Intolerance and States Rights

[JMHX]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I return from South Carolina a changed man - a man with a cause that must be heard out by those of Newgrounds. As I drove through Columbia, the miniscule capitol of South Carolina, a restaraunt struck me with what I deemed to be shock advertising. Maurice Bessinger was his name, the owner of Maurice's BBQ, with huge billboards touting a huge sandwich and a Confederate battle flag. However, upon entry, I realized this was the way this man felt. I researched it the evening following, and came up with a lot of information that led to me writing a letter to Mr. Bessinger.

Mr. Bessinger claims that his flying of the Confederate battle flag below the S.C. state flag, with no evidence of the American flag, is a statement on the 10th Amendment -- state's rights -- which Strom Thurmond ran for president on the Dixiecrat platform to defend in 1948. He believes that the American flag on privately owned property expresses that the government owns all, and intrudes on private business, and that the Confederate flag is a symbol of "southern heritage". However, I do not see this the same was as he does.

I want to know what all of you think. Reserarch it a bit if it hits you. Is Mr. Bessinger right to display the Confederate flag atop a pole without any hint of the American flag? To sell shirts bearing the Confederate flag and the words "Defend our Republic" emblazoned on the backs? He's an idol to Carolinians, but it doesn't seem to extend far beyond that. Give me your thoughts.

[TheShrike]

I grew up in the south. Specifically, I'm from Mississippi.

And I'll admit that there was a time when I didn't think twice about the confederate flag. But I am no longer so naive.

I'm not for the abolishment of that flag, I don't think he's in the wrong for flying it. Saying he is wrong and that we should banish that banner from our culture is moronic, it's like trying to pretend the past didn't happen, which is stupid.

On the other hand, I certainly don't condone that flag, or what many believe it stands for. And I don't like it's use in public aside from historical purposes. I also believe it shouldn't be a part of any state flag. But as I said before, what he is doing isn't illegal, nor should it be. But that doesn't make it morally or ethically correct. Or ethnically correct.

It does not make him a criminal. It just makes him an asshole.

[Alejandro1]

I don't see what's wrong with him not flying the American flag; it is purely his choice whether or not to fly it. I have a problem with his flying the Confederate flag though. It doesn't matter what the Confederate flag used to mean, it's what it now refers to; slavery in the south. I guess it would be a similiar instance if I hung a swastika on my house and said it was for purity or whatever.

[JMHX]

The problem with the American flag is that Mr. Bessinger doesn't view himself -- or South Carolina, which seems to be the Columbia consensus -- as members of the United States of America. As foolish as it is to say about the whole thing, the Civil War is still a very sour subject down there. He's also entered a lawsuit against Wal-Mart, Food Lion, and Bi-Lo for ceasing carrying of his barbeque sauces based on his views towards America and the Confederacy.

[stafffighter]

Im tempted to go towards the old "the war ended, get over it." joke but the truth is that what that flag represents is a mockery of anything southern culture has to be proud of.

[JMHX]

At 6/22/03 03:40 AM, stafffighter wrote: Im tempted to go towards the old "the war ended, get over it." joke but the truth is that what that flag represents is a mockery of anything southern culture has to be proud of.

That's what I had initially put in my letter to him, which I choose not to put on here. Maybe some time later. But in the end I settled with "...and claiming the defense that the Confederate battle flag is the single defining emblem of Southern heritage is laughable for a man of enough intelligence to build a multimillion-dollar restaraunt chain."

[poxpower]

Let the old geezer have his way. He's one of those people who's mindset you just can't change I bet, right or wrong, he won't care, he must have his way. Starting some legal battles and sending letters can only feed his rage and his desire to fly the darned flag.
I say let him fly whicever Flag he wants, and deal with the commercial repercussions of his acts. If it works in that state, fine, if it doesn and people don't come to his chain, then too bad. He knows the risks.
He probably is using that whole "confederate mentality" thing in the South to seel more of his stuff, he doesn't want to start a war. Being too patriotic towards him will only cause problems, ignoring him will not cause trouble for anyone.

[Slizor]

I think it's just the same as flying the Nazi flag and I believe people should have the freedom to do it. What is the point in freedom of speech when you take away the freedom to offend?

