Man Wins Case After Firing Over Confederate Flag

AP ^ | 4/23/06

[Colt .45]

Please do me a favor and read the "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History". It will really open you're eyes about who was right and who was wrong when it comes to freedom. It will also show you how much liberty we've lost.

[Rabble]

"I didn't see in the article where the courts ruled in his favor."

According to an article in the Houston Chronicle dated April 21, 2006 the courts certainly DID rule in his favor! An excerpt states: "A federal judge ruled previously that Carpenter's constitutional rights had been violated, but that he was not entitled to compensation because he had not fully pursued damages against the city's civil service system." Here's the link: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/3809587.html

[fortheDeclaration]

"Unlike the American revolution, the South did not list any grievances except they did not like they idea that slavery was going to be limited by the incoming Republican Party." Wrong. Think about that statement. There were a lot of grievances, that one is the one people remember (and rightly so). Read a book

Seems that you have a problem reading a simple sentence.

Did the South issue a 'Declaration of Independence' listing any grievance's, no, they did not.

The South had no legitimate reason to leave the Union.

The persons whose life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were being suppressed were the millions of blacks the South held as slaves.

[okiecon]

The South did not compile a list of grievances. First of all, "The South" did not secede, the states did. You assume that the "South did not list any grievances" other than slavery because the official documents of secession referenced the provisions of the unamended constitution that allowed slavery, etc. The collection conscience of "the South" may have "listed" a number of grievances, as a "list" does not have to be written down.

The South did not issue a "Declaration of Independance" but did issue statements of secession.

You state your opinion as fact and attempt to make a value judgment with regard to a political event of 140 or so years ago. Surely you do not approve of Romans feeding Christians to Lions either, congratulations.

Of course the slaves' lives, liberty, and happiness were being repressed. That is why slavery is bad.

John Lock formulated the "life" and "liberty" portion of that thought. The original third word was "property." Locke also thought that property encompassed life and liberty. Therefore, depravation of life or liberty was a deprivation of property. Therefore, slavery violated all three of those underlying notions. Slavery is bad. That has nothing to do with this thread, this thread has more to do with symbols and the meanings that certain people attach to them.

Good day.

[fortheDeclaration]

The South did not compile a list of grievances. First of all, "The South" did not secede, the states did. You assume that the "South did not list any grievances" other than slavery because the official documents of secession referenced the provisions of the unamended constitution that allowed slavery, etc. The collection conscience of "the South" may have "listed" a number of grievances, as a "list" does not have to be written down.

The 'South' did not list any grievances, including slavery.

They (those states that decided to secede) did not like the results of the election of the anti-slavery Republican Party and thought that gave them the right to break up the Union.

The South did not issue a "Declaration of Independance" but did issue statements of secession. You state your opinion as fact and attempt to make a value judgment with regard to a political event of 140 or so years ago. Surely you do not approve of Romans feeding Christians to Lions either, congratulations.

The key statement on why those States chose to secede was made by the Southern vice president, Alexander H. Stephens, and it was to defend slavery, not the phony nonsense of 'state rights'

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/corner.html

Now, Of course the slaves' lives, liberty, and happiness were being repressed. That is why slavery is bad. John Lock formulated the "life" and "liberty" portion of that thought. The original third word was "property." Locke also thought that property encompassed life and liberty. Therefore, depravation of life or liberty was a deprivation of property. Therefore, slavery violated all three of those underlying notions. Slavery is bad. That has nothing to do with this thread, this thread has more to do with symbols and the meanings that certain people attach to them. Good day.

Yes, slavery is bad and the Confederacy that attempted to keep it was bad also.

No flag used to fight against the U.S. flag can be considered 'noble' or 'good'.

[usmcobra]

The war was between the democrats in the north and the democrats in the south.

I never said it was between republicans and democrats, They only rebeled against Lincoln when he tried to prevent the southern democrats from seceding.

Now Who do you suppose placed such unreasonable tariffs on cotton to prevent the south from getting a fair price from england or france?

The brand spanking new fledling republican party and their very first president?

Or the industrial democrat fatcats of the north that put the whig party out of business and wanted south's cotton sold to them at a price where only they profited?

The south wanted to sell their cotton to whoever in the world gave them the best price, the northern democrats put them into a position where all the south's cotton had to be processed in northern factories at a price set by the north.They used a very heavy tariff to force this issue on cotton sold overseas, those huge tariffs prevented the south from selling cotton overseas and controlling their market.

It was the Tariffs on cotton caused the south to secede, not "states rights" if anything the south seceded to regain their control of the profits on cotton.

Put another way, they sought equality in the world market, they only way they could achieve that was by creating a new country where they could set the rules.

Typical democrats, they don't win in Congress so they take their balls(of cotton) and go home.

[usmcobra]

Please do me a favor and read the "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History". It will really open you're eyes about who was right and who was wrong when it comes to freedom. It will also show you how much liberty we've lost.

So what you are trying to say is that the southern democrats were right?

Someone is going to say it sooner or later so I'll say it now. "The Democrats of today are like the Republicans of yesterday" Or "The Republicans of today are like the Democrats yesterday" ot my personal favorite clueless line "Lincoln was a leftist that's why the south called him a radical republican"

Who says a conservative can't be a radical.

To me, mind you to me at least in my mind, conservatives free the oppressed and liberals oppress the free.

