Virginia County secretly removes Confederate flag from official seal

The Daily Press, Hampton Roads, VA ^ | March 2, 2006 | Associated Press

[Rebeleye]

The removal of the Confederate flag from Amherst County's official seal has upset Southern heritage groups, who contend residents weren't told of the change. County officials acknowledge the image was quietly removed in August 2004 to avoid an uproar.

[Non-Sequitur]

Go find my original post and there's my answer.

What? Your "Had it not been for the North and oppressive "Reconstruction", the South would be a far different and better place today?" How am I supposed to get the cause of the rebellion out of that?

[Non-Sequitur]

The excerpts you posted look like something from one of Frank Epperson's web pages.

You are free to post whatever contemporary quotes that support your claims from whatever source you care to locate. I notice, however, that you can't seem to do that.

Cotton was king in the South and abolition would have destroyed the economies of the southern states. The North, as I said had a larger, population and a larger industrial base. They also had their own agricultural base and the South knew it.

Slavery was far more ingrained in southern society than for just agricultural labor. Many slaves, perhaps most did not see a cotton field in their life. They were domestic help and some skilled labor. Men like Thomas Jackson, owner of up to 10 slaves at one time, didn't use them for plantation help. They were maids and cooks and grooms and gardeners. Their economy didn't depend on slave labor, just their leisure.

The immorality of slavery was unquestionable, but it was economics, not just morality, along with the idea that the slave owning states had the legal right to secede that led to secession. Even on a page with an antislavery agenda this message comes through.

I went back and reread every one of those quotes and I don't see any belief in the immorality of slavery. I see men who are convinced that slavery is a necessary good for all the south, and who fully expect slavery to continue for generations. They weren't concerned with economics so much as their society, which was dependent of slavery and its role in defining the proper place for blacks in southern society. None of the men quoted thought slavery should be ended, and I'm not aware of a single southern leader who did.

The barrage on Ft. Sumter was to prevent the Federals from rearming and resupplying a position that dominated the waterway. The war had become inevitable by the time the cannon were fired, but slavery was only one issue. The barrage on Ft. Sumter was to prevent the Federals from rearming and resupplying a position that dominated the waterway. The war had become inevitable by the time the cannon were fired, but slavery was only one issue.

The garrison at Sumter did not take a single hostile action during the more than three months that they were there. On the contrary every hostile action taken was on the part of the southern forces. Lincoln made it clear that his intent was to land food and supplies only, and that men and munitions would be landed only if the resupply was opposed. The south could have had the status quo and pursued peaceful means. They chose not to.

[Non-Sequitur]

Secondly, as Justices Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy and Rehnquist noted in US Term Limits, Inc., et al. v Thorton et al. noted above, there is no provision for the people en masse of the "United" States (plural) to act - ever.

Chief Justice Marshall disagrees with that opinion.

[brazzaville]

Good evening.

So, Non, was that Epperson's work? From Causes of the Civil War? Is it not true that slavery is the focus of the page and that anything else is excluded? Of course it is. Slavery as the reason for the war is the point you are trying to make.

It's true that you may post what you choose or, conversely, not post if you choose, within the rules that JimRob sets.

So, letting you know that I have read the same stuff that you have doesn't fill the bill and my arguments don't fit your view of reality. It's clear that I could bring Abe Lincoln on board to explain the facts and you would disagree. That's your right.

You may have noticed that I haven't cited many sources in the 7 or 4 eight years I've been enjoying this place That's my right. Prove me wrong with something that doesn't have an agenda or that isn't just your opinion. If that doesn't work for you, just ignore me. You won't lose a thing and I know I won't, apart from some entertainment.

I'm curious about one thing though. Did you assume the name non-sequitur because of the cartoon or because you identified with the definition in the dictionary? What was it? I think it had something to do with not fitting with the available evidence, or not being confirmed by the facts. That's a strange choice for someone who wants to argue on a forum on the Web.

Before I leave for the night, I believe it was you who denied that what I said about the North having a larger population and that a larger industrial base was part of the problem, I apologize if it wasn't you.

Any way, go to the 1860 census and look at the numbers. I would do it for you, but I just can't seem to do that. There were, what, about 31 million people in the US at the time and more than 21 million of them lived in what would remain Union.

While you are being industrious, look up when and where the slaves were emancipated. Just so you know what to look for, in 1862 slaves in states controlled by the Confederacy were freed. The slaves in Maryland, Kentucky and other areas that allowed slavery but were generally under the control of the Federals did not get to be free yet.

"The south could have had the status quo and pursued peaceful means. They chose not to."

Are you sure you are not a DemocRAT? Just give in to us and everything will be fine. That sounds much like the RATs and the antiwar movement. I'm done for the night, but I'll check in in the morning. G'night, all.

Michael Frazier

[Non-Sequitur]

Is it not true that slavery is the focus of the page and that anything else is excluded? Of course it is. Slavery as the reason for the war is the point you are trying to make.

Again, you are free to post quotes showing that slavery was not the single most important reason for the rebellion. Why won't you?