[JMHX]

At 6/22/03 09:27 AM, Slizor wrote: I think it's just the same as flying the Nazi flag and I believe people should have the freedom to do it. What is the point in freedom of speech when you take away the freedom to offend?

Vulgarity is not protected speech. The Supreme Court has already said that the Confederate flag in the workplace, if you don't own the workplace like Mr. Bessinger, is against the law, as it is not protected as symbolic speech. Why, then, is it wrong for the working man and not the CEO?

[Commander-K25]

At 6/22/03 03:10 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Why, then, is it wrong for the working man and not the CEO?

Because the CEO owns the company. It is their property.

Why should he not be allowed to fly it? I don't have any strong feelings either way, but it's his choice. He could fly an Iraqi or North Korean flag for all I care.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

That really has nothing to do with State's rights. That is a matter of individual rights.

The State's right debate, specifically on flying the confederate flag, pertains mostly to flying the confederate flag on State property, perticularily at the State Senate, and Governer's office.

This man's individual right, to fly his flag, at his home, or commercial area, which is privatly owned, should be his decision to fly any flag he desires, and to abstain from flying any flag that he does not want to fly, or have any rider attached to his decision to fly his desired flag.

This is my belief. History does not matter to me, in the case of personal rights. Whether or not, a personal decision has historical backing, or can be considered offensive to other's, does not negate or justify that person's ability to execute that person's personal freedom. I only believe that expression, or ownership of an expressive object on private property, should be disallowed if it posses clear and present danger to others.

[TheTio]

Bah, he can do whatever he wants, it may suck, but thats freedom of speech

The flipside of this is that you dont have to pretend to like it, you can openly hate it, enjoy your wonderful freedom of speech and make something to piss others off, fly it on your lawn, then see if someone notices it and makes a forum about it

Like some elaborate combination of the 0 + / sign, with the peace sign, and George Bushes face snarling away in the background

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 6/23/03 02:06 AM, TheTio wrote:
Like some elaborate combination of the 0 + / sign,

I don't understand this reference, and could not find it on google search, please explain.

[JMHX]

I've yet to hear JimSween's opinion...that's what I was secretly waiting for.

[Jimsween]

Well, he has a right ot do that. I would rather he didnt but that would mean I wouldnt be able to call him an idiot. Although it does seem a little odd to me that he would replace it with the American flag because the reason that the confederacy became a country in the first place was to keep thier right to allow slavery and not only does that piss off a large portion of his buyers but it also disgraces the confederate flag. By not having the US flag above it it implies taht the confederacy is a country which would mean they are still to this day being ruled over by the Union and that thier culture is being overthrown by the "evil liberal menace". Where as if it is only a symbol of cultural pride it means that he just loves the south.

[JMHX]

Funny you should mention that, Jim. Mr. Bessinger thinks that the heritage of the South is being "slowly destroyed by the liberal Northern media and all of its supporters in thinking that the South does not have a right to believe as it pleases and to fly its heritage high and proud". It amazes me to this day how far the divide still runs over the Civil War. Sore losers, if you ask me.

(Side Note: All information can be obtained by doing a simple search of "Maurice Bessinger" on any major search engines, or by stopping by one of his restaraunts, where he has flyers, a book, and news clippings explaining his views to his customers.)

[Nirvana13666]

Many feel it is a racist symbol, a symbol of slavery. This is very understandable considering the facts associated with its origin. When the South seceded from the Union and the Civil War started slavery was the center issue of all of this, if not one of the biggest issues. Black people were treated as nothing more than property. They were by law not allowed to read, write, or even marry. If the South were to win the Civil War, black people were to remain slaves.

On the other hand, there is the issue of treason and sovereignty. Brother was fighting against brother. The events that led up to the Civil War and afterward did lead up to countless lives being lost and the breakup of families and thus a nation. Many people do believe that the flag should stay up because of the numerous lives, both black and white, lost. There is also the issue of the Native Americans. They were in support of the Confederacy not because of slavery, but because of the threat against their livelihood by the United States government, who also committed many racist atrocities.