That's how I can tell who's who, if you believe in equal equality for all you are a conservative, if you believe in a special specific equality for certain select groups over others then you are a liberal.

If you believe that we can bring freedom and peace to the people of this world, then you are a conservative,if you believe that we are the threat to freedom and peace to the people of this world you are a liberal.

The last time this nation won a war against oppression in the world,the democratic party had conservatives in positions of power within that party, since then the liberals have all but forced those conservatives into the ranks of republicans and because of it this nation has either been stalemated(Korea) or lost(Viet Nam) due to the actions of the liberals at the helm of the democratic party.

What if anything does this have to do with the Civil War? Once you know how I apply my standard of who is a liberal and who is a conservative you see how I have decided which side was right and which side was wrong.

Clearly the liberalism of the south caused some of the greatest hardships to our country, rewarding and honoring them for the sacrifices the nation had to endure because of them is wrong.Try to remember that the next time someone lies to you about it only being a matter of heritage.

[okiecon]

"The 'South' did not list any grievances, including slavery."

Read some of the declarations of secession. Each state spoke for itself. Here is a link: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csapage.htm

" The key statement on why those States chose to secede was made by the Southern vice president, Alexander H. Stephens, and it was to defend slavery, not the phony nonsense of 'state rights'

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/corner.html"

From the speech:

Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one-it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question, upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country according to population and means. We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than twenty-five millions of dollars. All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and equipments of our roads, was borne by those who entered on the enterprise. Nay, more-not only the cost of the iron, no small item in the aggregate cost, was borne in the same way-but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere?

Sounds like they did not like the tax structure.

Futhermore, slavery was intertwined with states rights and property issues, which is why it was such a catalyst for the war. To say that slavery was the reason is to say that states rights were the reason.


" Yes, slavery is bad and the Confederacy that attempted to keep it was bad also.

No flag used to fight against the U.S. flag can be considered 'noble' or 'good'."

That is YOUR OPINION. I guess the Union Jack really gets you steamed, but some of us don't care.

[Zack Nguyen]

Thank you for the link.

[Colt .45]

Go and read the book then come back and tell me who the liberals are.

I am for smaller less encroachmental government. I believe that "the people" are the seat of power of any government, that they are all created equal. I also believe that governments are created by consent of the governed, and when a government becomes abusive of its power it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it! And I believe that people are educated enough for the most part to determine their own self destiny. In short I believe exactly what the Founding Fathers believed in - no strong central government, and more self reliance. I think I'm probably more conservative than you are.

P.S. The Republican Party of the 1860's was more akin to the Socialists in their way of thinking, but I could go so far as to say that they were like the Nazi Party of the 1930's.

[higgmeister]

He got fired for having a license plate which is officially issued by the state he lives in.

I suspect Florida is one of those states that only has an official license plate on the rear of the automobile and he had placed his own CSA Flag Tag on the front.

[Polybius]

......gleefully lynching black people and republicans alike in the south while flying the confederate flag to strike fear in the hearts of those that are on the receiving end of the hate it embodies.

The Confederate Battle Flag was the apolitical symbol of the Southern soldier just as the Iron Cross was and still is the apolitical symbol of the German soldier.

Look at historical photos of the bygone era when lynchings by the Ku Klux Klan was common. You will never see a Confederate Battle Flag.

The preferred flag of the Ku Klux Klan was........Old Glory.

The preferred symbol of the Ku Klux Klan was......the Christian Cross.

Once you join the "symbol of hate" bandwagon, be prepared to have Old Glory and Christian symbols also called "symbols of hate".

[fortheDeclaration]

First, here is the 'noble' cause for which the Confederacy was fighting for.

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. (emphasis given)

The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. (emphasis given) It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; 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. [Applause.] (emphasis given)

.... Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. (emphasis given)

All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. (emphasis given)

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/corner.html

As for appeals to the tax issue, the South had been overepresented by including slaves for the purpose of counting members of the House.

No rights were being violated when they lost control of the House.

In fact, the Southern Confederates divided their own Party (Democratic) over slavery.

"The 'South' did not list any grievances, including slavery." Read some of the declarations of secession. Each state spoke for itself. Here is a link: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csapage.htm

As for listing gievances, I count only four States out of 13.

Here is one from Missippi,

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth

Here is South Carolina,

they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

Here is Texas,

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

And Georgia,

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers. With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

No flag used to fight against the U.S. flag can be considered 'noble' or 'good'." That is YOUR OPINION. I guess the Union Jack really gets you steamed, but some of us don't care.

No, it is the American opinion.

If you are for the Declaration of Independence then you have to be against the Southern Confederacy which rejected it.

Choose which flag to love.

The Union Jack is a British flag that I have no attachment to.

You likewise, (and the other Confederate apologists) should have no emotional attachment to the Confederate flag, a flag that fought for tyranny and against the flag you now live under.

If you think otherwise, you are in the wrong political party, the Party of Lincoln.

[derllak]

I'm sure the money wasn't the issue. The man has a right to his beliefs and that's what he stood up for. You can't put a price tag on that. You make a good point. I applaude his courage and conviction.