You may have noticed that I haven't cited many sources in the 7 or 4 eight years I've been enjoying this place That's my right. Prove me wrong with something that doesn't have an agenda or that isn't just your opinion. If that doesn't work for you, just ignore me. You won't lose a thing and I know I won't, apart from some entertainment.

Actually I don't recall reading any of you past posts. So for my benefit please cite some of those sources again. The unbiased ones, of course.

While you are being industrious, look up when and where the slaves were emancipated. Just so you know what to look for, in 1862 slaves in states controlled by the Confederacy were freed. The slaves in Maryland, Kentucky and other areas that allowed slavery but were generally under the control of the Federals did not get to be free yet.

Not entirely true. Slavery was ended in the District of Columbia in April 1862 because constitutionally Congress had the power to do so. Slavery could not legally be ended in those states not in rebellion because the President and the Congress lacked the authority to do so. In a strict legal sense, the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the southern states as well, it merely freed all slaves held there on the grounds that they were used to support the rebellion. It took an amendment to end slavery, North and south, and Lincoln pushed hard to have it adopted.

Are you sure you are not a DemocRAT? Just give in to us and everything will be fine. That sounds much like the RATs and the antiwar movement.

Aren't you parroting the Democrat line then? All Anderson had to do was surrender. Just give in, and everything would be fine and dandy. Nice and peaceful and, by your definition, very Democrat. But there was no reason why Anderson should have left Sumter. It was his post, he was an officer in the U.S. Army defending a U.S. fort in a U.S. city. He had every right to be there, and Lincoln was well within his authority to send him supplies and prevent him from being starved into submission.

[capitalist229]

Slavery ended over 140 years ago. Get over it.

You couldn't convince liberals of this fact. Their plantation is bigger than ever.

Of course there are many shades of slavery. Many say we have mastered technology only to become its slave. YMMV.

BUMP

[RushLake]

Meanwhile, attendees at Farrakhan rallies can be watched over by the fruits of islam while they wave the black seperatist black, red, and green rags.

[Gianni]

Hamilton's desire for unconditional and eternal entry into a Constitutional union was defeated in the New York convention. He left the matter with tail tucked between his legs, and his humiliation was backed by Madison, who stated that nothing in the New York and Virginia ratification documents was contrary to the Constitution itself.

That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness;

Were it only that you shared his graciousness in defeat.

[Gianni]

South Carolina elected an independent body, in accords with that which was created to ratify the constitution. That body chose to revoke ratification and take their state out of the Union.

New York elected a body of electors, which chose to go to a national convention and cast their votes for John Kerry, in an attempt to lead the nation away from it's constitutional foundation.

Both acted within the bounds of the Constitution as understood in their time.

You should raise an army and go take care of the problem.

[Gianni]

Hamilton's later writing in the Essay on the National Bank greatly expands the concept of permissable federal powers and Washington agreed as did the Congress. There clearly are powers which are not specified such as the power to guard the borders (not mentioned) or the power to purchase Louisiana. Almost anything can be tied to the exercise of the specific powers mentioned which makes this a much greater grant than you are willing to acknowledge. And all the Founders (and Jefferson) agreed there were implied powers.

What you're talking about is a silent coup and is in no way a conservative position.

The remainder of the post is just semantic acrobatics. Independence was won, and recognized, as individual states.

[Gianni]

When the people ratified it, it was in their role as citizens of the United States acting within the borders of Virginia. Where else should they have voted?

Nice catch-22. Citizens of the US ratifying the instrument which created same, which would result in a bloody war that ultimately creates something called "citizen of the US" 80 years later.

[Gianni]

[Gianni] they are on equal footing, unless you can demonstrate that the Constitution says otherwise

[Non] No, they are entitled to all the rights and subject to the same restrictions as the other states. And the original 13 states accepted the same restrictions as those state being admitted later.

Nice. Say "no" as if you disagree, then re-post what I just said.

OK, you win.... I'm right.

[Gianni]

Lincoln made it clear that his intent was to land food and supplies only, and that men and munitions would be landed only if the resupply was opposed.

A flat lie.

[Gianni]

Lincoln was well within his authority to send him supplies and prevent him from being starved into submission

Another flat lie. You're on a roll, Non.

[Non-Sequitur]

OK, you win.... I'm right.

Hardly.

[Non-Sequitur]

A flat lie.

Nonsense. Lincoln stated as such in his message to Governor Pickens. "I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort."

[Non-Sequitur]

Another flat lie. You're on a roll, Non.

You're free with that term and, judging from statements you make in your own posts, I doubt you understand its meaning. So tell me why Lincoln, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army, could not order the resupply of Sumter? This should be good.

[stand watie]

well, perhaps your right, except that those who brag about their IQ seldom are smarter than the average rock.

i think a small pebble is smarter than your posts indicate.

PITY.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

raising his arm is about the limit of "justshutupandtakeit"'s ability, based solely on his/her posts.

one wonders how someone so clueLESS "stumbled on to FRee Republic"?????

free dixie,sw

[justshutupandtakeit]

I am almost convinced to switch to the side of your reactionary moron brigade all it will take is a few more spleenic bursts of insult and fanaticism from you. You are capable of this I am sure.