Posted on 01/05/2004 3:07:54 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
| Rank | Location | Receipts | Donors/Avg | Freepers/Avg | Monthlies | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 54 locations total | $12,992 |
317 |
$40.98 |
17,148 |
$0.76 |
$8,722.81 |
552 |
|
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
and:
"Anyone who knows anything about the Civil War knows that slavery was not an issue at the outset of the war, and didn't become one until Europe threatened to enter the fray. 99% of the Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves and were more worried about their farms and other issues."
Then sit yourself down before you read what Julian Bond is quoted as saying about the South and Southern Generals in the Civil War:
Educators Debate Efforts to Rename [Confederate] School [Name]
Europe never was close to entering the war over slavery. They were never close, period.
Slave ownership devolved on 50% of whites in SC, LA and MS, and on @ 1/3 of whites generally.
Slavery and its maintenance was clearly the cause of the war.
Walt
England and France sent emissaries, and there were contingents in Canada. Real or perceived, there was a threat, and it was at that point that slaveryt became an issue.Slavery and its maintenance was clearly the cause of the war.
This line is typical of the left in academia. I once took a class at the University of Maryland which was supposed to be about the history of the United States from 1800 to 1865. I was thrilled because I thought we would delve deeply into the War of 1812 and the Civil War. What we got was a course that was 100% (and I mean NOTHING else) but slavery in America. Slavery was horrible and is to be condemned, but it was only part of our history. We had a guilt-ridden professor who could think of nothing else. I asked our TA what else we would learn during that period, and she apologized and said that slavery was it. They should have at least called the class what it was... the history of slavery in America.
Another thing that I can't understand is that there is all this focus on the Confederate flag, yet nobody seems to be talking about the slavery going on RIGHT NOW in parts of Africa including Mauretania. Where'e the outrage? If you're top issue in life is the Confederate flag, you have an obsessive disorder.
Yankees loved slaves so much they sailed to Africa to buy them by the boatload.
Liars know when it's time to quit. When they keep lying after they've been pantsed, they either have a screw loose or are complete sociopaths.
But that's just my humble opinion.
But a last-minute deal brokered by black Democrats and white Republicans in the Senate,......
Told ya. RiNO's are like icebergs, they always melt and roll over.
Well, you apparently can see through BS, and would be better off believing those legislators - look for Jim Mackey's statement - who explicitly said it was intended as a defiant stand against integration.
A question for all who say it had nothing to do with the civil rights movement: if the '56 flag was just about honoring the centennial, as claimed, why where there 40+ ABSTENTIONS on the vote?
The answer to the question of motivation is easily discerned. Just look at the other actions of the 1956 General Assembly. Note how many of their actions were related to the upcoming centennial. And then note how many of their actions were direct and often offensive efforts to maintain legal segregation. Especially note that wonderful law that revoked the pension of any police officer who refused to enforce a segregation law.
Well, that's a reasonable POV and I understand where you want to be. But let's consider for a minute.
Assume arguendo that every last white man in the State of Georgia were a current, dues-paying member of the Klan. They aren't, of course, even in Forsyth County, but let's just assume they are.
Does that mean they haven't the right to vote? That they haven't the right to see whatever flag they like represent their State? That they haven't the right to expect that their representatives will be faithful servants and pass wise laws that respect the People's will? That they haven't the right to a referendum on the question they've put forward, because of who they are? That if they join the Klan, or evince Wrong Politics, they should lose their rights, and lose every issue, and lose their jobs (like former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore), and lose everything, always, because of who and what they are? Think about that.
Then there's the question of good faith, and of loyalty of the elected to the electors. We've often heard about the bane of "faithless electors" in the Electoral College: trendy political types want to abolish the Electoral College, the idea of a "faithless elector" is so baleful. So what do we say about a faithless elected official who goes back on a promise? Sonny Perdue is substantively and demonstrably going back on a key promise he made to voters, without which not.
What do you say about faithless, ideological public servants like e.g. Lowell Weicker of Connecticut, who rammed a state income tax down Connecticut voters' throats because it was his opinion that they needed to pay one, even after they told him not to do it? Do you extol their "courage" like Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg did, and present them with a Profiles in Courage [for Building Socialism] Award? Or do you throw them out of office, and even into prison, for faithlessness and malfeasance in office?
And what do you do with the trimmers who sell you out to their political friends, like Jack Brooks did his Ninth Texas Congressional District, when he let Bill Clinton's gun-control "anti-crime" legislation slip out of his committee, to be voted into law by Blue America's ideologues and fellow-travelers? What do you do with a governor who campaigned on a promise, and then made medicine with your enemies and sold you out, for the benefit of millionaires who, rather than call you fellow-citizen, couldn't care less if you fell off the planet -- and considering that you make more than starving wallahs in Bangladesh, would probably actually prefer that you did?
What do you do with people like that?
Just say, "oh, well, the other fellows are kinda unsavory, they aren't well-educated and they haven't proper table manners, so I guess I'll play along" with the class-prejudice that the RiNO's are projecting against them?
I suppose you are mostly right. That was the passion of the time. But the Confederate flag remains a symbol of the South, and why would you want to unmake it, if you're a Southerner? Because someone complained?
The Civil War era has passed away, too, but I don't see Southerners and ex-Southerners living in Ohio complaining about Unionist Civil War monuments in town squares and schools named after Garfield, Grant, and Lincoln, the way black pols and liberals are complaining about their Southern counterparts.
So what, to you, is the difference?
Put another way, why do you insist that the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism and slavery first and foremost, and that it should always be treated as such? Please signify to us.
Because it's the only argument they've got!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.