[okiecon]

I have no emotion attached to the issue, other than annoyance at factually inaccurate statements. I simply dispute your repeated (and bullheaded) insistance that slavery was the ONLY issue in the civil war. Slavery was an issue. It was the main issue. It was not the only issue, as evidenced by part of the speech that you posted the link to. To think that it was is ignorant. Your own source does not support your assertions.

If you wish to rant about how bad slavery was (beating a dead-horse forever), I don't care. However, when you insist it was the only issue, I feel compelled to correct you.

You have stated that:

The South did not list any grievances.

This is a partial truth, some of the states, 4 at least, did. Futhermore, you assume that the states must write down their grievances in order for them to exist.

The civil war was not about states rights, but was about slavery.

This is also wrong. Since the issues were intertwined, then it was about both. Unfortunately. Slavery was on the way out, the states in the confederacy though that the state had the right to enslave whomever they wished. The issue was states rights vs. human rights. Human rights won.

You also state that the South was overrepresented because of the slaves being counted as 3/5 of a person. Your confederate vice president did not see it that way. He may be wrong, but just because you are wrong does not mean you do not have a grievance.

Your strange nationalism with regard to ancient wars is perplexing at best.

As far as your assertion that I am an apologist for the confederacy, that is unfounded. Just because someone disputes a factually inaccurate statement does not make them an apologist. If you said Hitler gassed X amount of people, and I stated that Hitler only gassed Y amount of people, that does not make me an apologist for Hitler.

As far as your hatred of an archaic and dead government, that is not the American opinion, because there is no American opinion. People have opinions, not countries.

People can be attached to one flag for whatever reason and as well as being attached to the US flag. You have no idea what this flag meant to this man. I guess since Georgia fought in against the US in the civil war, the Georgia flag is off limits as well for a proud resident of that state.

As far as the party of Lincoln jazz, I will not worship a dead lawyer. I am more worried about the problems of today.

I will cease responding on this issue at this point, since you will not listen to reason and logic. If you wish to believe that the civil war was only about slavery, then I guess that doesn't harm anyone. Whatever.

[fortheDeclaration]

I have no emotion attached to the issue, other than annoyance at factually inaccurate statements. I simply dispute your repeated (and bullheaded) insistance that slavery was the ONLY issue in the civil war. Slavery was an issue. It was the main issue. It was not the only issue, as evidenced by part of the speech that you posted the link to. To think that it was is ignorant. Your own source does not support your assertions.

I never said that slavery was the only issue that the South (Confederacy) appealed to.

The other issues were no more legimate for secession then defending slavery was.

Thus, the Southern states had no legimate reason for secession since they still had full access to the political process.

Maybe that point is to complicated for you to grasp?

If you wish to rant about how bad slavery was (beating a dead-horse forever), I don't care. However, when you insist it was the only issue, I feel compelled to correct you.

Once again, never said it was the only issue, so stop appealing to straw man arguments.

You have stated that: The South did not list any grievances. This is a partial truth, some of the states, 4 at least, did. Futhermore, you assume that the states must write down their grievances in order for them to exist.

I follow the view Jefferson that when a government is going to be dissolved the reasons should be stated so a judgement can be made on the rightness of the cause for the ending of that government.

It is understandable that few of the States would want to list their 'noble' grievances, not the deprivation of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but the threat that they might not be able to deprive someone of those rights!

The civil war was not about states rights, but was about slavery. This is also wrong. Since the issues were intertwined, then it was about both. Unfortunately. Slavery was on the way out, the states in the confederacy though that the state had the right to enslave whomever they wished. The issue was states rights vs. human rights. Human rights won.

There is no such thing as a 'right' for a state to keep a human being a slave.

States do not have rights, people do.

The Southern Slave owners lost an election and decided that they would break up the Union over it.

You also state that the South was overrepresented because of the slaves being counted as 3/5 of a person. Your confederate vice president did not see it that way. He may be wrong, but just because you are wrong does not mean you do not have a grievance.

First, it is you defending the Confederate flag, not me, so he would be your Confederate vice President.

Second, counting slaves for the purpose of representation gave the South control of the House far longer then they should have had.

Your strange nationalism with regard to ancient wars is perplexing at best.

The American revolution is not an 'ancient war'.

As far as your assertion that I am an apologist for the confederacy, that is unfounded. Just because someone disputes a factually inaccurate statement does not make them an apologist. If you said Hitler gassed X amount of people, and I stated that Hitler only gassed Y amount of people, that does not make me an apologist for Hitler.

You came on this thread defending the Confederate flag, did you not?

As far as your hatred of an archaic and dead government, that is not the American opinion, because there is no American opinion. People have opinions, not countries.

I would say that an American opinion is one that the majority of Americans hold to, such as the principles found in the Declaration of Independence.

The Confederate Flag is against those principles, and that was the substance of this discussion.

It does not represent freedom, but rather, a fight against freedom.

Once again, choose which flag to honor, you cannot honor both since they are opposed to one another.

People can be attached to one flag for whatever reason and as well as being attached to the US flag. You have no idea what this flag meant to this man. I guess since Georgia fought in against the US in the civil war, the Georgia flag is off limits as well for a proud resident of that state.

I do not believe any State Flag should have the Confederate flag associated with it.

Anyone attached to the Confederate Flag needs to understand what the Confederacy truly represented (slavery) and not the post-Civil War myth of 'states rights'

As far as the party of Lincoln jazz, I will not worship a dead lawyer. I am more worried about the problems of today.