There are many hate groups who use the flag for their own selfish reasons. Many of these include the Klan, whom are in fact former Confederate soldiers. What made it even worse was when the flag was put up on the Statehouse grounds in 1962 by segregationalists. To be fair, I don’t think all people whom support that flag as a part of their legacy and heritage are racists.

I don’t think it should be something put up on public property but I guess it is one’s right to be able to put it up on private property. I think that flag represents slavery being okay no matter how much history it may also hold.

Mr. Bessinger please take down that confederate flag...

[FUNKbrs]

Ooh, Ooh! I'm from the South! And guess what? I think he should be able to fly the "Stars and Bars" for as long as the rivers run under the hot Southern sun. I don't advocate slavery. However, there were lots of good things about the Confederacy that people try to hide with the slavery issue. The Civil War was the first act of Imperialism by America. Under the Constitution, the Southern states had every right to secede when they failed to be represented by their government. There was a great argument, I forgot by who, that compared the slave to the employee. You see, the slave-owner was MORALLY OBLIGED to give his slaves a decent standard of life. Now, there were plenty of IMMORAL SLAVEOWNERS that gave this practice a bad name. The basic idea was that no matter whether there was a good crop or not, the slave was entitled to clean living quarters, three meals a day, and the right to raise a family. This is no worse that feudal europe. The idea was chivalry, and the protection of the poor slave. Now, we compare this ideal to the share cropper. His employer could care less if he starved to death, lived in a shack, had shoes on his feet or tools to work his land. In the end, both systems horribly oppressed the field worker, and were outdated by modern machinery. If the South had won the civil war, slavery would still not exist today because of the invention of modern farming methods. Slavery was a dying convention even at the time of the War, and the South was highly influenced by the british (compare the Confederate and British flags, for instance), and it is quite likely that the British would have used trade sanctions with the south to put an end to slavery, as they had abolished it long before the Civil War. Now, has the US benefited from the actions of the North? Yes. Were the actions morally or constitutionally right? No. The South was oppressed, destroyed and economically set back all throught the Reconstruction Period, and this oppression was passed down to the black people, for whose sake the war was justified. They only gained the freedom to starve to death, be swindled, and continue to do the same things they had done all during slavery, only now they had no protectors. Which is why the majority of blacks are economically disadvantaged to this day. Because they were thrust into a cutthroat economy with no education, resources, or protection. This tragedy could only have been stopped by a slow outdating of slavery through political limitations, thus allowing black families to become acclimatized to the economy. And that was exactly the strategem obeyed by every president that preceded Lincoln. Instead, Lincoln plunged his country into a needless war based on his religious idealism, even though his views clearly conflicted with many parts of the Bible.

Now I realize many people disagree with this take on the civil war. However, it does take a lot of evidence to heart, and it does give a valid explanation for the current social state of the South and Black society in general. I am not a racist. However, poverty and social problems do run along family lines, lines that have carried on to this very day. I hope that one day Black society can recover from the actions of Lincoln, although they are well on their way.

[Nirvana13666]

I hate to debate against you Funk but here goes…

The slaves were savagely removed from their daily lives shoved on ships and forced to endure sever hardships on their trip to the states alone.

They were never given a choice or even the slightest explanation as to why they were treated this way. The only reason you have slaves is because you feel those people are inferior to you. The slaves endured personal humiliation always forced to “realize” that the color of there skin was an ultimate flaw and because of that society would always turn its back on them. A slave’s labor was not considered a form of work it was his duty and if it was not done they would suffer severely. Employees did not have to be separated from their families unless they chose it. Please Funk don’t ever compare slaves to employees because and employees has a choice. Even if he is faced with financial hardships and desperately needs the job he can at anytime walk away.

[FUNKbrs]

At 6/23/03 02:43 PM, Nirvana13666 wrote: I hate to debate against you Funk but here goes…

Hate to debate against me? Not debating against me would be a much bigger sin.

The slaves were savagely removed from their daily lives shoved on ships and forced to endure sever hardships on their trip to the states alone.

Ah, but this only happened during the early slave years. This practice was illegalized (too lazy to look up law). At the time of the Civil War all American slaves were American born. And besides, slaves were normally prisoners of war in Africa most of the time, not random kidnappings, it was considered more humane that mass executions, which are currently going on the the Congo.

