900, without war. Perhaps even sooner.
Once Virginia fell, there would be a domino effect.
As it was, the Confederacy was only made up of, what - 11 states?
If Virginia votes to abolish in the 1860's, as it most certainly would have, then the rest of the Southern states in the North would have soon followed.
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
@DavidDLPE source please. And this is based on speculation that the rest of the south would have followed suit remember as well that at this time Va had not yet spilt up and that part of the state still had influence in the legislature.
Rbigray1 1 year ago
@Rbigray1 - you know how to use google? Look it up. It is not for me to do your work for you.
Perhaps you should have done some research BEFORE spouting off, then you wouldn't look so foolish.
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
@DavidDLPE You talk about facts and have not listed ONE to support your asseration that the south would of had an ephiny and released all slaves and embraced them as equals get real and stop trying to spin .my evidence is history and facts yours is whitewash and spin.
Rbigray1 1 year ago
@Rbigray1 - it is called deductive reasoning. You should look into it.
11 states in the Confederacy. Had there been no war, the Southern states to the North, including Virginia would have abolished slavery by 1870. That would have included N Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky, along with Virginia.
That would have left 7 states holding slavery to be legal, with mounting pressure for its abolishment.
Was it worth almost 3/4 Million lives?
DavidDLPE 1 year ago
@Rbigray1 - "Long after the U.S. slave trade officially ended, the more extensive movement of Africans to Brazil and Cuba continued. The U.S. Navy never was assiduous in hunting down slave traders... slave traders continuing to bring human cargo to Brazil and Cuba generally did so under the U.S. flag. They also did so in ships built for the purpose by Northern shipyards, in ventures financed by Northern manufacturers."
DavidDLPE 1 year ago