Yea, right.

Honoring great Presidents like Washington and Lincoln is what Americans should do, not worrying about the dead Confederacy's flag.

I will cease responding on this issue at this point, since you will not listen to reason and logic. If you wish to believe that the civil war was only about slavery, then I guess that doesn't harm anyone. Whatever.

And if you wish to appeal to straw man evasions, that is what is to be expected from someone who is defending an indefensible position.

[okiecon]

"I never said that slavery was the only issue that the South (Confederacy) appealed to."

From Post # 36: Unlike the American revolution, the South did not list any grievances except they did not like they idea that slavery was going to be limited by the incoming Republican Party.

That is exactly what you said.

"The other issues were no more legimate for secession then defending slavery was."

That is irrelevant, there were other grievances, how legitimate you think they were, or even how factually legitimate they were, does not matter.

"Thus, the Southern states had no legimate reason for secession since they still had full access to the political process."

"Maybe that point is to complicated for you to grasp?"

Your demeaning manner is laughable. You cannot even remove your opinion from statements of fact. You stated they listed no other grievances, I said you were wrong, and now you want to change the subject to the how legitimate the grievances were? LOL

"Once again, never said it was the only issue, so stop appealing to straw man arguments."

Actually you said it was their only listed grievance, which is not accurate at all. In fact, you posted a link to a speech disproving your own thesis! Your idea that the confederacy must sit down and write a list in order to have grievances in listed the historical record is strange indeed.

"I follow the view Jefferson that when a government is going to be dissolved the reasons should be stated so a judgement can be made on the rightness of the cause for the ending of that government."

That is all fine and good. I don't care what view you follow. Jefferson was dead, or he might of wrote it himself. Virgina slaveowner, ya know.

"There is no such thing as a 'right' for a state to keep a human being a slave."

Now there isn't. Morally there never was. At the time in history, whether we like it or not, there was a legal right to do so.

"States do not have rights, people do."

States have powers, that are subservient to the rights of people.

"The Southern Slave owners lost an election and decided that they would break up the Union over it."

Things political are never that simple.

"First, it is you defending the Confederate flag, not me, so he would be your Confederate vice President."

I simply corrected your fallacious assertions. I defended no flags. I defend the fellows right to place the flag of his choice on his truck. You posted the evidence and referred to the vice-president of the confederacy. My vice-president is Cheney. I live in the present.

"The American revolution is not an 'ancient war'."

I was referring the Civil War, you know the one that we have been talking about?

"You came on this thread defending the Confederate flag, did you not?"

Actually, I didn't. I was pointing out a factual problem with your post.

"I would say that an American opinion is one that the majority of Americans hold to, such as the principles found in the Declaration of Independence."

There is no such thing as an American opinion. If you want to say "the majority of American's opinions" then say that.

"The Confederate Flag is against those principles, and that was the substance of this discussion."

No, the substance of this discussion was what the grievances of the confederacy were. You resorted to a broad brush argument to attempt to make me defend the indefensible. Kinda like what liberals do. Your argument consist of Confederacy = bad, so they must not have had any grievances but slavery. My argument is that the South did have more grievances, legitimate or not, and they did not have to resort to writing them down for them to exist.

"Once again, choose which flag to honor, you cannot honor both since they are opposed to one another."

So what? Try to stay on point. Are you saying that this guy should not be able to put the flag on his truck? I will leave that up to him. I am not honoring any confederate flags.

"I do not believe any State Flag should have the Confederate flag associated with it."

I think the people in their respective states can decide that. I will not force my views on the citizens of other states. My state flag has a peace pipe, that is fine with me.

"Anyone attached to the Confederate Flag needs to understand what the Confederacy truly represented (slavery) and not the post-Civil War myth of 'states rights'"

In your simple world, I guess. The Confederate flag represented a sort-lived government that enshrined the pre-civil war American instution of slavery. That is all. You, and people like you, are the ones making an issue of a piece of cloth, or in this case, a piece of tin.

"Honoring great Presidents like Washington and Lincoln is what Americans should do, not worrying about the dead Confederacy's flag."

And who made you arbiture of American behavior? What a joke. I respect their contribution to the country and recognize that they are flawed humans. Thus, I worship no dead lawyers, or farmers, or generals, etc.

"And if you wish to appeal to straw man evasions, that is what is to be expected from someone who is defending an indefensible position."

What is wrong with you? The fact that the confederate states had other grievances than slavery is a well accepted fact. I was going to quit responding, but your accusations about "straw-men" and your own resort to them makes me doubt your very sanity. Perhaps you just can't understand. If any lurkers are reading this, am I arguing with a wall?

[fortheDeclaration]

"I never said that slavery was the only issue that the South (Confederacy) appealed to." From Post # 36: Unlike the American revolution, the South did not list any grievances except they did not like they idea that slavery was going to be limited by the incoming Republican Party. That is exactly what you said.

Boy, you really do have a hard time reading don't you.

How do you get from that sentence that I said that slavery was the only issue?

I was stating the simple fact that slavery was the key issue in the Southern States leaving the Union.

Even you admitted it was the main issue.

I did not say that it was the only one!

"The other issues were no more legimate for secession then defending slavery was." That is irrelevant, there were other grievances, how legitimate you think they were, or even how factually legitimate they were, does not matter.