They were never given a choice or even the slightest explanation as to why they were treated this way. The only reason you have slaves is because you feel those people are inferior to you.

No, a person owns slaves because they are paid for. To whit, the indentured servitude of Irish immigrants. People sold their freedom to come live in the New World. A slave has value to his owner, even though it is mainly monetary.

The slaves endured personal humiliation always forced to “realize” that the color of there skin was an ultimate flaw and because of that society would always turn its back on them. A slave’s labor was not considered a form of work it was his duty and if it was not done they would suffer severely.

A beaten slave cannot work. If you beat a man until he cannot walk, you have robbed yourself of the next day's work. Slave abuse was counter productive. Slaves were not cheap, and a mans ability to keep many slaves well cared for was a sign of nobility.

Employees did not have to be separated from their families unless they chose it. Please Funk don’t ever compare slaves to employees because and employees has a choice. Even if he is faced with financial hardships and desperately needs the job he can at anytime walk away.

Can he? If a man doesnt work, he doesnt eat. At this time in history there was no welfare, there were no soup kitchens. You worked, or you moved west and then you worked anyway. In America today it is possible to survive without a job, but in those days starvation was a very real possibility. In many situations (particularly textile factories in the north) a man worked for the company, lived in company housing (no cars, no spread out neighborhoods, living where you worked made much more sense), and ate his food at the company store. The company controlled all of his well being, but was not considered responsible for him. There was no OSHA at this point in US history.

[TheShrike]

Slaves weren't brought here under that flag. They came in under the english, american, spanish, etc. ad nauseum.

I still don't like that flag, though.

[JMHX]

Occasionally, Funk puts up a pretty good argument, and this one, although it mirrors Bessinger and Thurmond, is one I'm not going to touch because I simply don't want to involve myself in a DAG debate. Although, in the defense of the South, weren't most slaves sold to slave transporting services after being captures by members of opposing tribes in Africa? Or at least that's what my fuzzy memory says to me.

[Ted-Easton]

A slave's owner may very well have been "saving the slave" in a manner, by providing a roof, lodgings, food, etc. But regardless of which flag took the slaves, the Confederate flag and everything it stood for was the only one benefiting from this.
Harsher laws, many less freedoms, and even a great deal of persecution was the reward to the slaves for being torn away from their homes.

But the slave's owner was a constant thumb on the slaves, because they were never free. I don't mean in the way of having to work, or having to stay there, which are both very true and very terrible things, but I mean that, even if they were to leave, as you say, FUNK, they would starve, freedom is the choice of being able to say "I choose to starve."
The slaves were not only deprived of their homeland, their culture, and any rights, but the basic human right of free will was taken away from them as well.

All of this was, regardless of it's perpetrator, a benefit to the Confederate flag, a flag representing a community based on the suffering of others.
Another country may have taken the slaves, another country may have first enslaved them, but it is the responsibility of a nation, or even a group of people, to not only not be involved in the profiteering of other's suffering, but to put a stop to it.
By knowingly benefiting from it, the Confederacy is as guilty and as morally reprehensible as the slave traders, the ones who beat the slaves, the ones who raped and killed them, and every other link in the chain of opression.

It is an affront and a painful symbol to fly the flag which was based on such terrible ideals, and as much effort should be put today to tear down such a thing as was during the war. It was a symbol of the enemy then, and it is now. The only change is the enemy is no longer a confederation of states, it is a few lone individuals holding the ideals of enslavement and tyranny-regardless of it's guise.

[FUNKbrs]

At 6/23/03 10:29 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Harsher laws, many less freedoms, and even a great deal of persecution was the reward to the slaves for being torn away from their homes.

importation of slaves was illegalized. Therefore most slaves lived in the same place for all of their lives. So the "torn from their homes" argument doesnt really hold much water at this point in history, although I do admit that "bought" slaves faced this hardship. But either way, individual slaves grew up under this way of life, and it was normal to them. Also, my argument is not in defense of slavery, rather is a criticism of the callous way that liberation was carried out.

But the slave's owner was a constant thumb on the slaves, because they were never free. I don't mean in the way of having to work, or having to stay there, which are both very true and very terrible things, but I mean that, even if they were to leave, as you say, FUNK, they would starve, freedom is the choice of being able to say "I choose to starve."