Not when we are talking about what the Confederate flag represents.

Slavery was the central issue in the Southern States leaving, after losing the election of 1860 to the anti-slavery Republican Party.

"Thus, the Southern states had no legimate reason for secession since they still had full access to the political process." "Maybe that point is to complicated for you to grasp?" Your demeaning manner is laughable. You cannot even remove your opinion from statements of fact. You stated they listed no other grievances, I said you were wrong, and now you want to change the subject to the how legitimate the grievances were? LOL

Once again, I never said that there were no other grievances, and if you can find a statement to that effect you need to cite it.

As for the other grievances, they were not legitimate since the South did have access to the political process, unlike the American Revolution, when the colonists had no representation.

"Once again, never said it was the only issue, so stop appealing to straw man arguments." Actually you said it was their only listed grievance, which is not accurate at all. In fact, you posted a link to a speech disproving your own thesis! Your idea that the confederacy must sit down and write a list in order to have grievances in listed the historical record is strange indeed.

Not according to Thomas Jefferson it isn't,

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Now, what I said was that the South did not put forth anything like the Declaration of Independence, which listed the grievances of the colonists.

Four states did and all four listed slavery as the central issue.

The other states decided to be quiet, a wise decision since they were trying to get recognition from anti-slavery England at the time.

"I follow the view Jefferson that when a government is going to be dissolved the reasons should be stated so a judgement can be made on the rightness of the cause for the ending of that government." That is all fine and good. I don't care what view you follow. Jefferson was dead, or he might of wrote it himself. Virgina slaveowner, ya know.

Yes, but Jefferson understood that all men were created equal, and wanted to end slavery.

It was later Southerners who distorted his words in the Declaration to mean only white men (Dred Scott decision)

Jefferson may be dead, but the Declaration of Independence isn't.

"There is no such thing as a 'right' for a state to keep a human being a slave." Now there isn't. Morally there never was. At the time in history, whether we like it or not, there was a legal right to do so.

Agreed.

"States do not have rights, people do." States have powers, that are subservient to the rights of people.

Agreed.

"The Southern Slave owners lost an election and decided that they would break up the Union over it." Things political are never that simple.

Maybe not, but even according to the statements in the four states that gave a list of grievances, the election of the anti-slavery Republican Party was a key factor in their decision to leave the Union.

"First, it is you defending the Confederate flag, not me, so he would be your Confederate vice President." I simply corrected your fallacious assertions. I defended no flags. I defend the fellows right to place the flag of his choice on his truck. You posted the evidence and referred to the vice-president of the confederacy. My vice-president is Cheney. I live in the present.

And I live in the present, and a Confederate flag represents a tyrannical system that endorsed and defended slavery.

So I understand why his employer would not want it on his property.

"The American revolution is not an 'ancient war'." I was referring the Civil War, you know the one that we have been talking about?

Well, the Civil War is even less 'ancient' then the American Revolution.

"You came on this thread defending the Confederate flag, did you not?" Actually, I didn't. I was pointing out a factual problem with your post.

Well, there was no factual problem to my posts.

The problem was your inability to read.

"I would say that an American opinion is one that the majority of Americans hold to, such as the principles found in the Declaration of Independence." There is no such thing as an American opinion. If you want to say "the majority of American's opinions" then say that.

No, Americans have a certain world view, and that view is found in the principles of the Declaration, that all men are created equal and have certain God given (natural) rights.

Do you disagree with that view?

If not, then you are holding an uniquely American view.

"The Confederate Flag is against those principles, and that was the substance of this discussion." No, the substance of this discussion was what the grievances of the confederacy were. You resorted to a broad brush argument to attempt to make me defend the indefensible. Kinda like what liberals do. Your argument consist of Confederacy = bad, so they must not have had any grievances but slavery. My argument is that the South did have more grievances, legitimate or not, and they did not have to resort to writing them down for them to exist.

Once, again, find the statement where I explicitly state that the South had no other grievances.

There main grievance (as you acknowledged) was slavery.

Whatever grievances they had (such as the Tarriff) was subservient to that issue.

"Once again, choose which flag to honor, you cannot honor both since they are opposed to one another." So what? Try to stay on point. Are you saying that this guy should not be able to put the flag on his truck? I will leave that up to him. I am not honoring any confederate flags.

If he wants to put any flag on his truck he ought to know that the flag represents.

"I do not believe any State Flag should have the Confederate flag associated with it." I think the people in their respective states can decide that. I will not force my views on the citizens of other states. My state flag has a peace pipe, that is fine with me.

Yes, the people of the State can decide that, and let them defend what the Confederate flag represents (slavery) not some mythological notion of 'states rights'.

Many of those same States had Jim Crow laws also.

"Anyone attached to the Confederate Flag needs to understand what the Confederacy truly represented (slavery) and not the post-Civil War myth of 'states rights'" In your simple world, I guess. The Confederate flag represented a sort-lived government that enshrined the pre-civil war American instution of slavery. That is all. You, and people like you, are the ones making an issue of a piece of cloth, or in this case, a piece of tin.

No, it is those who keep defending the Confederacy that make it an issue.

"Honoring great Presidents like Washington and Lincoln is what Americans should do, not worrying about the dead Confederacy's flag." And who made you arbiture of American behavior? What a joke. I respect their contribution to the country and recognize that they are flawed humans. Thus, I worship no dead lawyers, or farmers, or generals, etc.

Respect is not worship.

Pretty pitiful that you do not know the difference.

"And if you wish to appeal to straw man evasions, that is what is to be expected from someone who is defending an indefensible position." What is wrong with you? The fact that the confederate states had other grievances than slavery is a well accepted fact. I was going to quit responding, but your accusations about "straw-men" and your own resort to them makes me doubt your very sanity. Perhaps you just can't understand. If any lurkers are reading this, am I arguing with a wall?

Once again, your reading abilities are quite limited.

I never said that the South did not have any other grievances then slavery.

I said that whatever grievances they did have were not legitimate either, since they had political representation.

You need to read, not read into something.

[okiecon]

"How do you get from that sentence that I said that slavery was the only issue?"

Your stated that they did not list any other grievances, which is misleading at best, because they did not set out to make a list. However, other grievances were aired, as in the speech you posted.

"I was stating the simple fact that slavery was the key issue in the Southern States leaving the Union."

We agreed on this about four posts ago.

"I did not say that it was the only one!"

You said that they did not list any grievances except slavery. That is wrong. History cannot be revised to fit your opinion. If you want to define the word "list" to mean physically writing out grievances on paper, well that is fine, but that is not what the word actually means. A list of grievances does not have to be written.

"Not when we are talking about what the Confederate flag represents."

You are confusing opinions and facts again. What the flag represents to this fellow who put it on his truck is beyond your knowledge, it might remind him of dear old grandpa for all you know. The Chinese flag might represent Communism to me, but it may represent their homeland to a Chinese person. What a flag "represents" is the ideals that you attach to it.

"Once again, I never said that there were no other grievances, and if you can find a statement to that effect you need to cite it."

We have been over this before, see above.

"Not according to Thomas Jefferson it isn't,

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

And because Thomas Jefferson said it, there is no other way! Please.

"Now, what I said was that the South did not put forth anything like the Declaration of Independence, which listed the grievances of the colonists."

Of course they did not. If you would have actually said that to begin with, we would not be arguing.

"Four states did and all four listed slavery as the central issue.

The other states decided to be quiet, a wise decision since they were trying to get recognition from anti-slavery England at the time."

Yeah.

"Yes, but Jefferson understood that all men were created equal, and wanted to end slavery."

Actions speak louder than words. His record was better than most at the time, but he waivered back and forth, and freed only 7 of his own slaves.

"It was later Southerners who distorted his words in the Declaration to mean only white men (Dred Scott decision)"

Dred Scott was a horrible decision, and Taney was a horrible chief justice. I don't know how bad his words were distorted. Jefferson's views conflict. I think he must have had a high level of cognitive dissonance about the issue, because his views changed and conflicted a lot.

"Jefferson may be dead, but the Declaration of Independence isn't."

I understand that you like the declaration at all, but I think the Constitution is more important, because it is a legal document. To each his own there.

"Maybe not, but even according to the statements in the four states that gave a list of grievances, the election of the anti-slavery Republican Party was a key factor in their decision to leave the Union."

Agreed.

"And I live in the present, and a Confederate flag represents a tyrannical system that endorsed and defended slavery."

To you, yes. To a lot of us it is devoid of meaning. I bet the average American is more reminded of the Duke's of Hazzard than slavery.

"So I understand why his employer would not want it on his property."

I would not want to hire a communist, but I can't fire him because he has a Che bumper sticker!

"Well, the Civil War is even less 'ancient' then the American Revolution."

The world has changed much. Ancient is relative. That is my opinion, I am not representing it as fact.

"Well, there was no factual problem to my posts.

The problem was your inability to read."

I beg your pardon, but if you could express your thoughts in a clear manner, this would not have occurred. "List" does not mean "sit down and write a declaration of independance."

"No, Americans have a certain world view, and that view is found in the principles of the Declaration, that all men are created equal and have certain God given (natural) rights.

Do you disagree with that view?

If not, then you are holding an uniquely American view."

I do not personally disagree. I think you mean a unique America view. Your statement is the majority of American citizens view on the subject.

"Once, again, find the statement where I explicitly state that the South had no other grievances."

The problem is you haven't explicitedly stated anything. We have been through this before, see above.

"There main grievance (as you acknowledged) was slavery."

Agreed.

"Whatever grievances they had (such as the Tarriff) was subservient to that issue."

Yeah. And the issues were intertwined.

"If he wants to put any flag on his truck he ought to know that the flag represents."

What that flag represents to whom? To you? He can offend you all he wants, and you can say he is wrong. Free speech works.

"Yes, the people of the State can decide that, and let them defend what the Confederate flag represents (slavery) not some mythological notion of 'states rights'."

They don't have to defend it. It is their flag, if they want a giant rubber duckie on it, then they can have it. Your association of the Confederate flag and the American and Confederate instution of slavery is not their concern. Do you associate the earlier versions of the American flag with slavery?

"Many of those same States had Jim Crow laws also."

That has nothing to do with the Confederate flag.

"No, it is those who keep defending the Confederacy that make it an issue."

Not in this discussion. I defended a man's right to place this flag on his truck. I did not defend the Confederacy. History is hard to defend.