Slaves under kind masters were fully capable of buyingn their freedom, in fact Frederick Douglas did this very thing. I do not defend slavery, I only regret the violent way its end was brought about. In time abolitionist men and women could have bought and rehabilitated the slaves as individuals, instead of releasing them en mass and helpless into an economy that is struggling from their very freedom.

The slaves were not only deprived of their homeland, their culture, and any rights, but the basic human right of free will was taken away from them as well.

All of this was, regardless of it's perpetrator, a benefit to the Confederate flag, a flag representing a community based on the suffering of others.
Another country may have taken the slaves, another country may have first enslaved them, but it is the responsibility of a nation, or even a group of people, to not only not be involved in the profiteering of other's suffering, but to put a stop to it.
By knowingly benefiting from it, the Confederacy is as guilty and as morally reprehensible as the slave traders, the ones who beat the slaves, the ones who raped and killed them, and every other link in the chain of opression.

the confederacy stood for much more than slavery. The confederacy stood for chivalry, the protection of the slave, who was considered an object of pity, not of revulsion at this time. Hatred for the black man began after the civil war. Before it they we considered to be like children. Was it stereotypical? Yes. Was it unjust? Yes. Did the liberation of the slaves into poverty and newfound hate help matters? No. Slavery was dying, all the civil war did was create hate, hate that continued well into the 1970's, long after slavery would have been deemed useless due to modern methods. The instant freedom of the slaves heaped 120 more years of oppression on a people who could have been model citizens in but 50.

It is an affront and a painful symbol to fly the flag which was based on such terrible ideals, and as much effort should be put today to tear down such a thing as was during the war. It was a symbol of the enemy then, and it is now. The only change is the enemy is no longer a confederation of states, it is a few lone individuals holding the ideals of enslavement and tyranny-regardless of it's guise.

The "stars and bars" represent the south. If the south has a history of slavery, this cannot be changed. Do you not fly the US flag that supported slavery as much as the confederacy for many years? do you not fly the Union jack because of the oppression of the nation of India? It is not the fault of a flag that these things happened, rather the flying of the confederate flag is an acknoledgement of these events, and if anything, a tribute to the mutability of wrong ideals and stereotypes, and the ability of a culture to change for the better.

[Ted-Easton]

I acknowledge you're not in defense of slavery, only a criticism.

It may indeed have been a callous way of liberation, but it is impossible to forsee the future, so this was certainly the best option of the time.
The union had the option of dealing with the problem in the way they did, or waiting and hoping it went away on it's own.

Had they done the latter, not only would they have been deemed cowards throughout history, but things could certainly have not solved themselves.
Slavery could continue to be a major source of income today.

In a more modern day comparison, the "prisoners" (citizens) of Iraq would have eventually gotten free of Saddam once he died, but it is our responsibility to do what we see best at the time, not to hope it goes away in the future.
I realize this is an unclear and unfinished comparison, but it is more accurate than most.

The confederate flag does stand for much more than slavery, but societally, it has become a symbol for it.
The swastika was once a peaceful symbol, even respected by other nations.
Now, you tatoo it on your forehead, you've got people trying to put you in jail left and right.
I realize the Confederacy's evils pale in comparison to Hitler's Germany, but it is best for everyone to wash themselves of the symbols of their former evils after they are recognized and renewed, and to not clutch at them as a shield against a government you don't agree with.

I would not urge people to tear down the Union Jack or the Stars & Stripes, because, besides the evils they have flown over, the flags stand for much more, and have flown over more good.
Throughout it's lifetime, the Union Jack has flown over slavery and opression, as well as over peace and freedoms. The country willingly gave up it's evils and recognized their mistakes.
As did the United States, by freely abolishing slavery.

The confederacy, however, held on to their slavery and opression until their dying days. I realize their death was brought about prematurely by the union, but the flag has flown mainly, if not only, over the opression and harsh treatment given to the black people.

Finally, there may have been unnecessary lasting gatred against the blacks, but unfortunately, it is clearly a better alternative at the time to release them from their bondage, than to let them suffer it, and again, hope the problem, solves itself.

I'm Ted Easton, CBC News, Baghdad.

[FUNKbrs]

At 6/24/03 11:29 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: I acknowledge you're not in defense of slavery, only a criticism.

It may indeed have been a callous way of liberation, but it is impossible to forsee the future, so this was certainly the best option of the time.
The union had the option of dealing with the problem in the way they did, or waiting and hoping it went away on it's own.

Had they done the latter, not only would they have been deemed cowards throughout history, but things could certainly have not solved themselves.
Slavery could continue to be a major source of income today.

No, they would would not have been deemed cowards, but diplomats, as the founding fathers who originally allowed slavery were. And furthermore, slavery was always along a slow path to abolition, and this slow path was best for the North, and the South, and the individual slave.

In a more modern day comparison, the "prisoners" (citizens) of Iraq would have eventually gotten free of Saddam once he died, but it is our responsibility to do what we see best at the time, not to hope it goes away in the future.
I realize this is an unclear and unfinished comparison, but it is more accurate than most.

and many people disagree with this action, and deem it an illegal war as with the Civil War. This war has created nothing but hatred and revulsion for the policies of the US, and created chaos in turmoil in Iraq. Neither the war in Iraq, which was clearly unjustified by the lack of WMD, nor the Civil War, which was clearly unjustified due to the Declaration of Independence were fully beneficial when weighed out ultimatly.

The confederate flag does stand for much more than slavery, but societally, it has become a symbol for it.
The swastika was once a peaceful symbol, even respected by other nations.
Now, you tatoo it on your forehead, you've got people trying to put you in jail left and right.
I realize the Confederacy's evils pale in comparison to Hitler's Germany, but it is best for everyone to wash themselves of the symbols of their former evils after they are recognized and renewed, and to not clutch at them as a shield against a government you don't agree with.

And it is a great injustice that prejudice has torn down these symbols. Irrational hate is not a positive thing, whether it be against a man or a symbol. Symbols represent history, and should not be thrown away and forgotten. Rather, they should be cherished and embraced, as they are proof of the enduring spirit of a culture, and it's ability to change for the better.

I would not urge people to tear down the Union Jack or the Stars & Stripes, because, besides the evils they have flown over, the flags stand for much more, and have flown over more good.
Throughout it's lifetime, the Union Jack has flown over slavery and opression, as well as over peace and freedoms. The country willingly gave up it's evils and recognized their mistakes.
As did the United States, by freely abolishing slavery.

The confederacy, however, held on to their slavery and opression until their dying days. I realize their death was brought about prematurely by the union, but the flag has flown mainly, if not only, over the opression and harsh treatment given to the black people.

but did it also fly over the defense of principal, and of law? did it not stand for the defense of a culture, and the protection of home and hearth? The south were not the aggressors in this war, and the confederacy was formed through diplomacy first, and not violence. It was the North who decided to enforce their rule, not the South, who only hoped to maintain peace. After all, in the Border Skirmishes, who first
brought the guns? Was it not the Beechers, hiding guns in Bibles? And hiding their murder behind Abolition?

Finally, there may have been unnecessary lasting gatred against the blacks, but unfortunately, it is clearly a better alternative at the time to release them from their bondage, than to let them suffer it, and again, hope the problem, solves itself.

It was not hope, but clear progress. slavery was already limited to the South only through the Mason-Dixon line, and it was not allowed to spread to the territories. And the importation of slaves was illegalized. And the advances in farming machinery that were slowly outdating manual labor, to whit, the cotton gin. Slavery was dying before the Civil War, and if anything the war gave evidence that it was a valid and stable system that needed to be overthrown, which it was not.

[Ted-Easton]

You've got me beat, FUNK. You're certainly more knowledgable on American history than I am, way up here in my igloo and all.
That's really very insightful. Thank you.

[bumcheekcity]

At 6/24/03 03:45 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: You've got me beat, FUNK. You're certainly more knowledgable on American history than I am, way up here in my igloo and all.
That's really very insightful. Thank you.

You got beaten in a debate bu FUNK *Stifled Laugh*

I mean... Good arguing, both of you. Very well thought out.

[Jimsween]

At 6/24/03 12:17 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: No, they would would not have been deemed cowards, but diplomats, as the founding fathers who originally allowed slavery were.

That was in a time where information was not as easily spread, but now the founding fathers are coming under more close scrutiny of thier actions (like jefferson and his "slave banging"

And furthermore, slavery was always along a slow path to abolition, and this slow path was best for the North, and the South, and the individual slave.

I'll agrea, a slow path most likely would have been better but no slow path happens on it's own. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing and if Lincoln stood by and let the south suceed it could have drastically changed history. There is quite alot of evidence against saying that the south would have eventually abolished slavery and rejoined the union. The south being very conservative and the north being very liberal (for thier time at least) would have made rejoining of the union very unlikely even after (if ever) slavery was abolished. Also, the south had very little economic strength without slavery. And there were still many countries who had no quarrel with trading with a slave state. And a very important thing to remember is taht the confeceracy would have been just that, a confederacy. This would mean that any changes in law would have been done by the state thus making total abolition of slavery even more likely because any of the pro slavery people would keep fleeing to slave states if new laws were made.

and many people disagree with this action, and deem it an illegal war as with the Civil War. This war has created nothing but hatred and revulsion for the policies of the US, and created chaos in turmoil in Iraq. Neither the war in Iraq, which was clearly unjustified by the lack of WMD, nor the Civil War, which was clearly unjustified due to the Declaration of Independence were fully beneficial when weighed out ultimatly.

I do belive they were both beneficial when weighed out fully, the old days when people could everthorw the government are fading fast. In fact I can't think of the of a coup that was in the past 50 years. This is because technology has furthered the gap between the strength of the already powerfull and the weak, and with the introdution of information spreading technology it makes it even more easy for the powerfull to brainwash the weak. So the only possible way for slavery to really have become abolished would have been for a large majority of the people (including the ones in power) to not want slavery anymore, and to assume this would happen on it's own is being very foolish because humans rarely agree on things without influence.

And it is a great injustice that prejudice has torn down these symbols. Irrational hate is not a positive thing, whether it be against a man or a symbol. Symbols represent history, and should not be thrown away and forgotten. Rather, they should be cherished and embraced, as they are proof of the enduring spirit of a culture, and it's ability to change for the better.

Than why is it he did not fly the American flag along with the confederate one? Doing that is just as much of an example of irrational hate than not allowing him to fly it.

but did it also fly over the defense of principal, and of law? did it not stand for the defense of a culture, and the protection of home and hearth? The south were not the aggressors in this war, and the confederacy was formed through diplomacy first, and not violence. It was the North who decided to enforce their rule, not the South, who only hoped to maintain peace. After all, in the Border Skirmishes, who first
brought the guns? Was it not the Beechers, hiding guns in Bibles? And hiding their murder behind Abolition?

You seem to be forgetting about Fort Sumter, even after Anderson offered to surrender you attacked. I do belive I need say any more.

It was not hope, but clear progress. slavery was already limited to the South only through the Mason-Dixon line, and it was not allowed to spread to the territories. And the importation of slaves was illegalized. And the advances in farming machinery that were slowly outdating manual labor, to whit, the cotton gin. Slavery was dying before the Civil War, and if anything the war gave evidence that it was a valid and stable system that needed to be overthrown, which it was not.

Slavery may have been dying under the union government, but under the confederacy there was no restrictions on slavery. And slavery may or may not have been dying, but hatred of blacks was not in any way dying down. If the south was allowed to succeed they would have had the perfect setup to allow countless atrocitites to be commited against the blacks. And possibly even genocide if it comes to there being no more use for the blacks because of farming techniques and since the south had high unemployment there would be many people reluctant to give up thier jobs. Eventually a war would have had to take place and the later in time it takes place the more bloodshed there would have been, which would only cause there to be more hate then we ever had from the civil war.

[Jimsween]

At 6/24/03 03:45 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: You've got me beat, FUNK. You're certainly more knowledgable on American history than I am, way up here in my igloo and all.
That's really very insightful. Thank you.

Dont worry teddy, I got your back. I take in the history channel like crack so when it comes to American history I'm an American history whore... What the hell am I talking about?