"Respect is not worship. Pretty pitiful that you do not know the difference."

I said I respect them, but do not worship them. Therefore, respect does not equal worship. And you said I had a reading problem . . . . Now if you would have said "honor" is not worship, you might have a point. I chose my own wording to express my own opinion. I will not try to force that opinion on you. Common curtesy, you know.

"Once again, your reading abilities are quite limited."

As are your comprehension and logic skills. This coming from the person who just accused me of saying that respect and worship were the same thing, when I said I respect X but I do not worship X.

"I never said that the South did not have any other grievances then slavery.

I said that whatever grievances they did have were not legitimate either, since they had political representation."

Those are two different issues. The legitimacy of a grievance does not hinge on representation. Puerto Rico has no voting representation in Congress. Hawaii does. If both Puerto Rico and Hawaii are mad at the US for dumping waste (or whatever) on their respective islands, Puerto Rico's grievance is no more legitimate than Hawaii's.

The American revolution was because of legitimate grievances without representation. It does not follow that to be legitimate a grievance must occur without representation.

[fortheDeclaration]

"How do you get from that sentence that I said that slavery was the only issue?" Your stated that they did not list any other grievances, which is misleading at best, because they did not set out to make a list. However, other grievances were aired, as in the speech you posted.

What I stated is that they did not list any grievances, slavery included.

Now, only four of the States did list their reasons, which leaves most (7) of the States without any formal declaration of why they were leaving the Union, slavery included.

"I was stating the simple fact that slavery was the key issue in the Southern States leaving the Union." We agreed on this about four posts ago. "I did not say that it was the only one!" You said that they did not list any grievances except slavery. That is wrong. History cannot be revised to fit your opinion. If you want to define the word "list" to mean physically writing out grievances on paper, well that is fine, but that is not what the word actually means. A list of grievances does not have to be written. <

I said that they did not list any grievances.

In other words, they did not do what the Colonists did and explain the reasons for their leaving the Union and forming a new government, the Confederacy.

"Not when we are talking about what the Confederate flag represents." You are confusing opinions and facts again. What the flag represents to this fellow who put it on his truck is beyond your knowledge, it might remind him of dear old grandpa for all you know. The Chinese flag might represent Communism to me, but it may represent their homeland to a Chinese person. What a flag "represents" is the ideals that you attach to it.

And what it objectively represents does not change because one thinks differently.

The Chinese Communist flag represents evil, no matter what any particular individual 'thinks' about it.

As does the Nazi flag.

You have quite a case of relativism going there.

"Once again, I never said that there were no other grievances, and if you can find a statement to that effect you need to cite it." We have been over this before, see above.

Well, that statement doesn't say what you are saying it does.

Saying that no grievances were noted by the Confederate States as a new nation, is not the same as saying only slavery was stated.

The Confederate States did not issue a Declaration like the Colonists did, defending their actions.

"Not according to Thomas Jefferson it isn't, When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." And because Thomas Jefferson said it, there is no other way! Please.

No, because Jefferson was right.

If people are going to disband their government, their ought to be just cause for doing so, and that is defending the individual rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Anything less is not legitimate.

"Now, what I said was that the South did not put forth anything like the Declaration of Independence, which listed the grievances of the colonists." Of course they did not. If you would have actually said that to begin with, we would not be arguing.

And if you had not read into what I said instead of what I actually wrote, we would not be arguing.

Now, did I not say that no grievances were listed, including slavery?

"Four states did and all four listed slavery as the central issue. The other states decided to be quiet, a wise decision since they were trying to get recognition from anti-slavery England at the time." Yeah.

Well, the Confederacy did not want to offend England, which had outlawed slavery and was active in suppressing the slave trade.

"Yes, but Jefferson understood that all men were created equal, and wanted to end slavery." Actions speak louder than words. His record was better than most at the time, but he waivered back and forth, and freed only 7 of his own slaves.

Agreed, that his actions did not match his words, but his words are nevertheless true, and most of the Founding Fathers believed that they did include all men, not just white men.

"It was later Southerners who distorted his words in the Declaration to mean only white men (Dred Scott decision)" Dred Scott was a horrible decision, and Taney was a horrible chief justice. I don't know how bad his words were distorted. Jefferson's views conflict. I think he must have had a high level of cognitive dissonance about the issue, because his views changed and conflicted a lot.

Jefferson is not the issue, the issue is the philosophy that is stated in the Declaration.

As Alexander Stephens himself acknowledged, the Constitution was set up with the view that slavery would eventually be ended because it was immoral.

"Jefferson may be dead, but the Declaration of Independence isn't." I understand that you like the declaration at all, but I think the Constitution is more important, because it is a legal document. To each his own there.

The Declaration is the Soul, the Constitution is the Body.

The Bill of Rights comes from the principles of the Declaration and limits the Constitution.

"Maybe not, but even according to the statements in the four states that gave a list of grievances, the election of the anti-slavery Republican Party was a key factor in their decision to leave the Union." Agreed. "And I live in the present, and a Confederate flag represents a tyrannical system that endorsed and defended slavery." To you, yes. To a lot of us it is devoid of meaning. I bet the average American is more reminded of the Duke's of Hazzard than slavery.

Well, that is why they need to be educated on the meaning of what the Confederate flag really stood for.

"So I understand why his employer would not want it on his property." I would not want to hire a communist, but I can't fire him because he has a Che bumper sticker!

You should have the right to do so.

"Well, the Civil War is even less 'ancient' then the American Revolution." The world has changed much. Ancient is relative. That is my opinion, I am not representing it as fact. "Well, there was no factual problem to my posts. The problem was your inability to read." I beg your pardon, but if you could express your thoughts in a clear manner, this would not have occurred. "List" does not mean "sit down and write a declaration of Independence."

If you look at the Declaration, you will see that is what Jefferson does, he lists the Colonists grievances,

The signers then list 27 grievances against the British Crown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_(United_States)

"No, Americans have a certain world view, and that view is found in the principles of the Declaration, that all men are created equal and have certain God given (natural) rights. Do you disagree with that view? If not, then you are holding an uniquely American view." I do not personally disagree. I think you mean a unique America view. Your statement is the majority of American citizens view on the subject.

Which is what would make it an American view.

It is unique to America, since no other nation holds to the idea that the individual has rights that are God-given (natural) and cannot be taken away by the State.

"Once, again, find the statement where I explicitly state that the South had no other grievances." The problem is you haven't explicitedly stated anything. We have been through this before, see above.

No, I explicitly stated that the South did not do what the Colonists did in listing their grievances.

With the exception of the four states noted, that is true.

"There main grievance (as you acknowledged) was slavery." Agreed. "Whatever grievances they had (such as the Tarriff) was subservient to that issue." Yeah. And the issues were intertwined.

I do not see that.

What might have been intertwined was the election of the Republican Party which was both anti-slavery and for high tariffs.

However, the Democrat Party split over the slavery issue, allowing Lincoln to be elected easily.

The slaver owners would not support the Northerner Stephen Douglas since he was against unconditional slave expansion.

Thus, no matter how the Southerners might rail against Federal interference, it was they who split their own political Party before the 1860 election on the issue of slavery, not tarriffs (which cut across party lines)

"If he wants to put any flag on his truck he ought to know that the flag represents." What that flag represents to whom? To you? He can offend you all he wants, and you can say he is wrong. Free speech works.

Yes, it does work, and property rights also work and the man hiring as the right to not have that flag represented on his property for what it does represent.

If someone wants to get a Nazi swastika on his car, I do not care what he thinks it represents, I as the employer do not have to his auto on my property.

"Yes, the people of the State can decide that, and let them defend what the Confederate flag represents (slavery) not some mythological notion of 'states rights'." They don't have to defend it. It is their flag, if they want a giant rubber duckie on it, then they can have it. Your association of the Confederate flag and the American and Confederate instution of slavery is not their concern. Do you associate the earlier versions of the American flag with slavery?

Earlier versions of the American flag were not pro-slavery because they represent the principles of the Declaration of Independence, of which slavery was a aberration that needed to be corrected.

In fact, Jefferson wanted to list slavery as one of the grievances against King George, but the Southern slave states would not allow it.

As for State flags, just because the majority vote for it doesn't make it right.

"Many of those same States had Jim Crow laws also." That has nothing to do with the Confederate flag.

Sure it does.

The same racist view applied for the Confederacy as did with Jim Crow.

All under the guise of 'states rights'

Which is not the same as Federalism.

"No, it is those who keep defending the Confederacy that make it an issue." Not in this discussion. I defended a man's right to place this flag on his truck. I did not defend the Confederacy. History is hard to defend.

Well, since the truck is his property he does have a right to have it on his truck.

And I as an employer have a right not to have his truck on my property with that flag.

"Respect is not worship. Pretty pitiful that you do not know the difference." I said I respect them, but do not worship them. Therefore, respect does not equal worship. And you said I had a reading problem . . . . Now if you would have said "honor" is not worship, you might have a point. I chose my own wording to express my own opinion. I will not try to force that opinion on you. Common curtesy, you know.

"Once again, your reading abilities are quite limited." As are your comprehension and logic skills. This coming from the person who just accused me of saying that respect and worship were the same thing, when I said I respect X but I do not worship X.

Here what was said.

What a joke. I respect their contribution to the country and recognize that they are flawed humans. Thus, I worship no dead lawyers, or farmers, or generals, etc. Respect is not worship. Pretty pitiful that you do not know the difference.

So, it was you who was accusing my high regard for those men as being 'worship'

"I never said that the South did not have any other grievances then slavery. I said that whatever grievances they did have were not legitimate either, since they had political representation." Those are two different issues. The legitimacy of a grievance does not hinge on representation. Puerto Rico has no voting representation in Congress. Hawaii does. If both Puerto Rico and Hawaii are mad at the US for dumping waste (or whatever) on their respective islands, Puerto Rico's grievance is no more legitimate than Hawaii's.

Puerto Rico has the right to cease to be a commonwealth and become independent.

If they did not have that right, they would have a more legitimate grievance, not having fair representation which Hawaii does have.

The American revolution was because of legitimate grievances without representation. It does not follow that to be legitimate a grievance must occur without representation.

No, what follows is that a grievance can be resolved through political means and not military ones.

If there is no representation, and the grievances are serious enough, threatening individual freedom, then, as the Declaration states, it is the obligation of the individual to resist that tyranny.

But for the sake of social stability, that abuse must be real and with no other way of resolving then with armed resistance.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm