Confederate Battle Flag
Susan Luger
Show Your Colors Proudly
The Confederate Battle Flag, fated never to prevail, must and will yet
endure, come censors, compromisers, hell or high water. The Supreme Court
has ruled that display of a flag, or burning of a flag, is a form of
political speech which is protected by the First Amendment; thus laws
against flag burning are an unconstitutional form of censorship and so
would be a law banning display of this or any other flag.
This bloody but unbowed symbol means many things to different people. To
patriotic Southerners proud of their heritage, it signifies admiration for
the gallant struggle of Southern fighting men to achieve independence,
which they consider the birthright of all people everywhere. It is a
reminder of the debt of gratitude owed to those who died to defend their
homes and families against overwhelming odds, and sorrow at the failure of
the Lost Cause.
To many practical-minded people with little interest in historical events
prior to the last election, the Battle Flag is a reminder of a great
national trauma that should best be forgotten in the interest of addressing
current problems. Too many mealy-mouthed Southern politicians are among
their number.
To various NAACP leaders, it is the embodiment of the secessionist ideal:
it is divisive, non-inclusive and reprehensible. To Senator Carol
Moseley-Braun it signifies the most painful episode in American history and
causes her to suffer the indignity of being reminded of slavery. Senator
Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) said renewal of the United Daughters of the
Confederacy patent would be throwing a bone to the old South. (During World
War II when the Confederate Battle Flag flew over a thousand foxholes from
Guadalcanal to Anzio and back to Tarawa, Senator Bradley wasn't there.)
Reverend William Avon King of the SCLC said it reminds him of separation
and reminds whites of the good old days when blacks were slaves.
To the Ku Klux Klan and to Nazi skinheads the flag represents hatred,
bigotry and racism, but so does the cross, a symbol common to the Ku Klux
Klan and the Christian Church. The Battle Flag did not become a favorite
symbol of the Klan until recent times. In the 1920s when the Klan paraded
down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., it was the United States flag
and not the Confederate Battle Flag that led the way.
We agree that Confederate symbols can be painful reminders of a tragic past
to some sensitive African Americans, but the Confederacy and the Civil War
are a part of their past as well as ours and cannot be erased by banning
flags or tearing pages out of history books. The picture of Abraham Lincoln
on a five-dollar bill evokes painful memories in many Southern whites. He
is as great a scourge to us as Attila the Hun. As he stated in his first
inaugural address he did not intend to interfere with slavery where it
existed. He chose to fight a war rather than let the South go to maintain
Northern hegemony over the entire country, control expansion to the west,
hold onto lucrative Southern markets behind tariff walls and control the
outlet for commerce at the mouth of the Mississippi River. His decision
cost the cream of Southern manhood for a generation, destroyed the major
Southern cities and economy, and condemned generations of black and white
Southerners to poverty, ignorance, disease, malnutrition, bigotry and hate.
That he did not intend these
consequences was no help to the sufferers.
An unintended consequence of Mr. Lincoln's war was the end of slavery, but
as he himself maintained, it was doomed already. Cotton culture exhausts
the soil in a generation or two. By 1861, cotton farming had shifted from
Virginia to new lands to the south and west, where it exists today only
through the use of modern technology. Slavery has come and gone in all
societies, but only in the United States has the change come as the result
of a war. Confederate symbols are divisive, but what isn't? Nothing we ever
do will satisfy those who make a career of exploiting their status as
victims. Confederate symbols offend some as do taxpayer-funded abortions,
or sleeping in military barracks next to avowed homosexuals. It is the
nature of democracy that a minority are offended, if that is necessary, in
order to obey the will of the majority. We advocate states' rights and
local self-government, so the people of each state can adopt whatever
symbols they like, and those who disagree can move to some state whose
symbols appeal to them.
And to those who say recognizing Confederate symbols is throwing a bone to
the old South, we remind you that when Prometheus was chained to the rock
it was the vultures, not the eagles, which came to tear at his entrails.
Southern Defense Initiative Corporation
http://www.counterattack.com
Al Ridemfi
> From Gail Thaler <scri...@best.com>
> Organization Union of Lying Socialist Weasels
> Date Thu, 10 Jul 1997 07:05:55 -0700
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Big Oh wrote:
> >
> > In article <33C3A2...@best.com>, scri...@best.com wrote:
> >
> > =| Douglas K Long wrote:
> > =| >
> > =| > woof (wo...@woofwoof.com) wrote:
> > =| > : In article <5pn27u$1...@news.uta.edu>, DKL...@utarlg.uta.edu (Douglas K
> > =| > : Long) wrote:
> > =| >
> > =| > : > The Confederate battle flag isn't a symbol of racism,
> > =| > : > except to those who want to view it that way.
> > =| >
> > =| > : Namely, everyone except for blatant racists.
> > =| >
> > =| > Maybe you could expound on your claim that the Confederate
> > =| > battle flag is a symbol of racism. That might be interesting
> > =| > and possibly a bit less infantile.
> > =| >
> > =|
> > =| As I made the original statement, I will expound.
> > =|
> > =| I said the Confederate flag being part of the state of
> > =| Misssissippi's flag (by the way, when did it become part
> > =| of the state flag?) might be perceived by African-Americans
> > =| there as racist.
> > =|
> > =| They might also perceive it as white-supremacist.
> > =|
> > =| Do you agree that some have this perception?
> >
> > In a free country people may perceive whatever they want to.
> >
> > Some people might even take strong offense to what they perceive or
> > actually even see.
> >
> > But individual rights do not include the right never to be offended. If
> > banning the Confederate flag is justified because it offends some, then
> > banning porn is also justified because it offends some.
> No one is talking about banning the Confederate flag.
Oh no? Check with George Pataki, NY Governor, and liberal Republican.
He had that state flag *removed* from the NY Statehouse in Albany
where all 50 state flags fly, because it incorporated the "Stars
and Bars". So now, there are *only* 49 states in the Union,
according to the display in the NY state capital.
Ahh, the price of political correctness.
William Barwell
In article <33C7A7...@ibmm.net>, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibmm.net> wrote:
>> From Gail Thaler <scri...@best.com>
>> Organization Union of Lying Socialist Weasels
>> Date Thu, 10 Jul 1997 07:05:55 -0700
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Big Oh wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <33C3A2...@best.com>, scri...@best.com wrote:
>> >
>> > =| Douglas K Long wrote:
>> > =| >
>> > =| >
>> > =| > : > except to those who want to view it that way.
>> > =| >
>> > =| >
>> > =|
>> > =| As I made the original statement, I will expound.
>> > =|
>> > =| I said the Confederate flag being part of the state of
>> > =| Misssissippi's flag (by the way, when did it become part
>> > =| of the state flag?) might be perceived by African-Americans
>> > =| there as racist.
>> > =|
>> > =| They might also perceive it as white-supremacist.
>> > =|
****************** Deleted ******************
>
>Oh no? Check with George Pataki, NY Governor, and liberal Republican.
>
>He had that state flag *removed* from the NY Statehouse in Albany
>where all 50 state flags fly, because it incorporated the "Stars
>and Bars". So now, there are *only* 49 states in the Union,
>according to the display in the NY state capital.
>
>Ahh, the price of political correctness.
Political correctness conservative style. Making the Confedreate Battle
flag part of the Mississippi state flag in response to the mandating of
civil rights in Mississippi and the final Federally mandated end of Jim
Crow racism in Mississippi.
The flag was added to the official Mississippi state flag in a fit of
sneering racist defiance when told they could no longer treat blacks as
official second class citizens.
Amazing, Mississippi and various Southern racists still make lame
applogisms for this maggot gagging little swipe at civilization, and find
numerous thoughtless excuse purveyors for this disgusting state sanctioned
pro-racist propaganda and blatant segregationist symbolism.
This Conferderate battle flag was added to the official state flag at the
heighth of the implementation of true civil rights for all in the South,
and the end of state mandated Jim Crow segregationists and racist
policies. It was done to make a statement on behalf of racism.
Political correctness racist style.
To get rid of this arrogant and purposeful symbol of naked
segregationist and racist true believers is not "political correctness".
It is simply removing a hangover from a discredited era and
a purposeful slap in the face of American ideals by sneering racists.
This symbol is Un-American in origin and intent.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Bill Anderson
> > No one is talking about banning the Confederate flag.
>
> Oh no? Check with George Pataki, NY Governor, and liberal Republican.
>
> He had that state flag *removed* from the NY Statehouse in Albany
> where all 50 state flags fly, because it incorporated the "Stars
> and Bars". So now, there are *only* 49 states in the Union,
> according to the display in the NY state capital.
Oh, I see. So Pataki's action means that no New Yorker is allowed to fly
the Confederate flag (it's not the Stars and Bars, by the way)? He actually
banned it? Wow. You'd think that would have made news...
Bill
To send email, delete "dont_bother" from my address.
"In the bowels of Christ, I beseech you; bethink yourself
that you may be wrong." --Oliver Cromwell
George Mimbs
phil...@atl.mindspring.com (Bill Anderson) wrote:
>In article <33C7A7...@ibmm.net>, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibmm.net> wrote:
>
>> > No one is talking about banning the Confederate flag.
>>
>> Oh no? Check with George Pataki, NY Governor, and liberal Republican.
>>
>> He had that state flag *removed* from the NY Statehouse in Albany
>> where all 50 state flags fly, because it incorporated the "Stars
>> and Bars". So now, there are *only* 49 states in the Union,
>> according to the display in the NY state capital.
>
>Bill
>
>To send email, delete "dont_bother" from my address.
>
>"In the bowels of Christ, I beseech you; bethink yourself
> that you may be wrong." --Oliver Cromwell
Well, I think that if Governor Pataki really wanted to ban all
"racist" symbols on state flags...he would have banned the Florida
flag (red "x" from corner to corner just like the Confederacy Battle
Flag)...the Georgia flag (actual battle flag on left side)...North
Carolina (design resembles the Stars & Bars (not battle flag)...let's
see now...how many states does that leave?????
Seems to me that anybody who thinks that a flag is racist
should notice these little things...
Gail Thaler
JURIST wrote:
>
> Lincoln made the war about racism. It was originally about state's rights.
No, it wasn't. The Southern states vehemntly argued
against States' Rights when the abolotionists tried
to use that argument. Also, do a DejaNews check on
this thread and read the statements of secession
by various states, where slavery was prominently
mentioned.
Southern states also wanted to EXPAND slavery to
states and territories that did not want it; they
weren't too concerned with states' rights there,
were they?
> The flag's symbolism is of states rights and independence from the
> oppression of the federal government.
And they're wrong. When the original states verified
the Constitution--necessary because the Confederacy
failed), they recognized the supremacy of the national
government. That was the whole point. And many states
did not add the Confederate Battle flag until the
50s. It was adopted specifically to announce the state
was officially white supremacist and anti-integration.
View it as a reminder that Americans
> remember and always will what the federal government did to hundreds of
> thousands of Americans in the civil war.
Yes. We won and you lost. Slavery was abolished.
Get over it.
Bob Lawrence
Nonsense-the war was fought over slavery-go and read the articles of secession
issued by each of the seceding States(I posted excerpts from several of them
here last week) Everyone of them affirms that they are seceding over the issue
of slavery. It is interesting that before and during the war they proudly and
loudly told anyone who would listen that the issue was slavery-specifially the
North's refusal to enforce the "Fugitive Slave Act" and the North's attempt to
limit the spread of slavery into the territories(an attempt that was killed by
"Dred Scott". This nonsense about "states rights" and the whole "lost cause"
myth only came about after the war as the South realized that world opinion was
inexorably against slavery-accordingly the revisionist stepped in.
You contention that the federal Govt and lincoln was somehow responsible for
this war is nonsense also. Six States had already seceded when Lincoln was sworn
in. Kind of hard to blame him for something that occurred before he was in
office, isn't it? In add tion the first shot was fired by the South in a
successful attempt to keep the North from supplying Ft Sumpter.
If you want to see the real culprits in the Confederate flag becoming a symbol
of racism you need look no further than the Southern legislatures in the late
1950s early 1960s. You see the State flags that incorporated the confederate
flag in them are not the noble symbols of times past that had flown over their
capitols for generations as you would have us believe. These flags were adopted
during the height of the civil rights movement.
Finally in an attempt to save from bandwidth i should also point out that one
must make a distinction between the cause of the war and why men fought in the
war. The fact that the war was over slavery does not automatically make all
those who fought for the South racists nor all those who fought for the North
saints. There were good and bad men on both sides.
"JURIST" <JUR...@prodigy.net> wrote:
<>Lincoln made the war about racism. It was originally about state's rights.
<>The flag's symbolism is of states rights and independence from the
<>oppression of the federal government. View it as a reminder that Americans
<>remember and always will what the federal government did to hundreds of
<>thousands of Americans in the civil war.
Robert Lawrence
lawr...@arthes.com
Bill Anderson
In article <01bc8f58$09245000$48c648a6@preinstalledcom>, "JURIST"
<JUR...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> Lincoln made the war about racism. It was originally about state's rights.
> The flag's symbolism is of states rights and independence from the
> oppression of the federal government. View it as a reminder that Americans
> remember and always will what the federal government did to hundreds of
> thousands of Americans in the civil war.
This is true; it was about state's rights. In fact, it was largely about
the rights of the states to enslave dark-colored human beings.
Do you feel that the states should have that right, Jurist?
Mary E Knadler
In <33cfe70e...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>
volt...@worldnet.att.net (Jim Kennemur) writes:
>On 13 Jul 1997 06:36:58 GMT, "JURIST" <JUR...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>Lincoln made the war about racism. It was originally about state's
rights.
>>The flag's symbolism is of states rights and independence from the
>>oppression of the federal government. View it as a reminder that
Americans
>>remember and always will what the federal government did to hundreds
of
>>thousands of Americans in the civil war.
>
>View it as a reminder of how the crypto-racist today try to hide their
>bigotry and stupidity behind newly whipped up historical analysis.
>
>A true Jurist would be aware of both history and law not the latest
>propaganda from Tom Metzger and David Duke.
>
> Jim
>
No one who views the "Battle Flag" as a symbol of honouring their
ancesters who died in battle wish the flag to be used by hate groups
such as skin-heads or the KKK. Also I cannot see how any neo-Nazi
groups would want to use that flag. It has nothing whatsoever to do
with Nazis. period. yasmin2
John Parker
On Sun, 13 Jul 1997 06:23:09 -0700, Gail Thaler <ga...@ricochet.net>
wrote:
>And they're wrong. When the original states verified
>the Constitution--necessary because the Confederacy
>failed), they recognized the supremacy of the national
>government. That was the whole point. And many states
>did not add the Confederate Battle flag until the
>50s. It was adopted specifically to announce the state
>was officially white supremacist and anti-integration.
>
Gail, any student of the Constitution knows that the federal gvt's
"supremacy' lies only and narrowly in the area defined as such in the
Constitution, and the issue of states rights, today, as in before the
Civil War, is nothing more than the definition of what encompasses
those areas. There are, as clearly stated in the Constitution, areas
that the states power is intended to reign supreme over the feds.
Unfortunately, you are correct in that today the meaning of the
confederacy and most of it's symbols have been corrupted to identify
it's worst element. Again, unfortunately, this has served to vilify
the entire confederate agenda, and cannonize everything that was in
opposition to it. There was much about the North's desire to contain
the rebellion that was far from that ideal, and indeed the issue of
states sovereignty, which was in fact the primary cause of the war
that did not deserve the vilification. For one thing, I find it
absolutely impossible to imagine the concept of the thousands of men
who fought, suffered, and died under the banner having done so merely
in order to preserve the slavery system for which they had no access
to nor benefit from.
To respond in a logical manner to your illogical posting is
not logical, but it is great fun to add to your obvious
confusion. Remove the $ from my email address.
-John Parker
Milt
On Sun, 13 Jul 1997, John Parker wrote:
:On Sun, 13 Jul 1997 06:23:09 -0700, Gail Thaler <ga...@ricochet.net>
:wrote:
:
:>And they're wrong. When the original states verified
:>the Constitution--necessary because the Confederacy
:>failed), they recognized the supremacy of the national
:>government. That was the whole point. And many states
:>did not add the Confederate Battle flag until the
:>50s. It was adopted specifically to announce the state
:>was officially white supremacist and anti-integration.
:>
:
:Gail, any student of the Constitution knows that the federal gvt's
:"supremacy' lies only and narrowly in the area defined as such in the
:Constitution, and the issue of states rights, today, as in before the
:Civil War, is nothing more than the definition of what encompasses
:those areas. There are, as clearly stated in the Constitution, areas
:that the states power is intended to reign supreme over the feds.
Yes, there are. And were. And the fact is, before the Civil War, there
were just about no states right issues, except slavery. The feds took very
little in taxes; the Supreme Court refused to grant anything but very
narrow standards for federal power. That didn't change until the 14th
amendment was taken seriously in the late 19th century. In other words,
although many people are of the opinion that this was a "states rights"
issue, the only states rights problem at the time was slavery. As a matter
of fact, two states that actually had some states rights issues besides
slavery, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, didn't join the Confederacy, and in
fact fought for the union. (Two other states also had a few states rights
issues-- Rhode Island and Vermont-- but it would have been difficult to
join the Confederacy...)
:Unfortunately, you are correct in that today the meaning of
the :confederacy and most of it's symbols have been corrupted to identify
:it's worst element. Again, unfortunately, this has served to vilify
:the entire confederate agenda, and cannonize everything that was in
:opposition to it.
Why don't you enlighten us as to specific issues other than slavery that
cause them to secede. I know people who have studied this their entire
lives that swear that the issue was slavery. The "states' rights" issue
was whether the federal government had the power to stop slavery against
the states wishes...
:There was much about the North's desire to contain
:the rebellion that was far from that ideal, and indeed the issue of
:states sovereignty, which was in fact the primary cause of the war
:that did not deserve the vilification.
I agree with the first part. Suspension of Habaes Corpus was troubling.
But on the second point, again; tell us about these alleged states rights
issues...
:For one thing, I find it
:absolutely impossible to imagine the concept of the thousands of men
:who fought, suffered, and died under the banner having done so merely
:in order to preserve the slavery system for which they had no access
:to nor benefit from.
:
Oh, really? Then maybe you can explain the motivation of the people who
bought into the Nazi and Soviet propaganda. You don't have to imagine it,
Parker. Think of it this way; if you're a menial laborer in the South, and
barely making it, and you're suddenly confronted with the prospect of
millions of new workers joining the economy, wouldn't you bristle at that?
And considering the attitude that most Southerners had for the next 100
years after slavery was abolished, and many still carry to this day, why
is this so hard to believe?
--Milt
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
"We are taught to believe that there's an invisible man, who lives in the
sky, who has a list of ten things he doesn't want you to do, who watches
you every minute, and if you do something he doesn't like, you're going to
burn forever. YET HE LOVES YOU!"
--George Carlin, on Politically Incorect, May 29, 1997
jer...@creighton.edu
I love the selfishness of this post. The states that have the
controversial flag have white and black populations. You think the black
populations of these states really give a rats ass about the 'proud
southern heritage'? Just because some whites have a thing for the flag
does not mean it should be placed on a flag that is the symbol of the
population of the state.
The flag means racism to blacks. period. Who is to argue which
interpretation of the symbol is correct. The Scotts burned a cross at the
end of an historical battle, and a burning cross symbolizes national pride
for them. To all americans of non-scottish descent it means racism. The
fact is blacks are justified in thier view of the flag.
Lets get down to the heart of the matter. Whites in some states dont care
what blacks think. They do not care that the south enslaved them. THis
is a fact. Everyone agrees that the south had blacks slaves. One of the
reasons the south fought the north was over the issue of slaver. Southern
states believed they had the right to enslave blacks and that the federal
government did not have the authortiy to outlaw slavery. I think peace
between the races is more important than some god damn old flag. Real
politicians, being the helmsmen of society, would know this.
Milt
On 13 Jul 1997, Mary E Knadler wrote:
:In <33cfe70e...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>
:volt...@worldnet.att.net (Jim Kennemur) writes:
:>
:>On 13 Jul 1997 06:36:58 GMT, "JURIST" <JUR...@prodigy.net> wrote:
:>
:>>Lincoln made the war about racism. It was originally about state's
:rights.
:>>The flag's symbolism is of states rights and independence from the
:>>oppression of the federal government. View it as a reminder that
:Americans
:>>remember and always will what the federal government did to hundreds
:of
:>>thousands of Americans in the civil war.
:>>Jur...@prodigy.net
:>
:>View it as a reminder of how the crypto-racist today try to hide their
:>bigotry and stupidity behind newly whipped up historical analysis.
:>
:>A true Jurist would be aware of both history and law not the latest
:>propaganda from Tom Metzger and David Duke.
:>
:> Jim
:>
:
:
:No one who views the "Battle Flag" as a symbol of honouring their
:ancesters who died in battle wish the flag to be used by hate groups
:such as skin-heads or the KKK. Also I cannot see how any neo-Nazi
:groups would want to use that flag. It has nothing whatsoever to do
:with Nazis. period. yasmin2
:
Historically, you're right. But a flag that symbolizes the attempted split
of the US into two pieces, simply so they could keep people with darker
skin pigmentation enslaved forever; what Nazi in his right mind would
object, mary?
Always remember why those "brave men" fought and died, mary. They died so
that they could keep millions of other humans in bondage for as long as
they could. That's not a noble cause...
George Mimbs
volt...@worldnet.att.net (Jim Kennemur) wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jul 1997 01:02:21 GMT, gmi...@hom.net (George Mimbs) wrote:
>
>>phil...@atl.mindspring.com (Bill Anderson) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <33C7A7...@ibmm.net>, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibmm.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > No one is talking about banning the Confederate flag.
>>>>
>>>> Oh no? Check with George Pataki, NY Governor, and liberal Republican.
>>>>
>>>> He had that state flag *removed* from the NY Statehouse in Albany
>>>> where all 50 state flags fly, because it incorporated the "Stars
>>>> and Bars". So now, there are *only* 49 states in the Union,
>>>> according to the display in the NY state capital.
>>>
>>>Bill
>
>> Well, I think that if Governor Pataki really wanted to ban all
>>"racist" symbols on state flags...he would have banned the Florida
>>flag (red "x" from corner to corner just like the Confederacy Battle
>>Flag)...the Georgia flag (actual battle flag on left side)...North
>>Carolina (design resembles the Stars & Bars (not battle flag)...let's
>>see now...how many states does that leave?????
>
>We will help you do the math if it is too difficult.
>
>50 - 3 = 47.
>
>See. That wasn't so hard.
>
>>Seems to me that anybody who thinks that a flag is racist
>>should notice these little things...
>
>I'm so glad you brought this up. First of all you left out
>Mississippi.
>
>Secondly, every state you mentioned was a member of the Confederacy.
>Every state you mentioned fought the civil rights movement tooth and
>nail. And in every state you mentioned the gap between the races is
>still very wide.
>
>But there is no racism involved, right, Mr. Mimbs?
>
> Jim
>
>
>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1638/
>
>========================================================================
Sir...
Regarding the Confederate battle flag, if you believe that it
has become a racist symbol...then you must also believe that the Stars
and Stripes includes racism...because during the civil rights
struggle, and beyond, subtle racism was the norm in such areas as
Boston, Detroit, etc.
"Defacto" segregation, I believe it was called...and I also
point out that there were some very upset people all thru the
non-Confederacy areas of the country when the courts began to require
children to ride the bus to balance school populations by race.
The "holier-than-thou" attitude of Northerners towards the
South is based on hypocricy regarding integration and race relations.
The only reason people make such a big fuss about the Stars & Bars is
that they are trying to assuage their guilty feelings caused by years
and years of indoctrination.
I do not own slaves...my parents did not own slaves...my
grandparents did not own slaves...my great-grandparents did not own
slaves. There is no guilt in my mind concerning slavery...had the
Confederacy won its struggle for independence, the institution of
slavery could not have lasted for more than another couple of
generations before being done away with. The growth of technology and
motorized farm implements would have killed slavery even had it
survived the War of Northern Aggression.
By the way...why are you not incensed over the slavery that
exists in the world today??? Defacto slavery exists all thru the
world...Africa, India, SE Asia...and let's not forget the giant
collectives of the former Soviet Union, which were nothing other than
giant "plantations" owned by the state.
Racism has always been part of the human condition...always
will be..."We" will always be better than "You"...the
tribe/clan/nation that one belongs to will always in your mind have
advantages over the "other guys" tribe/clan/nation. These advantages
could consist of "democracy", or "free speech", or "bigger cannons" or
"technology" or "the true God", or "more chariots", "more spears", or
"bigger catapults"...point is, humans have been, are, and will always
be divided along racial, tribal, clannish, national, ethnic,
religious, and darn near any other factor of life's catagories.
Because "racism" is a verbal trigger these days, it is viewed as
EVIL...for most of human history, racism just meant "us" as opposed to
"them". The Japanese are probably the most racist "race" around these
days, but let's not forget the Hindus with their caste system. Seems
to me that the Southern plantation owners were enlightened compared to
some of the societies that still exist today...
Thanks for your attention...
Mary E Knadler
In <Pine.A32.3.93.970713...@mustique.u.arizona.edu>
You are talking about my ancesters. They were honorable men & I revere
their memory by honoring & respecting the "Battle Flag" that they died
for. I had two great, great, great uncles who died at Gettysburg. I
think we have the right to honor those men for their bravery as gallant
soldiers who gave their lives for the "cause". I am proud to have a
southern heritage. yasmin2
Al Ridemfi
> From wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell)
> Organization NeoSoft, Inc. +1 713 968 5800
> Date 12 Jul 1997 11:30:44 -0500
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Big Oh wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In article <33C3A2...@best.com>, scri...@best.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > =| Douglas K Long wrote:
> >> > =| >
> >> > =| >
> >> > =| > : > The Confederate battle flag isn't a symbol of racism,
> >> > =| > : > except to those who want to view it that way.
> >> > =| >
> ****************** Deleted ******************
> >> > =| >
> >> > =|
> >> > =| As I made the original statement, I will expound.
> >> > =|
> >> > =| I said the Confederate flag being part of the state of
> >> > =| Misssissippi's flag (by the way, when did it become part
> >> > =| of the state flag?) might be perceived by African-Americans
> >> > =| there as racist.
> >> > =|
> >> > =| They might also perceive it as white-supremacist.
> >> > =|
>
> ****************** Deleted ******************
>
> >
> >
> >He had that state flag *removed* from the NY Statehouse in Albany
> >where all 50 state flags fly, because it incorporated the "Stars
> >and Bars". So now, there are *only* 49 states in the Union,
> >according to the display in the NY state capital.
> >
>
> Political correctness conservative style. Making the Confedreate Battle
> flag part of the Mississippi state flag in response to the mandating of
> civil rights in Mississippi and the final Federally mandated end of Jim
> Crow racism in Mississippi.
>
> The flag was added to the official Mississippi state flag in a fit of
> sneering racist defiance when told they could no longer treat blacks as
> official second class citizens.
>
> Amazing, Mississippi and various Southern racists still make lame
> applogisms for this maggot gagging little swipe at civilization, and find
> numerous thoughtless excuse purveyors for this disgusting state sanctioned
> pro-racist propaganda and blatant segregationist symbolism.
>
> This Conferderate battle flag was added to the official state flag at the
> heighth of the implementation of true civil rights for all in the South,
> and the end of state mandated Jim Crow segregationists and racist
> policies. It was done to make a statement on behalf of racism.
>
> Political correctness racist style.
>
> To get rid of this arrogant and purposeful symbol of naked
> segregationist and racist true believers is not "political correctness".
> It is simply removing a hangover from a discredited era and
> a purposeful slap in the face of American ideals by sneering racists.
>
> This symbol is Un-American in origin and intent.
That is only true if you believe the Confederate States of America
to be Un-American in origin and intent.
> Pope Charles
> SubGenius Pope Of Houston
> Slack!
George Pataki should let the PEOPLE of Mississippi decide what THEIR
flag looks like. Perhaps he (nor you, apparently) does not realize
the *irony* of excluding their flag from the Union--it's as if he
recognizes their attempt to secede 136 years ago.
If any state chose to place a hammer and sickle in their flag,
would YOU complain?
Al Ridemfi
> From gmi...@hom.net (George Mimbs)
> Date Sun, 13 Jul 1997 01:02:21 GMT
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> phil...@atl.mindspring.com (Bill Anderson) wrote:
>
> >In article <33C7A7...@ibmm.net>, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibmm.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> He had that state flag *removed* from the NY Statehouse in Albany
> >> where all 50 state flags fly, because it incorporated the "Stars
> >> and Bars". So now, there are *only* 49 states in the Union,
> >> according to the display in the NY state capital.
> >
> >
> >To send email, delete "dont_bother" from my address.
> >
> >"In the bowels of Christ, I beseech you; bethink yourself
> > that you may be wrong." --Oliver Cromwell
>
> "racist" symbols on state flags...he would have banned the Florida
> flag (red "x" from corner to corner just like the Confederacy Battle
> Flag)...the Georgia flag (actual battle flag on left side)...North
> Carolina (design resembles the Stars & Bars (not battle flag)...let's
> see now...how many states does that leave?????
>
> should notice these little things...
Well, now that you've been kind enough to alert all the PC police
floating around here, I'm sure a few e-mails will be heading up
to Albany very soon. Maybe Pataki should remove the flags of
*all* the states who dared to join the Confederacy. That'll
teach 'em not to be racist.
George Mimbs
volt...@worldnet.att.net (Jim Kennemur) wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jul 1997 19:33:33 GMT, gmi...@hom.net (George Mimbs) wrote:
>
>> Sir...
>>
>> Regarding the Confederate battle flag, if you believe that it
>>has become a racist symbol...then you must also believe that the Stars
>>and Stripes includes racism...because during the civil rights
>>struggle, and beyond, subtle racism was the norm in such areas as
>>Boston, Detroit, etc.
>
>What year did Boston and Detroit succeed from the Union in order to
>continue to own slaves?
>
What does seceding from the union have to do with racism???
There is no connection between modern-day segregation as practiced in
the North and political events over a century ago. Hate didn't enter
into the secession, it was just a political disagreement over the
authority of the federal government. Hate does have a lot to do with
the ghettos of the Bronx, Harlem, etc.
>>"Defacto" segregation, I believe it was called...and I also
>>point out that there were some very upset people all thru the
>>non-Confederacy areas of the country when the courts began to require
>>children to ride the bus to balance school populations by race.
>
>So your argument is that the Confederate flag does not represent
>racism because there are racists in states other than the 13 that
>succeeded in 1861?
>
EVERYONE is "racist" to some degree...that, perhaps
unfortunately, is human nature. Whether this is right or wrong, it is
normal...as humans, we seek to associate with those most like us, and
we view those who are different as either threats or potential
enemies. This is why families banded together to form clans, clans
came together to form tribes, and so forth, on up to the formation of
city-states and then nation-states.
>>The "holier-than-thou" attitude of Northerners towards the
>>South is based on hypocricy regarding integration and race relations.
>>The only reason people make such a big fuss about the Stars & Bars is
>>that they are trying to assuage their guilty feelings caused by years
>>and years of indoctrination.
>
>I'm a Texan. That shoots the shit out of that theory, Bubba.
>
Nope...it just means that you sound like a Yankee...
>>I do not own slaves...my parents did not own slaves...my
>>grandparents did not own slaves...my great-grandparents did not own
>>slaves. There is no guilt in my mind concerning slavery...had the
>>Confederacy won its struggle for independence, the institution of
>>slavery could not have lasted for more than another couple of
>>generations before being done away with. The growth of technology and
>>motorized farm implements would have killed slavery even had it
>>survived the War of Northern Aggression.
>
>And the more hard core racists are still upset that their ancestors
>got their asses kicked by the Union. Did you have "Sweet Home Alabama"
>playing on the stereo as you typed the above?
>
>Join the 20th century. You might just like it Bubba.
>
Nope..."Free Bird"...seriously, where is it written that those
who see the Confederate Flag, whichever version, as meaningful to them
are forever and always branded as racist? It's HISTORY...not hate.
>By the way...why are you not incensed over the slavery that
>>exists in the world today??? Defacto slavery exists all thru the
>>world...Africa, India, SE Asia...and let's not forget the giant
>>collectives of the former Soviet Union, which were nothing other than
>>giant "plantations" owned by the state.
>
>If any state incorporates the flags of any of those countries into
>their state flags you just let us know. We will complain right along
>with you.
You just don't get it, do you????? Why froth at the mouth
over the symbol of a gallant nation that died fighting when you
obviously don't care about extending your battle against racism to
those societies deserving of it that still exist in this world? You
obviously were taught to "hate America first".
>>Racism has always been part of the human condition...always
>>will be..."We" will always be better than "You"...the
>>tribe/clan/nation that one belongs to will always in your mind have
>>advantages over the "other guys" tribe/clan/nation. These advantages
>>could consist of "democracy", or "free speech", or "bigger cannons" or
>>"technology" or "the true God", or "more chariots", "more spears", or
>>"bigger catapults"...point is, humans have been, are, and will always
>>be divided along racial, tribal, clannish, national, ethnic,
>>religious, and darn near any other factor of life's catagories.
>>Because "racism" is a verbal trigger these days, it is viewed as
>>EVIL...for most of human history, racism just meant "us" as opposed to
>>"them". The Japanese are probably the most racist "race" around these
>>days, but let's not forget the Hindus with their caste system. Seems
>>to me that the Southern plantation owners were enlightened compared to
>>some of the societies that still exist today...
>
>Which justifies keeping a symbol of racism, bigotry and segregation in
>various state flags?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...it doesn't look that
way to me. The reminders of the Confederacy that appear in several
state flags never cease to cause pride in the history of that era.
Again, for those who require repetition to understand...its HISTORY,
not hate.
>>Thanks for your attention...
>
>You are very welcome. That invitation to join the 20th century is
>still open if you ever decide to take it Bubba!
> Jim
>
Thanks again for your attention...and, by the way, I'm not
Bubba...
Ferrel Atkins
The Republicans are determined to pass a constitutional amendment banning
"flag desecration".
The only instance of widespread, organized desecration of OUR flag was in the
Civil War when the states of the Confederacy subjected OUR flag to every
possible vile act.
I am opposed to the Flag Desecreation Act because it violates the First
Amendment. But if they are determined to pass such an amendment, I suggest
that a rider be attached to it which would encourage destruction of the
Confederate flag as a reminder of what they did to OUR flag.
D. Ferrel Atkins
Al Ridemfi
> From phil...@atl.mindspring.com (Bill Anderson)
> Organization MindSpring Enterprises
> Date Sat, 12 Jul 1997 20:05:06 -0600
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In article <33C7A7...@ibmm.net>, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibmm.net> wrote:
>
> > > No one is talking about banning the Confederate flag.
> >
> > Oh no? Check with George Pataki, NY Governor, and liberal Republican.
> >
> > He had that state flag *removed* from the NY Statehouse in Albany
> > where all 50 state flags fly, because it incorporated the "Stars
> > and Bars". So now, there are *only* 49 states in the Union,
> > according to the display in the NY state capital.
>
> the Confederate flag (it's not the Stars and Bars, by the way)? He actually
> banned it? Wow. You'd think that would have made news...
It was--in NY. But let me clarify: he did NOT ban the Confederate
flag, or ANY flag. He just ordered the *removal* of the *state* flag
which has the Stars and Bars incorporated into it. So, only 49
state flags fly over the NY capital in Albany.
> Bill
>
Milt
On 13 Jul 1997, Mary E Knadler wrote:
:In <Pine.A32.3.93.970713...@mustique.u.arizona.edu>
:
Gee, mary, I'm really sorry that your "great, great, great uncles" (which,
if you'd bother to check, means you're not even a blood relative) dies
trying to keep black people enslaved, just to keep the Southern economic
machine humming, but if you're asking me to shed a tear, well, forget it.
My great-great-grandfather (an actual blood relative) was a slaveowner,
who also fought in the Civil War on the wrong side, and I refuse to
pretend he was some sort of noble gentlemen, simply because he died
horribly. The Confederate cause was not a noble cause because, at its
core, it was an attempt to keep blacks enslaved so that white landowners
could keep their windfall without paying for labor, and to keep the
competition for jobs to a minimum among the regular working stiffs.
Slavery is wrong, Mary; the confederation knew it was wrong, and they
fought and gave their lives so that they could keep it going.
I also had an uncle who was a bootlegger in the 20s, and was killed in the
furtherance of his duties. Does that mean that I should honor bootleggers,
Mary?
Eric Sieferman
JURIST wrote:
>
> Lincoln made the war about racism.
Lincoln tried hard to make the war NOT about slavery, because he knew
that most Northerners were no more than tepid abolitionists. For the
first few years of the war, Lincoln was willing to let the Southern
states continue to allow slavery if they would return to the union.
Some members of the Republican Party saw the war as a great crusade
against slavery, but Lincoln (at least at the beginning) did not.
> It was originally about state's rights.
From the point of view of the secessionist states, it was always about
slavery. Read the statements of secession. Read what prominent
Southern politicians said at the time.
"states rights" was a convenient slogan to mask the real goal, namely
the perpetuation of a particular set of economic relationships. The
motivation behind the threats of secession by New England states in the
early 1800's was masked by the same phrase.
> The flag's symbolism is of states rights and independence from the
> oppression of the federal government.
An "oppression" which largely consisted of attempts to find an agreeable
compromise between the desire of Southerners to expand slavery into the
West and the desire of some Northerners to not permit this. Do you see
this "oppression" as more egregious than the real oppression represented
by the Confederate flag - the oppression of state governments which
allowed human beings to have the status of chattel?
> View it as a reminder that Americans
> remember and always will what the federal government did to hundreds of
> thousands of Americans in the civil war.
The federal government did what the Confederate government did -
organise a military force in an attempt to achieve its political ends.
One of these ends was (finally) the emancipation of slaves. Sounds good
to me.
Jonathan Hartley
On 13 Jul 1997 19:35:10 GMT, yas...@ix.netcom.com(Mary E Knadler)
wrote:
>You are talking about my ancesters. They were honorable men & I revere
>their memory by honoring & respecting the "Battle Flag" that they died
>for. I had two great, great, great uncles who died at Gettysburg. I
>think we have the right to honor those men for their bravery as gallant
>soldiers who gave their lives for the "cause". I am proud to have a
>southern heritage. yasmin2
Your ancestors, honorable as they may have been, were misguided and
died for a miserable, traitorous, evil cause - namely the dissolution
of the United States of America IN HOPES OF preserving the barbaric
tradition of slavery. The Confederate Battle Flag is diametrically
opposed to the values and meaning of Old Glory, and it is the banner
of traitors. You should decide now: What's it going to be? Are you
an American or not? If not, then go somewhere else. We don't need
any flag except the Stars and Stripes and we don't need people with
divided loyalties. The Stars and Stripes stands for the brave men and
women who died for THIS country. The Stars and Bars stands for a
short-lived alliance of rebels that wanted to destroy the union for
the sake of their own selfish economic motives. The South deserved
every bit of misery they suffered and they should thank GOD above that
they didn't get what was really coming to them for their treatment of
blacks through segregation and Jim Crow.
Mary E Knadler
In <33c98771...@news.idt.net> hart...@mail.idt.net (Jonathan
And what would that have been----what was coming to them, I mean.
Would you have hung them all. The way this country is so divided now &
with the Libs/Dems refusing to accept the Republican Congress &
treating Conservatives so bad---sometimes I wish the South had won &
all of us who believe in the Conservative Cause (not slavery) could
live in peace without the liberals trying to turn this into a Socialist
country. yasmin2
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
yas...@ix.netcom.com(Mary E Knadler) wrote:
you are free to leave at any time. And if you need any help packing
just call for all the help you will need.
Michael P. Cericola
--------------------------------------------------------
D Ferrel, you have a right to your position. But if the flag
desecration act is passed as a Constitutional amendment, then it becomes
a part of the Constitution, and would be 'per se' constitutional.
I think that would be overkill, but I AM getting sick and tired of the
issue, and of the pimple-faced kids who think the flag burning act is
akin to mature communications. There are a lot of other ways to engage
in constructive dissent.
Mike.
Alan Miles
Al Ridemfi wrote:
>
> > Big Oh wrote:
> > >
> > No one is talking about banning the Confederate flag.
>
> Oh no? Check with George Pataki, NY Governor, and liberal Republican.
>
> He had that state flag *removed* from the NY Statehouse in Albany
> where all 50 state flags fly, because it incorporated the "Stars
> and Bars". So now, there are *only* 49 states in the Union,
> according to the display in the NY state capital.
Do you know what the word "ban" means? Here's a hint: "ban" doesn't
mean "refuse to display at taxpayer expense in a public building."
"Ban" isn't a synonym for "remove" even if you emphasize *remove.*
Alan Miles
George Mimbs wrote:
>
> Regarding the Confederate battle flag, if you believe that it
> has become a racist symbol...then you must also believe that the Stars
> and Stripes includes racism...because during the civil rights
> struggle, and beyond, subtle racism was the norm in such areas as
> Boston, Detroit, etc.
Racism isn't a Southern phenomenon. Your argument is a red herring.
The Battle Flag represented a political effort to protect slavery. It's
reemergence in the 1950's and 60's coincided with white resistence to
civil rights for blacks in some states. It's plain impossible to say
that the addition of the battle flag to the Georgia State Flag, for
example, is separable from Georgia's resistance to the federally imposed
end of Jim Crow. It is a symbol of those who would have retained Jim
Crow. This makes it a racist symbol. There are few issues as clear cut
as this one.
Robert W Lawrence
yas...@ix.netcom.com(Mary E Knadler) wrote:
Then you should be extremely upset that the Southern Legislatures of the late
50s and early 60s chose to take this flag your relatives fought under and use it
for explicitly racist purposes.
<>
<>You are talking about my ancesters. They were honorable men & I revere
<>their memory by honoring & respecting the "Battle Flag" that they died
<>for. I had two great, great, great uncles who died at Gettysburg. I
<>think we have the right to honor those men for their bravery as gallant
<>soldiers who gave their lives for the "cause". I am proud to have a
<>southern heritage. yasmin2
Robert W Lawrence
lawr...@arthes.com
lawr...@arthes.com
Jamie A. Gregorian
Mary E Knadler (yas...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> And what would that have been----what was coming to them, I mean.
> Would you have hung them all. The way this country is so divided now &
> with the Libs/Dems refusing to accept the Republican Congress &
> treating Conservatives so bad---sometimes I wish the South had won &
> all of us who believe in the Conservative Cause (not slavery) could
> live in peace without the liberals trying to turn this into a Socialist
> country. yasmin2
Is anyone surprised by Mary's sympathetic stance towards the Confederacy?
--
Jamie Gregorian greg...@jmu.edu
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| "Some of these Northern Virginians do get puckered up. They feel |
| like [people] shouldn't touch tobacco. I guess they don't want to |
| touch guns either or alcohol either, or maybe even red meat. I |
| bet they do eat that red meat, though. And drink that red wine!" |
| |
| -VA GOP Lt. Governor Candidate John Hager on Northern Virginia |
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| JMU College Democrats --> http://www.jmu.edu/orgs/youngdemocrats |
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Virginia: In 1997 vote Beyer/Payne/Dolan |
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
trio...@acsu.buffalo.edu
On Sat, 12 Jul 1997, Al Ridemfi wrote:
> Oh no? Check with George Pataki, NY Governor, and liberal Republican.
Yea but hes better than como ;)
> He had that state flag *removed* from the NY Statehouse in Albany
> where all 50 state flags fly, because it incorporated the "Stars
> and Bars". So now, there are *only* 49 states in the Union,
> according to the display in the NY state capital.
what is really ironic is most people who scream that lincon
was really a racist (there are a few), who exploited blacks
and SCREAM the civil war was not about freeing the slaves are
the one who say the stars and bars are about slavery and not
states rights...
> Ahh, the price of political correctness.
= our freedom of expression...
*******************************************************************
* Timothy N. Riordan _________ *
* Consultant Capen CIT SUNY@Buffalo |___ ___|\*
* Programmer OmegaTech Software \__| |\__\|*
* http://www.servtech.com/public/brasser/OmegaTech/ | || *
* Personal Homepage: www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~triordan | || *
* My opinions in no way represent either of my employers |_|| *
* \_\| *
*******************************************************************
Bill Anderson
In article <5qc4am$3...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>, yas...@ix.netcom.com(Mary
E Knadler) wrote:
> The way this country is so divided now &
> with the Libs/Dems refusing to accept the Republican Congress &
> treating Conservatives so bad
Jeez, Mary--you're gonna make me cry. Them mean ol' liberals, always
knocking conservatives down and taking their lunch money--and you know
the conservatives just want everybody to be FRIENDS!
Cue violins, please...
Douglas K Long
: >>You are talking about my ancesters. They were honorable men & I
: revere
: >>their memory by honoring & respecting the "Battle Flag" that they
: died
: >>for. I had two great, great, great uncles who died at Gettysburg. I
: >>think we have the right to honor those men for their bravery as
: gallant
: >>soldiers who gave their lives for the "cause". I am proud to have a
: >>southern heritage. yasmin2
: >Your ancestors, honorable as they may have been, were misguided and
: >died for a miserable, traitorous, evil cause - namely the dissolution
: >of the United States of America IN HOPES OF preserving the barbaric
Jonathan, read a book or two, will you?
: >tradition of slavery. The Confederate Battle Flag is diametrically
: >opposed to the values and meaning of Old Glory, and it is the banner
: >of traitors. You should decide now: What's it going to be? Are you
: >an American or not? If not, then go somewhere else. We don't need
: >any flag except the Stars and Stripes and we don't need people with
: >divided loyalties. The Stars and Stripes stands for the brave men and
: >women who died for THIS country. The Stars and Bars stands for a
: >short-lived alliance of rebels that wanted to destroy the union for
: >the sake of their own selfish economic motives. The South deserved
What an unmitigated ignoramous.
: >every bit of misery they suffered and they should thank GOD above that
: >they didn't get what was really coming to them for their treatment of
: >blacks through segregation and Jim Crow.
You dope. Segregation and Jim Crow were results of the Civil War.
They didn't exist until *after* the War. Maybe if you did
some reading before you expressed yourself on these matters,
you might not have shown yourself as such an imbecile.
: And what would that have been----what was coming to them, I mean.
: Would you have hung them all. The way this country is so divided now &
: with the Libs/Dems refusing to accept the Republican Congress &
: treating Conservatives so bad---sometimes I wish the South had won &
Milt
On 14 Jul 1997, Douglas K Long wrote:
:Mary E Knadler (yas...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
:: In <33c98771...@news.idt.net> hart...@mail.idt.net (Jonathan
:: Hartley) writes:
:: >
:: >On 13 Jul 1997 19:35:10 GMT, yas...@ix.netcom.com(Mary E Knadler)
:: >wrote:
:: >
:: >>You are talking about my ancesters. They were honorable men & I
:: revere
:: >>their memory by honoring & respecting the "Battle Flag" that they
:: died
:: >>for. I had two great, great, great uncles who died at Gettysburg. I
:: >>think we have the right to honor those men for their bravery as
:: gallant
:: >>soldiers who gave their lives for the "cause". I am proud to have a
:: >>southern heritage. yasmin2
:: >
:: >Your ancestors, honorable as they may have been, were misguided and
:: >died for a miserable, traitorous, evil cause - namely the dissolution
:: >of the United States of America IN HOPES OF preserving the barbaric
:
: Jonathan, read a book or two, will you?
Why? He's right, so far...
:
:: >tradition of slavery. The Confederate Battle Flag is diametrically
:: >opposed to the values and meaning of Old Glory, and it is the banner
:: >of traitors. You should decide now: What's it going to be? Are you
:: >an American or not? If not, then go somewhere else. We don't need
:: >any flag except the Stars and Stripes and we don't need people with
:: >divided loyalties. The Stars and Stripes stands for the brave men and
:: >women who died for THIS country. The Stars and Bars stands for a
:: >short-lived alliance of rebels that wanted to destroy the union for
:: >the sake of their own selfish economic motives. The South deserved
:
: What an unmitigated ignoramous.
:
It's his opinion...
:: >every bit of misery they suffered and they should thank GOD above that
:: >they didn't get what was really coming to them for their treatment of
:: >blacks through segregation and Jim Crow.
:
: You dope. Segregation and Jim Crow were results of the Civil War.
: They didn't exist until *after* the War. Maybe if you did
: some reading before you expressed yourself on these matters,
: you might not have shown yourself as such an imbecile.
:
You know, you're right. The Civil War wasn't about Jim Crow. It was about
SLAVERY. The confederates killed in the name of keeping millions of human
beings as their property. As for segregation, how many white people do you
think were living in the plantation's slave quarters? He may have gotten a
few facts mixed, but the sentiment is there. Are you trying to tell us
that people who fight to keep pther humans as property are NOBLE?? Gimme a
break!
:: And what would that have been----what was coming to them, I mean.
:: Would you have hung them all. The way this country is so divided now &
:: with the Libs/Dems refusing to accept the Republican Congress &
:: treating Conservatives so bad---sometimes I wish the South had won &
:: all of us who believe in the Conservative Cause (not slavery) could
:: live in peace without the liberals trying to turn this into a Socialist
:: country. yasmin2
:
And who really needs to comment on the paranoid ravings of mary, above? It
is so idiotic, it pretty much speaks for itself...
RHA
In article <5qc4am$3...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>,
Mary E Knadler <yas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <33c98771...@news.idt.net> hart...@mail.idt.net (Jonathan
>Hartley) writes:
>>
>>On 13 Jul 1997 19:35:10 GMT, yas...@ix.netcom.com(Mary E Knadler)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>You are talking about my ancesters. They were honorable men & I
>revere
>>>their memory by honoring & respecting the "Battle Flag" that they
>died
>>>for. I had two great, great, great uncles who died at Gettysburg. I
>>>think we have the right to honor those men for their bravery as
>gallant
>>>soldiers who gave their lives for the "cause". I am proud to have a
>>>southern heritage. yasmin2
>>
>>Your ancestors, honorable as they may have been, were misguided and
>>died for a miserable, traitorous, evil cause - namely the dissolution
>>of the United States of America IN HOPES OF preserving the barbaric
>>opposed to the values and meaning of Old Glory, and it is the banner
>>of traitors. You should decide now: What's it going to be? Are you
>>an American or not? If not, then go somewhere else. We don't need
>>any flag except the Stars and Stripes and we don't need people with
>>divided loyalties. The Stars and Stripes stands for the brave men and
>>women who died for THIS country. The Stars and Bars stands for a
>>short-lived alliance of rebels that wanted to destroy the union for
>>the sake of their own selfish economic motives. The South deserved
>>they didn't get what was really coming to them for their treatment of
>>blacks through segregation and Jim Crow.
>
>
>
>Would you have hung them all.
Every one of them. What part of "traitor" do you need help
with? What's next, SaltPeter, a national holiday on
McViegh's birthday?
> The way this country is so divided now &
>with the Libs/Dems refusing to accept the Republican Congress &
Huh? You want everyone to prostrate themselves as republi-conmen
pass by?
>treating Conservatives so bad---sometimes I wish the South had won &
>all of us who believe in the Conservative Cause
Come on, SaltPeter, define "Conservative Clause".
> (not slavery) could
>live in peace without the liberals trying to turn this into a Socialist
>country. yasmin2
--
rha
Adam Bernay
On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 sun...@geocities.com wrote:
> I would however, without hesitation, _desecrate_ an American Flag.
> Desecration, by definition, is to violate something that is
> _worshipped_. If anyone _worships_ a flag, screw 'em, I'm burning the
> goddamn thing.
Why? What's your problem with worshipping the flag? Do you know what the
word worship means?
> However, considering the inroads that the KKK/Nazi types have made
> into the Republican Party leadership,
Which is none...
> it's quite possible that the
> Bill Of Rights _will_ be changed, and flag-burning could become
> illegal.
I hope flag-burning as a political protest becomes illegal.
> If that happens, I want to have the BEST flag-burning home
> page to "toe the line" of what is legal. Your input is appreciated.
>
> The web site would feature:
>
> -The complete text of the Flag Protection Amendment.
> -Tips on preparing an American Flag for a legal burning (such as
> removing a star, discoloring a star, defecating onto the flag so as to
> materially alter it so it no longer fits the definition of "American
> Flag" and is thus legally burnable, etc.)
> -A listing of firearms dealers for those who want to be locked and
> loaded while exercising their 9th Amendment rights.
> -A listing of mail-order companies that sell US flags, ready for
> burning. This would also include the address to which to write to the
> owner of said company, so that the burner can thank the owner for
> making such an excellent "ready to burn" product.
> -A link to a company that sells stock in another company that makes
> flame-resistant chemicals to sell to flag manufacturers. Why not make
> a killing from the paranoids?
> -A pic of a flag that can be printed on your printer at home, ready
> for burning.
> -The addresses of Congresscritters who supported the Flag Protection
> Amendment (so that the burned ashes can be snail-mailed to them).
> -A mail-order service so that you can buy tiny little paper flags
> (remember the ones that came with toy soldiers?) at a reasonable price
> (they'll be, perhaps fifty cents per thousand)... they can easily be
> burned, and mailed to your CongressCritter.
> -A graphic depiction that would elucidate the obvious trolling nature
> of this submission and highlight the folly of those who would waste
> their time responding. This would serve as an intelligence test of
> sorts.
> -Discussions of the various ways in which to ignite a flag, including
> suggestions of chemicals in which to soak your flag.
> -Pics of flags being burned.
> -Flag-burning screen savers for your computer- or to email to your
> Congresscritter.
> -Sound files of the sound of American Flags being burned.
> -A .wav file of Rush Limbaugh explaining why he's a draft dodger (the
> file would of course be 10 seconds of silence).
Gee...a website dedicated to following the letter of the law while
violating its spirit...why am I not surprised...
Adam Bernay
William Barwell
In article <5qdh01$c...@owl.jmu.edu>,
>> with the Libs/Dems refusing to accept the Republican Congress &
>> live in peace without the liberals trying to turn this into a Socialist
>> country. yasmin2
>
>
We ain't had a female kook in awhile. Not since Joanie was harrassing
Bill Gates and Doctress Neutopia won Kook-of-the-Month. Of course I like
the good Doctress, even if she is a often a clueless utopian.
Douglas K Long
William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
: In article <33C7A7...@ibmm.net>, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibmm.net> wrote:
: >> From Gail Thaler <scri...@best.com>
: >> Organization Union of Lying Socialist Weasels
: >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
: >>
: >> Big Oh wrote:
: >> >
: >> > In article <33C3A2...@best.com>, scri...@best.com wrote:
: >> >
: >> > =| Douglas K Long wrote:
: >> > =| >
: >> > =| >
: >> > =| > : > The Confederate battle flag isn't a symbol of racism,
: >> > =| > : > except to those who want to view it that way.
: >> > =| >
: ****************** Deleted ******************
: >> > =| >
: >> > =|
: >> > =| As I made the original statement, I will expound.
: >> > =|
: >> > =| I said the Confederate flag being part of the state of
: >> > =| Misssissippi's flag (by the way, when did it become part
: >> > =| of the state flag?) might be perceived by African-Americans
: >> > =| there as racist.
: >> > =|
: >> > =| They might also perceive it as white-supremacist.
: >> > =|
: ****************** Deleted ******************
: >
: >Oh no? Check with George Pataki, NY Governor, and liberal Republican.
: >
: >He had that state flag *removed* from the NY Statehouse in Albany
: >where all 50 state flags fly, because it incorporated the "Stars
: >and Bars". So now, there are *only* 49 states in the Union,
: >according to the display in the NY state capital.
: >
: >Ahh, the price of political correctness.
: Political correctness conservative style. Making the Confedreate Battle
: flag part of the Mississippi state flag in response to the mandating of
: civil rights in Mississippi and the final Federally mandated end of Jim
: Crow racism in Mississippi.
Rubbish.
: The flag was added to the official Mississippi state flag in a fit of
: sneering racist defiance when told they could no longer treat blacks as
: official second class citizens.
More rubbish.
: Amazing, Mississippi and various Southern racists still make lame
: applogisms for this maggot gagging little swipe at civilization, and find
: numerous thoughtless excuse purveyors for this disgusting state sanctioned
: pro-racist propaganda and blatant segregationist symbolism.
And you're really eating it with a spoon, aren't you.
: This Conferderate battle flag was added to the official state flag at the
: heighth of the implementation of true civil rights for all in the South,
: and the end of state mandated Jim Crow segregationists and racist
: policies. It was done to make a statement on behalf of racism.
Rubbish piled higher and deeper.
: Political correctness racist style.
Manipulation, demagogue style.
: To get rid of this arrogant and purposeful symbol of naked
: segregationist and racist true believers is not "political correctness".
: It is simply removing a hangover from a discredited era and
: a purposeful slap in the face of American ideals by sneering racists.
Cut it out, will you ... my screen is turning purple.
: This symbol is Un-American in origin and intent.
The Confederate battle flag is unAmerican in origin and intent?
Actually, at the Battle of Bull Run, soldiers were confused by
the similar appearance of the Confederate and Union flags.
Gen. Beauregard suggested the design of a battle flag to
avoid future confusion. Is that the unAmerican origin and
intent you had in mind?
: Pope Charles
Brian Carey
Jim Kennemur wrote:
> >Is anyone surprised by Mary's sympathetic stance towards the Confederacy?
>
> attempted to subvert the Constitution, No.
>
> Jim
>
This coming from someone who wants to take away your 2nd Amendment right
to keep and bear arms.
--
Brian M. Carey car...@mci2000.com
"Whosoever is guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy, shall be punished;
if a man, by castration; if a woman, by boring through the cartilege
of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least."
---Thomas Jefferson, in his recommendations
of laws for the colony of Virginia
"For nothing has done more than the publication of the English
Bible to encourage freedom of thought and political democracy."
---Jasper Ridley, _Henry VIII_
"Nations are born stoic and die epicurean."
---Will & Ariel Durant, _The Life of Greece_
Brian Carey
Milt wrote:
> You know, you're right. The Civil War wasn't about Jim Crow. It was about
> SLAVERY. The confederates killed in the name of keeping millions of human
> beings as their property. As for segregation, how many white people do you
> think were living in the plantation's slave quarters? He may have gotten a
> few facts mixed, but the sentiment is there. Are you trying to tell us
> that people who fight to keep pther humans as property are NOBLE?? Gimme a
> break!
Just to put things in perspective, those who fought for the union fought
for a President who suspended habeus corpus and trampled under foot a
couple of Constitutional Amendments by directing government officials to
raid telegraph offices.
--
Brian M. Carey car...@mci2000.com
"Whosoever is guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy, shall be punished;
if a man, by castration; if a woman, by boring through the cartilege
of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least."
---Thomas Jefferson, in his recommendations
of laws for the colony of Virginia
"For nothing has done more than the publication of the English
Bible to encourage freedom of thought and political democracy."
---Jasper Ridley, _Henry VII_
Bill Anderson
Followups
In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.970714...@mammoth.psnw.com>,
Adam Bernay <abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 sun...@geocities.com wrote:
>
> > I would however, without hesitation, _desecrate_ an American Flag.
> > Desecration, by definition, is to violate something that is
> > _worshipped_. If anyone _worships_ a flag, screw 'em, I'm burning the
> > goddamn thing.
>
> Why? What's your problem with worshipping the flag? Do you know what the
> word worship means?
"to show religious devotion or reverence for; adore or venerate as a deity."1
> > However, considering the inroads that the KKK/Nazi types have made
> > into the Republican Party leadership,
>
> Which is none...
This is true. So far as I know, not a single leader of the Republican
party is a member of either the KKK or the Nazi party.
> > it's quite possible that the
> > Bill Of Rights _will_ be changed, and flag-burning could become
> > illegal.
>
> I hope flag-burning as a political protest becomes illegal.
You'll have to repeal the First Amendment, Adam.
> > If that happens, I want to have the BEST flag-burning home
> > page to "toe the line" of what is legal. Your input is appreciated.
>
> Gee...a website dedicated to following the letter of the law while
> violating its spirit...why am I not surprised...
If flag burning ever becomes illegal, I thing every good American should
haul his or her Weber into the front yard, stoke up the charcoal, and
have a flag-roast.
Gail Thaler
Brian Carey wrote:
>
> Milt wrote:
> > You know, you're right. The Civil War wasn't about Jim Crow. It was about
> > SLAVERY. The confederates killed in the name of keeping millions of human
> > beings as their property. As for segregation, how many white people do you
> > think were living in the plantation's slave quarters? He may have gotten a
> > few facts mixed, but the sentiment is there. Are you trying to tell us
> > that people who fight to keep pther humans as property are NOBLE?? Gimme a
> > break!
>
> Just to put things in perspective, those who fought for the union fought
> for a President who suspended habeus corpus and trampled under foot a
> couple of Constitutional Amendments by directing government officials to
> raid telegraph offices.
>
> --
Gosh. When a Republican turns against Lincoln to defend
the confederate flag, you have to wonder where the GOP
is heading.
To put things into perspective, Lincoln was President
during a Civil War. You defend atrocities committed
against the native Americans during peace, yet you
condemn Lincoln for using his powers as Commander
of Chief during an insurrection. Do you think Lincoln
should have been impeached? Do you think that the
Union soldiers should have thrown down their arms
in protest?
Lincoln also changed the meaning
of the nation by stating that it was a government OF
the people, FOR the people and BY the people, which,
in the long run, resulted in guaranteeing your
Constitutional rights and preventing government from
say, forcing you to pray in schools.
Oops--maybe that's Brian's problem with Lincoln.
Milt
On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Brian Carey wrote:
:Milt wrote:
:> You know, you're right. The Civil War wasn't about Jim Crow. It was about
:> SLAVERY. The confederates killed in the name of keeping millions of human
:> beings as their property. As for segregation, how many white people do you
:> think were living in the plantation's slave quarters? He may have gotten a
:> few facts mixed, but the sentiment is there. Are you trying to tell us
:> that people who fight to keep pther humans as property are NOBLE?? Gimme a
:> break!
:
:Just to put things in perspective, those who fought for the union fought
:for a President who suspended habeus corpus and trampled under foot a
:couple of Constitutional Amendments by directing government officials to
:raid telegraph offices.
I agree with that, and mentioned it in another post. But the overall goal
of the North was to preserve the Union. That doesn't justify the means,
but their ends were more noble than those of the Confederates, which was
basically to keep millions of dark-skinned people enslaved for their
economic well-being...
Brian Carey
Milt wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Brian Carey wrote:
>
> :Milt wrote:
> :> You know, you're right. The Civil War wasn't about Jim Crow. It was about
> :> SLAVERY. The confederates killed in the name of keeping millions of human
> :> beings as their property. As for segregation, how many white people do you
> :> think were living in the plantation's slave quarters? He may have gotten a
> :> few facts mixed, but the sentiment is there. Are you trying to tell us
> :> that people who fight to keep pther humans as property are NOBLE?? Gimme a
> :> break!
> :
> :Just to put things in perspective, those who fought for the union fought
> :for a President who suspended habeus corpus and trampled under foot a
> :couple of Constitutional Amendments by directing government officials to
> :raid telegraph offices.
>
> I agree with that, and mentioned it in another post. But the overall goal
> of the North was to preserve the Union. That doesn't justify the means,
> but their ends were more noble than those of the Confederates, which was
> basically to keep millions of dark-skinned people enslaved for their
> economic well-being...
Well, thank you for posting a more sensible reply than Gail.
I wish to point out, however, that according to James McPherson (_Battle
Cry Of Freedom_), the economy in the NORTH was better than that in the
South. McPherson's theory as to why this is? Because of slavery. The
lack of slavery in the North acutally caused the economy to prosper,
because workers there had the opportunity to excel, whereas in the South
working slaves did not, and so did not put as much effort in to work.
As a result, productivity lagged in the South.
Chalk up another one for capitalism.
--
Brian M. Carey car...@mci2000.com
"Whosoever is guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy, shall be punished;
if a man, by castration; if a woman, by boring through the cartilege
of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least."
---Thomas Jefferson, in his recommendations
of laws for the colony of Virginia
"For nothing has done more than the publication of the English
Bible to encourage freedom of thought and political democracy."
---Jasper Ridley, _Henry VIII_
Brian Carey
Gail Thaler wrote:
> > Just to put things in perspective, those who fought for the union fought
> > for a President who suspended habeus corpus and trampled under foot a
> > couple of Constitutional Amendments by directing government officials to
> > raid telegraph offices.
>
> the confederate flag, you have to wonder where the GOP
> is heading.
I'll condemn a Republican who acts outside of his/her Constitutional
boundaries any day of the week, Gail. I hope that you would do the same
with a Democrat that acts outside of those boundaries.
>
> To put things into perspective, Lincoln was President
> during a Civil War. You defend atrocities committed
> against the native Americans during peace, yet you
This is a lie. I have never defended atrocities committed against
Native Americans.
> condemn Lincoln for using his powers as Commander
> of Chief during an insurrection. Do you think Lincoln
I hope you would condemn Lincoln for this type of activity as well. Do
you?
> should have been impeached? Do you think that the
> Union soldiers should have thrown down their arms
> in protest?
Yes and no.
>
> Lincoln also changed the meaning
> of the nation by stating that it was a government OF
> the people, FOR the people and BY the people, which,
A government FOR the people. Unless, of course, you happened to be one
of those poor saps in jail without the benefit of habeus corpus.
> in the long run, resulted in guaranteeing your
> Constitutional rights and preventing government from
> say, forcing you to pray in schools.
Great. According to your silly theory, Lincoln suspended Constitutional
rights that no one would question as such so that he could lay the
foundations for a government that would read things into the
Constitution that arguably aren't even there.
What a novel idea.
>
> Oops--maybe that's Brian's problem with Lincoln.
I hope you have a problem with the suspension of habeus corpus and the
other unconstitutional things that Lincoln did as well.
Milt
On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Brian Carey wrote:
:Milt wrote:
:>
:> On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Brian Carey wrote:
:>
:> :Milt wrote:
:> :> You know, you're right. The Civil War wasn't about Jim Crow. It was about
:> :> SLAVERY. The confederates killed in the name of keeping millions of human
:> :> beings as their property. As for segregation, how many white people do you
:> :> think were living in the plantation's slave quarters? He may have gotten a
:> :> few facts mixed, but the sentiment is there. Are you trying to tell us
:> :> that people who fight to keep pther humans as property are NOBLE?? Gimme a
:> :> break!
:> :
:> :Just to put things in perspective, those who fought for the union fought
:> :for a President who suspended habeus corpus and trampled under foot a
:> :couple of Constitutional Amendments by directing government officials to
:> :raid telegraph offices.
:>
:> I agree with that, and mentioned it in another post. But the overall goal
:> of the North was to preserve the Union. That doesn't justify the means,
:> but their ends were more noble than those of the Confederates, which was
:> basically to keep millions of dark-skinned people enslaved for their
:> economic well-being...
:
:Well, thank you for posting a more sensible reply than Gail.
:
:I wish to point out, however, that according to James McPherson (_Battle
:Cry Of Freedom_), the economy in the NORTH was better than that in the
:South. McPherson's theory as to why this is? Because of slavery. The
:lack of slavery in the North acutally caused the economy to prosper,
:because workers there had the opportunity to excel, whereas in the South
:working slaves did not, and so did not put as much effort in to work.
:As a result, productivity lagged in the South.
:
:Chalk up another one for capitalism.
I don't know that the economy in the South was that much worse; it was
just different. The agrarian economy in the south complemented the
industrial economy in the north. But I would never say that the economy
was "worse". But the Confederates did believe that the end of slavery
would collapse the economies of most southern states, and that's why they
fought it...
Mary E Knadler
In <33CB6C...@CYBERPROMO.COM> Brian Carey <sa...@CYBERPROMO.COM>
writes:
>Jim Kennemur wrote:
>> >Is anyone surprised by Mary's sympathetic stance towards the
Confederacy?
>>
>> Considering that she has a record of supporting those who have
>> attempted to subvert the Constitution, No.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
>This coming from someone who wants to take away your 2nd Amendment
right
>to keep and bear arms.
>
It's typical. They only believe in the Constitutional "rights" they
agree with, otherwise forget it. They are really "Stalinists" at heart.
yasmin2
Milt
On 15 Jul 1997, Mary E Knadler wrote:
:In <33CB6C...@CYBERPROMO.COM> Brian Carey <sa...@CYBERPROMO.COM>
:
:
It's typical, ain't it. Mary only belives in Constitutional rights when it
has to do with guns.
And by the way, there is no INDIVIDUAL right to own a gun in the Second
Amendment...
RHA
In article <5qgre4$j...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
Mary E Knadler <yas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <33CB6C...@CYBERPROMO.COM> Brian Carey <sa...@CYBERPROMO.COM>
>writes:
>>
>>Jim Kennemur wrote:
>>> >Is anyone surprised by Mary's sympathetic stance towards the
>Confederacy?
>>>
>>> Considering that she has a record of supporting those who have
>>> attempted to subvert the Constitution, No.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>
>>This coming from someone who wants to take away your 2nd Amendment
>right
>>to keep and bear arms.
>>
>>--
>>Brian M. Carey car...@mci2000.com
>>
>
>
>
>It's typical. They only believe in the Constitutional "rights" they
>agree with, otherwise forget it. They are really "Stalinists" at heart.
> yasmin2
Ummmm, SaltPeter? What's this 'Constitutional "rights"' nonsense?
Aren't you a devotee of the Confederacy? When were they interested
in "rights"? Well, other than the "right" to own people. And **YOU**
are a Fascist from your outermost epidermis to the dark, dank,
empty, recesses of your cranial cavity.
--
rha
Milt
On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, Adam Bernay wrote:
:
:On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 sun...@geocities.com wrote:
:
:> I would however, without hesitation, _desecrate_ an American Flag.
:> Desecration, by definition, is to violate something that is
:> _worshipped_. If anyone _worships_ a flag, screw 'em, I'm burning the
:> goddamn thing.
:
:Why? What's your problem with worshipping the flag? Do you know what the
:word worship means?
Yeah; do you? I really hate to break it to you, Adam, but worshipping the
flag is against one of them there commandments you're so fond of. You show
RESPECT to a flag, Adam, you don't worship it.
(I can see Adam's shrine now; the candles, his candles. He comes into the
room, genuflects in front of his flag, and prays for his deliverance from
the yoke of liberalism. Can I get a AMEN!!!)
:> However, considering the inroads that the KKK/Nazi types have made
:> into the Republican Party leadership,
:
:Which is none...
Ever hear of David Duke? Strom Thurmond? Jesse Helms? (Robert Byrd, btw,
renounced his KKK membership while still in his teens. Strom Thurmond ran
for president on a segragationist ticket...)
:
:> it's quite possible that the
:> Bill Of Rights _will_ be changed, and flag-burning could become
:> illegal.
:
:I hope flag-burning as a political protest becomes illegal.
:
I hope not. What do you you think that will do to flag-burning, Adam? I
betcha there'll be more than ever. What are you going to do to someone who
buys a flag with his own money, and burns it on private property, in a way
that doesn't cause a danger to the community?
The Constitution is no place to limit the rights of individuals, Adam. It
is a document that is meant to limit the scope of government. The one time
we have ever tried to limit individual behavior was the Eighteenth
Amendment. Ever hear of Prohibition? It was a bit of a failure.
The fact is, if you pass this amendment, there will be a record number of
flag burnings, because it will suddenly take on greater political meaning
than ever...
:> If that happens, I want to have the BEST flag-burning home
:> page to "toe the line" of what is legal. Your input is appreciated.
:>
:> The web site would feature:
:
:Gee...a website dedicated to following the letter of the law while
:violating its spirit...why am I not surprised...
:
Law doesn't have a spirit, Adam. That's why people follow the letter.
First, Jeffrey tries to tell us how rights existed in the cosmos before we
ever did; now, you're giving the law a "spirit". I'm glad that, while I
continue to believe in God, I gave up on religion. Sometimes, a rose is
just a rose...
Bill Anderson
In article <Pine.A32.3.93.970714...@nevis.u.arizona.edu>,
Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, Adam Bernay wrote:
>
> :On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 sun...@geocities.com wrote:
> :> However, considering the inroads that the KKK/Nazi types have made
> :> into the Republican Party leadership,
> :
> :Which is none...
>
> Ever hear of David Duke? Strom Thurmond? Jesse Helms?
Ah. Point taken. I stated earlier that no Republican leader was a member
of the Klan; I was right. We'll discount Duke, who has been ritually
denounced by every prominent Republican on the planet; but the GOP should
indeed be held accountable for the fact that Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond,
who owe their political existence to racism, are among its nominal leaders.
Milt
On 16 Jul 1997, Douglas K Long wrote:
:Bob Lawrence (lawr...@arthes.com) wrote:
:: Nonsense-the war was fought over slavery-go and read the articles of secession
:: issued by each of the seceding States(I posted excerpts from several of them
:: here last week) Everyone of them affirms that they are seceding over the issue
:: of slavery. It is interesting that before and during the war they proudly and
:
: And aside from the excerpts that mention slavery, what other
: reasons did the states list for seceding? Mention those and
: slavery is shown in context and as a low priority - actually as
: a particular of a larger issue.
Oh, really? Then why don't you mention some of the "states' rights" issues
at the time, other than slavery? There were few tax issues, the federal
gov't was very tiny, the only commerce that had ANY regulation at all was
interstate commerce, and even that was not regulated heavily. The Supreme
Court was consistently on the side of the states in most circumstances,
and the few states that actually had a non-slavery states' rights issue to
deal with (specifically Pennsylvania & New Jersey) didn't even consider
joining the Confederacy. The Civil War was fought over blocking secession;
the secession was over SLAVERY. Period.
:: loudly told anyone who would listen that the issue was slavery-specifially
:the
:: North's refusal to enforce the "Fugitive Slave Act" and the North's attempt to
:: limit the spread of slavery into the territories(an attempt that was killed by
:: "Dred Scott". This nonsense about "states rights" and the whole "lost cause"
:: myth only came about after the war as the South realized that world opinion was
:: inexorably against slavery-accordingly the revisionist stepped in.
:
: Rubbish. At the end of the war the South had no power or motive
: to influence world opinion. It was an occupied and destroyed
: country.
What does the South's power AFTER the war, with regards to the world, have
to do with the causes of a CIVIL war?
:: You contention that the federal Govt and lincoln was somehow responsible for
:: this war is nonsense also. Six States had already seceded when Lincoln was sworn
:: in. Kind of hard to blame him for something that occurred before he was in
:: office, isn't it? In add tion the first shot was fired by the South in a
:: successful attempt to keep the North from supplying Ft Sumpter.
:
: Lincoln was elected in Nov 1860 and the states began seceding
: in Dec 1860. The timing had much to do with the election of
: Lincoln and others and with control of Congress. It's slightly
: more complex than you allege.
The Dixiecrats waited until they lost control of Congress before they
began to witthdraw from Congress, which also points to motivations. They
knew they would lose a vote on the slavery issue, so they took the
cowards' way out. They didn't want to play by the rules, so they split off
to make their own rules. Funny thing is, the Confederacy was, in most
ways, an exact duplicate of the Union; a strange phenomenon for a group of
states who were concerned about "states' rights"...
:
:: If you want to see the real culprits in the Confederate flag becoming a symbol
:: of racism you need look no further than the Southern legislatures in the late
:: 1950s early 1960s. You see the State flags that incorporated the confederate
:: flag in them are not the noble symbols of times past that had flown over their
:: capitols for generations as you would have us believe. These flags were adopted
:: during the height of the civil rights movement.
:
: Really? How many states incorporated the flag into the state
: flag?
:
:: Finally in an attempt to save from bandwidth i should also point out that one
:: must make a distinction between the cause of the war and why men fought in the
:: war. The fact that the war was over slavery does not automatically make all
:: those who fought for the South racists nor all those who fought for the North
:: saints. There were good and bad men on both sides.
:
: If the war were about slavery, why didn't Lincoln free the slaves
: in the beginning, instead of waiting until 1863? And why was
: slavery still in existence in Kentucky and Delaware in 1865, when
: slavery in those states ended only because of the XIII Amendment?
: As an aside, Lincoln freed only the slaves in the seceding
: states, not in any other states. Sure, the war was all about
: slavery.
:
The secession was all about slavery; the war was about the secession. Now,
think a little. If you're trying to get the seceding states back into the
fold, why would you outlaw slavery? That's sure as hell not going to get
them back into the fold, is it? And Lincoln was never a pure abolitionist;
he was concerned with preserving the Union. He even said that if he could
preserve the Union either by outlawing or preserving slavery, he would do
it. But the Emancipation Proclamation was a punishment to the seceding
states, and little more, I assure you. In other words, Lincoln in many
ways started what is still a GOP tradition; putting politics ahead of
doing the right thing...
Adam Bernay
On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Milt wrote:
> :Why? What's your problem with worshipping the flag? Do you know what the
> :word worship means?
>
> Yeah; do you? I really hate to break it to you, Adam, but worshipping the
> flag is against one of them there commandments you're so fond of. You show
> RESPECT to a flag, Adam, you don't worship it.
You're only looking at the first definition of "worship", Milt. Another
definition (according to Websters) is "to have great respect for, to
honor".
> :> However, considering the inroads that the KKK/Nazi types have made
> :> into the Republican Party leadership,
> :
> :Which is none...
>
> Ever hear of David Duke?
Duke was not a real Republican and was rejected by the Party.
> Strom Thurmond? Jesse Helms?
When have these people ever assaulted minorities or advocated same? While
they may be *PASSIVELY* racist, they are not *ACTIVELY* racist as the KKK
and the Nazis are. (I'm not saying passive racism is okay, I'm just
pointing out that it's different than KKK-ism/Naziism.)
> :> it's quite possible that the
> :> Bill Of Rights _will_ be changed, and flag-burning could become
> :> illegal.
> :
> :I hope flag-burning as a political protest becomes illegal.
> :
> I hope not. What do you you think that will do to flag-burning, Adam? I
> betcha there'll be more than ever. What are you going to do to someone who
> buys a flag with his own money, and burns it on private property, in a way
> that doesn't cause a danger to the community?
Arrest him.
> The Constitution is no place to limit the rights of individuals, Adam. It
> is a document that is meant to limit the scope of government. The one time
> we have ever tried to limit individual behavior was the Eighteenth
> Amendment. Ever hear of Prohibition? It was a bit of a failure.
>
> The fact is, if you pass this amendment, there will be a record number of
> flag burnings, because it will suddenly take on greater political meaning
> than ever...
This is your opinion.
> :Gee...a website dedicated to following the letter of the law while
> :violating its spirit...why am I not surprised...
> :
> Law doesn't have a spirit, Adam.
You don't know beans about the law, do you, Miltie? The spirit vs letter
argument goes on in courtrooms and policy debates because the law *DOES*
have a spirit.
Adam Bernay
Douglas K Long
Bob Lawrence (lawr...@arthes.com) wrote:
: Nonsense-the war was fought over slavery-go and read the articles of secession
: issued by each of the seceding States(I posted excerpts from several of them
: here last week) Everyone of them affirms that they are seceding over the issue
: of slavery. It is interesting that before and during the war they proudly and
And aside from the excerpts that mention slavery, what other
reasons did the states list for seceding? Mention those and
slavery is shown in context and as a low priority - actually as
a particular of a larger issue.
: loudly told anyone who would listen that the issue was slavery-specifially
the
: North's refusal to enforce the "Fugitive Slave Act" and the North's attempt to
: limit the spread of slavery into the territories(an attempt that was killed by
: "Dred Scott". This nonsense about "states rights" and the whole "lost cause"
: myth only came about after the war as the South realized that world opinion was
: inexorably against slavery-accordingly the revisionist stepped in.
Rubbish. At the end of the war the South had no power or motive
to influence world opinion. It was an occupied and destroyed
country.
: You contention that the federal Govt and lincoln was somehow responsible for
: this war is nonsense also. Six States had already seceded when Lincoln was sworn
: in. Kind of hard to blame him for something that occurred before he was in
: office, isn't it? In add tion the first shot was fired by the South in a
: successful attempt to keep the North from supplying Ft Sumpter.
Lincoln was elected in Nov 1860 and the states began seceding
in Dec 1860. The timing had much to do with the election of
Lincoln and others and with control of Congress. It's slightly
more complex than you allege.
: If you want to see the real culprits in the Confederate flag becoming a symbol
: of racism you need look no further than the Southern legislatures in the late
: 1950s early 1960s. You see the State flags that incorporated the confederate
: flag in them are not the noble symbols of times past that had flown over their
: capitols for generations as you would have us believe. These flags were adopted
: during the height of the civil rights movement.
Really? How many states incorporated the flag into the state
flag?
: Finally in an attempt to save from bandwidth i should also point out that one
: must make a distinction between the cause of the war and why men fought in the
: war. The fact that the war was over slavery does not automatically make all
: those who fought for the South racists nor all those who fought for the North
: saints. There were good and bad men on both sides.
If the war were about slavery, why didn't Lincoln free the slaves
in the beginning, instead of waiting until 1863? And why was
slavery still in existence in Kentucky and Delaware in 1865, when
slavery in those states ended only because of the XIII Amendment?
As an aside, Lincoln freed only the slaves in the seceding
states, not in any other states. Sure, the war was all about
slavery.
: "JURIST" <JUR...@prodigy.net> wrote:
: <>Lincoln made the war about racism. It was originally about state's rights.
: <>The flag's symbolism is of states rights and independence from the
: <>oppression of the federal government. View it as a reminder that Americans
: <>remember and always will what the federal government did to hundreds of
: <>thousands of Americans in the civil war.
: <>Jur...@prodigy.net
: Robert Lawrence
: lawr...@arthes.com
Douglas K Long
Eric Sieferman (bergamot...@aa.net) wrote:
: JURIST wrote:
: >
: > Lincoln made the war about racism.
: Lincoln tried hard to make the war NOT about slavery, because he knew
: that most Northerners were no more than tepid abolitionists. For the
: first few years of the war, Lincoln was willing to let the Southern
: states continue to allow slavery if they would return to the union.
: Some members of the Republican Party saw the war as a great crusade
: against slavery, but Lincoln (at least at the beginning) did not.
Somebody else is now making sense, finally.
: > It was originally about state's rights.
: From the point of view of the secessionist states, it was always about
: slavery. Read the statements of secession. Read what prominent
: Southern politicians said at the time.
The larger issue was economic. Slavery was a minor part
of the larger economic issue. The issue was agriculture
in the South versus industry in the North. It was about
trade and tariffs.
: "states rights" was a convenient slogan to mask the real goal, namely
: the perpetuation of a particular set of economic relationships. The
: motivation behind the threats of secession by New England states in the
: early 1800's was masked by the same phrase.
You give too little credit to the South's idea of states' rights.
It was a genuine issue, and not a mask for anything.
: > The flag's symbolism is of states rights and independence from the
: > oppression of the federal government.
: An "oppression" which largely consisted of attempts to find an agreeable
: compromise between the desire of Southerners to expand slavery into the
: West and the desire of some Northerners to not permit this. Do you see
The desire of Southerners to allow slavery in newly admitted
states had to do with who would hold the power in Congress -
industrial states or agricultural states, and the fundamental
issue was tariffs.
: this "oppression" as more egregious than the real oppression represented
: by the Confederate flag - the oppression of state governments which
: allowed human beings to have the status of chattel?
And after the war, the chattel were free but starving, as were
their former owners. The war really didn't work out very well
for anyone except the owner of the industry of the North.
Slavery would have ended in a quiet death before the end of
the century with the introduction of machines to the fields.
The war reminds me of the Marine company commander in Vietnam
who said he had to destroy the village to save it.
: > View it as a reminder that Americans
: > remember and always will what the federal government did to hundreds of
: > thousands of Americans in the civil war.
: The federal government did what the Confederate government did -
: organise a military force in an attempt to achieve its political ends.
: One of these ends was (finally) the emancipation of slaves. Sounds good
: to me.
How much better is the life of a share-cropper than the life
of a slave?
Mitchell Holman
In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.970715...@mammoth.psnw.com>, Adam Bernay <abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> wrote:
}
}
}Duke was not a real Republican and was rejected by the Party.
}
Does not winning a GOP primary constitute being
a "real" Republican? What litmus test of Republicanism
did Duke fail, and when was his party membership
cancelled?
Mitchell Holman
"What do blacks want? Just three things: loose shoes, tight pussy, and a warm place to shit."
GOP Agriculture Sec. Earl Butz, getting a little loose himself on Ford's press plane, 1976.
Robert W Lawrence
DKL...@utarlg.uta.edu (Douglas K Long) wrote:
Utter complete nonsense. The reason the states listed for seceding was slavery.
Its only after the war that the "lost cause" myth arises. Have you read the
articles of secession?
<>
<> And aside from the excerpts that mention slavery, what other
<> reasons did the states list for seceding? Mention those and
<> slavery is shown in context and as a low priority - actually as
<> a particular of a larger issue.
<>
\
<
Robert W Lawrence
lawr...@arthes.com
Robert W Lawrence
DKL...@utarlg.uta.edu (Douglas K Long) wrote:
Simply because he had no authority to do so. Slavery was constitutionally
protected. He freed the slaves in the "rebelling" states as "contrabands" of
war. (which is why many of the early black regiments in the Union were called
contrabands).
<>
<> If the war were about slavery, why didn't Lincoln free the slaves
<> in the beginning, instead of waiting until 1863? And why was
<> slavery still in existence in Kentucky and Delaware in 1865, when
<> slavery in those states ended only because of the XIII Amendment?
<> As an aside, Lincoln freed only the slaves in the seceding
<> states, not in any other states. Sure, the war was all about
<> slavery.
<>
<>
<>
<>: "JURIST" <JUR...@prodigy.net> wrote:
<>
<>: <>Lincoln made the war about racism. It was originally about state's rights.
<>: <>The flag's symbolism is of states rights and independence from the
<>: <>oppression of the federal government. View it as a reminder that Americans
<>: <>remember and always will what the federal government did to hundreds of
<>: <>thousands of Americans in the civil war.
<>: <>Jur...@prodigy.net
<>
<>
<>: Robert Lawrence
<>: lawr...@arthes.com
<>
<>
Robert W Lawrence
lawr...@arthes.com
Robert W Lawrence
I really hate it when people try and inject current politics on events that
occurred 137 years ago. It cheapens your argument and quite frankly makes you
look foolish.
The Emancipation Proclamation was much more than a punishment-in fact he wrote
it in June of 1862-he held it until after the battle of Antietam so it would
appear he was issuing it from a position of strength. As I mentioned before his
proclamation applied only to the states that had seceeded as he had no
Constitutional Authority to ban it in those states who remained in the union.
Even in the rebelling States he had no constitutional basis to flat out free
them. His executive order(which was what the emancipation proclamation was) was
based on the legal premise that they could be declared "contraband" and thus be
subject to removal from their "owners". Note that the Emancipation Proclamation
enjoins the military to enforce it. Since the border states were not at war with
the union he obviously could not designate those slaves as "contraband" so they
remained slaves until the passage of the 13th amendment.
The primary reason he issued this proclamation was to make it crystal clear to
the European powers(Britain specifically) that this war was over slavery.
In November of 1863 Lincoln makes it crystal clear that his ultimate goal is the
freeing of all slaves. He does this in the gettysburg address-again a waning to
Britain but also lays out in no uncertain terms "that all men are created
equal".
I would be happy to e-mail the Emancipation Proclamation and the southern states
articles of secession to anyone who wants them
Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
<>The secession was all about slavery; the war was about the secession. Now,
<>think a little. If you're trying to get the seceding states back into the
<>fold, why would you outlaw slavery? That's sure as hell not going to get
<>them back into the fold, is it? And Lincoln was never a pure abolitionist;
<>he was concerned with preserving the Union. He even said that if he could
<>preserve the Union either by outlawing or preserving slavery, he would do
<>it. But the Emancipation Proclamation was a punishment to the seceding
<>states, and little more, I assure you. In other words, Lincoln in many
<>ways started what is still a GOP tradition; putting politics ahead of
<>doing the right thing...
<>
Robert W Lawrence
lawr...@arthes.com
Robert W Lawrence
DKL...@utarlg.uta.edu (Douglas K Long) wrote:
No it wasnt-Ohio, Michigan,Illinois, etc economies were based on agriculture
also-the tarrifs affected them the same as they did in the south-none of them
seceded. It is interesting that even the States who seceeded disagree with
you-READ their articles of secession. Read the war time papers of Jefferson
Davis and other southern leaders. They loudly and proudly proclaim that they
seceeded to preserve slavery.
<>
<> The larger issue was economic. Slavery was a minor part
<> of the larger economic issue. The issue was agriculture
<> in the South versus industry in the North. It was about
<> trade and tariffs.
<>
<>: "states rights" was a convenient slogan to mask the real goal, namely
<>: the perpetuation of a particular set of economic relationships. The
<>: motivation behind the threats of secession by New England states in the
<>: early 1800's was masked by the same phrase.
<>
<>
<> You give too little credit to the South's idea of states' rights.
<> It was a genuine issue, and not a mask for anything.
<>
<>: > The flag's symbolism is of states rights and independence from the
<>: > oppression of the federal government.
<>
<>: An "oppression" which largely consisted of attempts to find an agreeable
<>: compromise between the desire of Southerners to expand slavery into the
<>: West and the desire of some Northerners to not permit this. Do you see
<>
<> The desire of Southerners to allow slavery in newly admitted
<> states had to do with who would hold the power in Congress -
<> industrial states or agricultural states, and the fundamental
<> issue was tariffs.
<>
<>: this "oppression" as more egregious than the real oppression represented
<>: by the Confederate flag - the oppression of state governments which
<>: allowed human beings to have the status of chattel?
<>
<> And after the war, the chattel were free but starving, as were
<> their former owners. The war really didn't work out very well
<> for anyone except the owner of the industry of the North.
<> Slavery would have ended in a quiet death before the end of
<> the century with the introduction of machines to the fields.
<> The war reminds me of the Marine company commander in Vietnam
<> who said he had to destroy the village to save it.
<>
<>
<>: > View it as a reminder that Americans
<>: > remember and always will what the federal government did to hundreds of
<>: > thousands of Americans in the civil war.
<>
<>: The federal government did what the Confederate government did -
<>: organise a military force in an attempt to achieve its political ends.
<>: One of these ends was (finally) the emancipation of slaves. Sounds good
<>: to me.
<>
<> How much better is the life of a share-cropper than the life
<> of a slave?
<>
Robert W Lawrence
lawr...@arthes.com
Bill Anderson
In article <33e733e1...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>,
volt...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:10:35 -0600, phil...@atl.mindspring.com (Bill
> Anderson) wrote:
> >We'll discount Duke, who has been ritually
> >denounced by every prominent Republican on the planet;
>
> Is Louisiana on the planet?
Sort of.
Brian Carey
Milt wrote:
> :It's typical. They only believe in the Constitutional "rights" they
> :agree with, otherwise forget it. They are really "Stalinists" at heart.
> : yasmin2
> :
> It's typical, ain't it. Mary only belives in Constitutional rights when it
> has to do with guns.
I highly doubt that Mary is in favor of unreasonable search and seizure,
or having soldiers quartered in her house without her permission.
>
> And by the way, there is no INDIVIDUAL right to own a gun in the Second
> Amendment...
Who are those "people" in the 2nd Amendment?
--
Brian M. Carey car...@mci2000.com
"Whosoever is guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy, shall be punished;
Conan The Librarian
In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.970715...@mammoth.psnw.com>,
Adam Bernay <abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> writes:
>On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Milt wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> :> it's quite possible that the
>> :> Bill Of Rights _will_ be changed, and flag-burning could become
>> :> illegal.
>> :
>> :I hope flag-burning as a political protest becomes illegal.
>> :
>> I hope not. What do you you think that will do to flag-burning, Adam? I
>> betcha there'll be more than ever. What are you going to do to someone who
>> buys a flag with his own money, and burns it on private property, in a way
>> that doesn't cause a danger to the community?
>
>Arrest him.
Ah, here we have the "party of freedom" in a nutshell.
>> The Constitution is no place to limit the rights of individuals, Adam. It
>> is a document that is meant to limit the scope of government. The one time
>> we have ever tried to limit individual behavior was the Eighteenth
>> Amendment. Ever hear of Prohibition? It was a bit of a failure.
>>
>> The fact is, if you pass this amendment, there will be a record number of
>> flag burnings, because it will suddenly take on greater political meaning
>> than ever...
>
>This is your opinion.
While I have never had any desire to burn a flag, if the amendment
passes, I may just change my mind. Others will do the same.
You see, if you make flag-burning illegal you give a platform to anyone
who wants to make a statement.
The flag is a symbol, yet some are trying to assign the same importance
to the symbol as the concept behind it. I believe that what it represents
is strong enough to survive the antics of a few fools who might burn the
piece of cloth.
Evidently Adam and some politicians don't have that same faith.
Answer me this: Exactly how does some loony who is on his own land,
burning a flag he owns, affect you personally? How does it diminish any of
your freedoms?
Chuck Vance
ulysses
On 13 Jul 1997 19:35:10 GMT, yas...@ix.netcom.com(Mary E Knadler)
wrote:
snip
>
>
>
>You are talking about my ancesters. They were honorable men & I revere
>their memory by honoring & respecting the "Battle Flag" that they died
>for. I had two great, great, great uncles who died at Gettysburg. I
>think we have the right to honor those men for their bravery as gallant
>soldiers who gave their lives for the "cause". I am proud to have a
>southern heritage. yasmin2
Your great-great-great uncles were no doubt (in most respects, like
most folks) honorable men. The "cause" they fought for, however, was
an abomination.
But I was wondering, now that the voices of Neo-Conservative
Republicanism (i.e., the White South--which now owns the party) in
this NG have convinced everybody that the Civil War was not instigated
by the slave-interest, and that the Confederate battle flag bears no
negative racial connotations, perhaps we could move on to the next
logical topic of discussion:
Slavery in the Sunny South wasn't *all that bad.*
Whadya think?
ulysses
On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 08:31:18 -0400, Brian Carey <sa...@CYBERPROMO.COM>
wrote:
snip
>
>Just to put things in perspective, those who fought for the union fought
>for a President who suspended habeus corpus and trampled under foot a
>couple of Constitutional Amendments by directing government officials to
>raid telegraph offices.
Thay it ithn't tho!!! And here I've been deluding myself all these
years that ol' Honest Abe was America's greatest president . . . I
mean containing slavery and saving the Union were important matters,
but *raiding telegraph offices*?--that puts a whole new complexion on
the matter.
>
>--
>Brian M. Carey car...@mci2000.com
>
>"Whosoever is guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy, shall be punished;
>if a man, by castration; if a woman, by boring through the cartilege
>of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least."
> ---Thomas Jefferson, in his recommendations
> of laws for the colony of Virginia
>
>"For nothing has done more than the publication of the English
>Bible to encourage freedom of thought and political democracy."
> ---Jasper Ridley, _Henry VII_
ulysses
On 13 Jul 1997 06:36:58 GMT, "JURIST" <JUR...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Lincoln made the war about racism. It was originally about state's rights.
>The flag's symbolism is of states rights and independence from the
>oppression of the federal government. View it as a reminder that Americans
>remember and always will what the federal government did to hundreds of
>thousands of Americans in the civil war.
O.K., here's the history McVeigh failed to tell you about:
1) Lincoln ran on a plank that called for the future containment of
slavery--i.e., it shouldn't be allowed to extend into the territories.
2) Lincoln won because Democrats were sectionally torn on this very
issue. 3) First South Carolina, then the rest of the Deep South, then
the rest of the South (sans KY) secede from the Union.
Thus the basis of southern secession was the defense of slavery. The
Civil War was a dispute over "state's rights" ONLY to the extent that
the principal pertained to the right to practice and promote slavery.
Only a Far-Right whack-o-matic, or a blindered White-South-apologist,
would argue otherwise.
The Confederate battle-flag, together with various wordings in the
U.S. Constitution that serve(d) to accomdate slavery, are reminders to
Americans that sometimes "we" get it all wrong, and then there's the
Devil to pay.
annie shank
Brian Carey wrote:
>
> Milt wrote:
> > :It's typical. They only believe in the Constitutional "rights" they
> > :agree with, otherwise forget it. They are really "Stalinists" at heart.
> > : yasmin2
> > :
> > :
> > It's typical, ain't it. Mary only belives in Constitutional rights when it
> > has to do with guns.
>
> I highly doubt that Mary is in favor of unreasonable search and seizure,
> or having soldiers quartered in her house without her permission.
>
the homes and property of other citizens to be confiscated. And when
was the last time the latter happened in this country? I think, to
answer my own question, it may have been during the Civil War when
northern troops quartered in southern homes.
> >
> > And by the way, there is no INDIVIDUAL right to own a gun in the Second
> > Amendment...
>
> Who are those "people" in the 2nd Amendment?
>
National Guard, or your legislatively-supported state militia (not the
nuts in fatigues who call themselves militia; those are paranoids, not
patriots). You have to read the whole amendment, Brian, not just those
parts you like.
Annie
Adam Bernay
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Jim Kennemur wrote:
> Is Louisiana on the planet? Duke is a powerful force in the Louisiana
> Republican party.
Not anymore. Duke has not been a member of the Republican Party
*ANYWHERE* for quite some time.
> I almost forgot old "Know Noting" Buchanan. There is another name for
> the list.
Pat Buchanan isn't a leader in the GOP, he's a radio talk show host. The
man hasn't been elected to anything, he comes up with *VERY* low
percentages in the GOP primaries...he's hardly a representative of the
GOP.
> >but the GOP should
> >indeed be held accountable for the fact that Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond,
> >who owe their political existence to racism, are among its nominal leaders.
>
> I must agree with you on that one Bill.
This is an absolutely bogus charge made by people who are PO-ed their
people haven't won Congressional seats...
Adam Bernay
Milt
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Adam Bernay wrote:
:
:On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Jim Kennemur wrote:
:
:> Is Louisiana on the planet? Duke is a powerful force in the Louisiana
:> Republican party.
:
:Not anymore. Duke has not been a member of the Republican Party
:*ANYWHERE* for quite some time.
Oh, really? He ran for Governor as the Republican nominee in 1990, and has
since served in the LA legislature, as a Republican.
:
:> I almost forgot old "Know Noting" Buchanan. There is another name for
:> the list.
:
:Pat Buchanan isn't a leader in the GOP, he's a radio talk show host. The
:man hasn't been elected to anything, he comes up with *VERY* low
:percentages in the GOP primaries...he's hardly a representative of the
:GOP.
:
Pat Buchanan is VERY influential in the GOP, Adam. As evidenced by his
standing in the 1992 convention, and his very strong showing in the 1996
primaries...
:> >but the GOP should
:> >indeed be held accountable for the fact that Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond,
:> >who owe their political existence to racism, are among its nominal leaders.
:>
:> I must agree with you on that one Bill.
:
:This is an absolutely bogus charge made by people who are PO-ed their
:people haven't won Congressional seats...
:
BOGUS!? According to whom? Before he was Senator, Helms was a race-baiting
segregationist talk show host. It's all on tape. And Thurmond ran on a
segregationist ticket for president in 1948, and left the Democratic Party
in the late 60's because of its stand on civil rights. BOGUS?! I think
not!
Adam Bernay
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Jim Kennemur wrote:
> >Duke was not a real Republican and was rejected by the Party.
>
> Is that why he helped Pat Buchanan defeat Phil gramm in the 96
> Louisiana Republican primary?
He did so as an Independent, and you will note that while Buchanan won the
Louisiana primary, he didn't even come close to winning the nomination.
> Is that why he has serves as a member of the Louisiana legislature as a
> Republican
No, he does not. He is a registered Independent.
> and has run for the public office several times on the Republican ticket?
He is not a Republican. Period, end of report. He is registered
Indpendent.
Adam Bernay
Paul Zukowski
Many of the running opinions on this thread are true.
Other are not or are only an opinion.
Here some examples;
It was originally about state's rights.
>The flag's symbolism is of states rights and independence from the
>oppression of the federal government. View it as a reminder that Americans
>remember and always will what the federal government did to hundreds of
>thousands of Americans in the civil war.
as is;
1) Lincoln ran on a plank that called for the future containment of
slavery--i.e., it shouldn't be allowed to extend into the territories.
2) Lincoln won because Democrats were sectionally torn on this very
issue. 3) First South Carolina, then the rest of the Deep South, then
the rest of the South (sans KY) secede from the Union.
as is;
<> The Union would have dissolve with or without slavery. The issue
<> was economic, was between an industrial North against an exclusively
<> agricultural South whose cash crop was cotton, which supplied the
<> mills of England, whcih were in competition with the mills of
<> the North. It was an economic war - as every war in history has
<> been economic - and the issues of states' rights and slavery were
<> were merely aspects of the larger issue - tariffs. If the Northern
<> mill owners had their way, tariffs would have been so high that
<> cotton wouldn't have been profitable. With Northern control of
<> Congress, higher tariffs were likely. The South probably jumped
<> the gun in seceding because it wasn't in immediate danger of
<> being overwhelmed in Congress, but the South was proud and
<> wasn't going to take any more guff from the Yankees. The
<> South saw the North as out to get them, and the North was
<> out to get them, had been after them with tariffs for years.
as is,
Simply because he had no authority to do so. Slavery was constitutionally
protected. He freed the slaves in the "rebelling" states as "contrabands" of
war. (which is why many of the early black regiments in the Union were called
contrabands).
<>
<> If the war were about slavery, why didn't Lincoln free the slaves
<> in the beginning, instead of waiting until 1863? And why was
<> slavery still in existence in Kentucky and Delaware in 1865, when
<> slavery in those states ended only because of the XIII Amendment?
<> As an aside, Lincoln freed only the slaves in the seceding
<> states, not in any other states.
as is,
: The Confederate flag is a symbol of white supremacy; the
: swastika had a respectable history until Hitler stole it.
: Anti-war people stole Churchill's victory gesture and
: made it into a peace symbol. There are cultures that
: interpret a thumbs up sign as an obscenity. Would you
: respect that and refrain from insulting people or would
: you refuse to "give in?"
as is,
Lincoln did not have the public support in the North to
abolish slavery--and he claimed he did not have the
Constitutional authority.
as is,
the flag of Mississippi was adopted in 1894.
Now do you want to know how this plays out???
Here we go..........
If you are looking at the cause of the Civil War it is complicated.
The roots of it is economic.
Industry VS Agro
raw materials vs finished products
imports vs export
&
tariffs vs free trade
The issue of states rights was an expression of this conflict.
The expansion of slavery was the polarizing issue.
But it was far from the only issue.
Abolitionist Movement was relativily small radical group.
The cause of the out break of fighting was "if states could leave the Union and
take federal property with them.
Fort Sumpter spark of this.
Most people from the North were fighting for Union;
Not the abolition of slavery.
Most in the South were fighting because they were invaded.
Most of the people in CSA Army were not slave holders.
To answer this question:
If the war were about slavery, why didn't Lincoln free the slaves
in the beginning, instead of waiting until 1863?
Because he feared that the border states would leave causing Washington DC
to become an island surrounded the CSA. He also feared that most of the
Union Army would desert.
If the question is what the CSA Battle Flag means the answer is, it's original
meaning was simply to identify the South army.
It became a symbolism is of states rights and independence from the
oppression of the federal government. View it as a reminder that Americans
remember and always will what the federal government did to hundreds of
thousands of Americans in the civil war.
It has been, in this century, used as a symbol of white supremacy.
What does it really mean??
Whatever YOU think it means.
I'm sure most everyone won't like this answer.
Because it the true.
As with most things in this world it is not a Black & White issue.
Sorry for the pun.
But it is interesting that are still people upset about the Civil War issues.
Should CSA Battle Flag be on a state flag??
If we truely believe in democracy, it should be
upto the majority of the people who live in that state.
Since thier state flag is thier symbol, not anyone elses.
I happen to live in Ct and would NOT want, say people from Arizona,
telling the people of Ct thay had to remove the grapes on our flag.
Which brings us back to were all this started.
What are the rights of each state.
--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called ³Random Signatures² into your Preferences folder.
Bill Anderson
In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.970716...@mammoth.psnw.com>,
Adam Bernay <abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> wrote:
I wrote:
> > >but the GOP should
> > >indeed be held accountable for the fact that Jesse Helms and Strom
> > >Thurmond, who owe their political existence to racism, are among its
> > >nominal leaders.
> This is an absolutely bogus charge made by people who are PO-ed their
> people haven't won Congressional seats...
Which charge is bogus? That Helms and Thurmond are Republican leaders? That
they owe their careers to racism? I don't quite know what you're saying here,
Adam.
Mary E Knadler
In <philidor-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>
phil...@atl.mindspring.com (Bill Anderson) writes:
>
>In article
<Pine.A32.3.93.970714...@nevis.u.arizona.edu>,
>Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, Adam Bernay wrote:
>>
>> :On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 sun...@geocities.com wrote:
>
made
>> :> into the Republican Party leadership,
>> :
>> :Which is none...
>>
>
>Ah. Point taken. I stated earlier that no Republican leader was a
member
>denounced by every prominent Republican on the planet; but the GOP
should
>indeed be held accountable for the fact that Jesse Helms and Strom
Thurmond,
>who owe their political existence to racism, are among its nominal
leaders.
>
>
>To send email, delete "dont_bother" from my address.
They were never members of the Klan, tho which you always try to imply
in your comments. yasmin2!
Mary E Knadler
In <Pine.A32.3.93.970715...@kitts.u.arizona.edu> Milt
<msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:
>On 15 Jul 1997, Mary E Knadler wrote:
>
>:In <33CB6C...@CYBERPROMO.COM> Brian Carey <sa...@CYBERPROMO.COM>
>:writes:
>:>
>:>Jim Kennemur wrote:
>:>> >Is anyone surprised by Mary's sympathetic stance towards the
>:Confederacy?
>:>>
>:>> Considering that she has a record of supporting those who have
>:>> attempted to subvert the Constitution, No.
>:>>
>:>> Jim
>:>>
>:>
>:>This coming from someone who wants to take away your 2nd Amendment
>:right
>:>to keep and bear arms.
>:>--
>:>Brian M. Carey car...@mci2000.com
>:>
>:
>:
>:
>:It's typical. They only believe in the Constitutional "rights" they
>:agree with, otherwise forget it. They are really "Stalinists" at
heart.
>: yasmin2
>:
>:
>It's typical, ain't it. Mary only belives in Constitutional rights
when it
>has to do with guns.
>
Second
>Amendment...
>
>http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
>
>"We are taught to believe that there's an invisible man, who lives in
the
>sky, who has a list of ten things he doesn't want you to do, who
watches
>you every minute, and if you do something he doesn't like, you're
going to
>burn forever. YET HE LOVES YOU!"
> --George Carlin, on Politically Incorect, May 29, 1997
>
How come I just knew you were going to say that. You are so
predictable---just like a broken record---also as boring. yasmin2
Bill Anderson
In article <5qjgka$l...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, yas...@ix.netcom.com(Mary
E Knadler) wrote:
> In <philidor-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>
> phil...@atl.mindspring.com (Bill Anderson) writes:
> >Ah. Point taken. I stated earlier that no Republican leader was a
> >member of the Klan; I was right. We'll discount Duke, who has been
> >ritually denounced by every prominent Republican on the planet; but the
> >GOP should indeed be held accountable for the fact that Jesse Helms and
> >Strom Thurmond, who owe their political existence to racism, are among its
> >nominal leaders.
> They were never members of the Klan, tho which you always try to imply
> in your comments. yasmin2!
I do? Wow... I must have missed that part of my comments. I could have
sworn that I explicitly stated that, to the best of my knowledge, no leader
of the GOP was a member of the Klan. Perhaps Yasmin could point out where
I went wrong.
What I did say was that both Helms and Thurmond owe their political careers
to their early and blatant support of racism and segregation.
Bill
To send email, delete "dont_bother" from my address.
"In the bowels of Christ, I beseech you; bethink yourself
Milt
On 16 Jul 1997, Mary E Knadler wrote:
:In <philidor-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>
:phil...@atl.mindspring.com (Bill Anderson) writes:
:>
:>In article
:<Pine.A32.3.93.970714...@nevis.u.arizona.edu>,
:>Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
:>
:>> On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, Adam Bernay wrote:
:>>
:>> :On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 sun...@geocities.com wrote:
:>
:>> :> However, considering the inroads that the KKK/Nazi types have
:made
:>> :> into the Republican Party leadership,
:>> :
:>> :Which is none...
:>>
:>> Ever hear of David Duke? Strom Thurmond? Jesse Helms?
:>
:>Ah. Point taken. I stated earlier that no Republican leader was a
:member
:>of the Klan; I was right. We'll discount Duke, who has been ritually
:>denounced by every prominent Republican on the planet; but the GOP
:should
:>indeed be held accountable for the fact that Jesse Helms and Strom
:Thurmond,
:>who owe their political existence to racism, are among its nominal
:leaders.
:>
:>Bill
:>
:>To send email, delete "dont_bother" from my address.
:
:They were never members of the Klan, tho which you always try to imply
:in your comments. yasmin2!
:
No one has implied that, Mary! In fact, if you would bother to read
SLOWLY, you would find that he specifically stated that they WERE NOT
members of the Klan. They do, however, share many of the same sentiments
as people of the Klan.
Milt
On 16 Jul 1997, Mary E Knadler wrote:
:In <Pine.A32.3.93.970715...@kitts.u.arizona.edu> Milt
:<msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:
:>
:>On 15 Jul 1997, Mary E Knadler wrote:
:>
:>:In <33CB6C...@CYBERPROMO.COM> Brian Carey <sa...@CYBERPROMO.COM>
:>:writes:
:>:>
:>:>Jim Kennemur wrote:
:>:>> >Is anyone surprised by Mary's sympathetic stance towards the
:>:Confederacy?
:>:>>
:>:>> Considering that she has a record of supporting those who have
:>:>> attempted to subvert the Constitution, No.
:>:>>
:>:>> Jim
:>:>>
:>:>
:>:>This coming from someone who wants to take away your 2nd Amendment
:>:right
:>:>to keep and bear arms.
:>:>
:>:>--
:>:>Brian M. Carey car...@mci2000.com
:>:>
:>:
:>:It's typical. They only believe in the Constitutional "rights" they
:>:agree with, otherwise forget it. They are really "Stalinists" at
:heart.
:>: yasmin2
:>:
:>It's typical, ain't it. Mary only belives in Constitutional rights
:when it
:>has to do with guns.
:>
:>And by the way, there is no INDIVIDUAL right to own a gun in the
:Second
:>Amendment...
:>
:>--Milt
:>http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
:>
:>"We are taught to believe that there's an invisible man, who lives in
:the
:>sky, who has a list of ten things he doesn't want you to do, who
:watches
:>you every minute, and if you do something he doesn't like, you're
:going to
:>burn forever. YET HE LOVES YOU!"
:> --George Carlin, on Politically Incorect, May 29, 1997
:
:
:How come I just knew you were going to say that. You are so
:predictable---just like a broken record---also as boring. yasmin2
:
And yet you can't seem to stop yourself, can you, Mary?
Douglas K Long
Milt (msh...@U.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
: On 15 Jul 1997, Mary E Knadler wrote:
: :In <33CB6C...@CYBERPROMO.COM> Brian Carey <sa...@CYBERPROMO.COM>
: :writes:
: :>
: :>Jim Kennemur wrote:
: :>> >Is anyone surprised by Mary's sympathetic stance towards the
: :Confederacy?
: :>>
: :>> Considering that she has a record of supporting those who have
: :>> attempted to subvert the Constitution, No.
: :>>
: :>> Jim
: :>>
: :>
: :>This coming from someone who wants to take away your 2nd Amendment
: :right
: :>to keep and bear arms.
: :>
: :>--
: :>Brian M. Carey car...@mci2000.com
: :>
: :
: :
: :
: :It's typical. They only believe in the Constitutional "rights" they
: :agree with, otherwise forget it. They are really "Stalinists" at heart.
: : yasmin2
: :
: :
: It's typical, ain't it. Mary only belives in Constitutional rights when it
: has to do with guns.
: And by the way, there is no INDIVIDUAL right to own a gun in the Second
: Amendment...
This is unequivocal conformation that Milt doesn't know
what he's talking about. The authors of the Bill of Rights
had in mind an armed citizenry expressly to resist invasion
by foreign forces or tyranny by government. Without the Second
Amendment, the other nine are unenforcable.
: --Milt
Mary E Knadler
In <Pine.A32.3.93.970715...@lucia.u.arizona.edu> Milt
<msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:
>
>On 16 Jul 1997, Douglas K Long wrote:
>
>:Bob Lawrence (lawr...@arthes.com) wrote:
>:: Nonsense-the war was fought over slavery-go and read the articles
of secession
>:: issued by each of the seceding States(I posted excerpts from
several of them
>:: here last week) Everyone of them affirms that they are seceding
over the issue
>:: of slavery. It is interesting that before and during the war they
proudly and
>: And aside from the excerpts that mention slavery, what other
>: reasons did the states list for seceding? Mention those and
>: a particular of a larger issue.
>
issues
>at the time, other than slavery? There were few tax issues, the
federal
>gov't was very tiny, the only commerce that had ANY regulation at all
was
>interstate commerce, and even that was not regulated heavily. The
Supreme
>Court was consistently on the side of the states in most
circumstances,
>and the few states that actually had a non-slavery states' rights
issue to
>deal with (specifically Pennsylvania & New Jersey) didn't even
consider
>joining the Confederacy. The Civil War was fought over blocking
secession;
>the secession was over SLAVERY. Period.
>
>:: loudly told anyone who would listen that the issue was
slavery-specifially
>:the
>:: North's refusal to enforce the "Fugitive Slave Act" and the North's
attempt to
>:: limit the spread of slavery into the territories(an attempt that
was killed by
>:: "Dred Scott". This nonsense about "states rights" and the whole
"lost cause"
>:: myth only came about after the war as the South realized that world
opinion was
>:: inexorably against slavery-accordingly the revisionist stepped in.
>:
>: Rubbish. At the end of the war the South had no power or motive
>: to influence world opinion. It was an occupied and destroyed
>: country.
>
have
>to do with the causes of a CIVIL war?
>
>:: You contention that the federal Govt and lincoln was somehow
responsible for
>:: this war is nonsense also. Six States had already seceded when
Lincoln was sworn
>:: in. Kind of hard to blame him for something that occurred before he
was in
>:: office, isn't it? In add tion the first shot was fired by the South
in a
>:: successful attempt to keep the North from supplying Ft Sumpter.
>:
>: Lincoln was elected in Nov 1860 and the states began seceding
>: in Dec 1860. The timing had much to do with the election of
>: Lincoln and others and with control of Congress. It's slightly
>: more complex than you allege.
>
>began to witthdraw from Congress, which also points to motivations.
They
>knew they would lose a vote on the slavery issue, so they took the
>cowards' way out. They didn't want to play by the rules, so they split
off
>to make their own rules. Funny thing is, the Confederacy was, in most
>ways, an exact duplicate of the Union; a strange phenomenon for a
group of
>states who were concerned about "states' rights"...
> :
>:: If you want to see the real culprits in the Confederate flag
becoming a symbol
>:: of racism you need look no further than the Southern legislatures
in the late
>:: 1950s early 1960s. You see the State flags that incorporated the
confederate
>:: flag in them are not the noble symbols of times past that had flown
over their
>:: capitols for generations as you would have us believe. These flags
were adopted
>:: during the height of the civil rights movement.
>:
>: Really? How many states incorporated the flag into the state
>: flag?
>:
>:: Finally in an attempt to save from bandwidth i should also point
out that one
fought in the
>:: war. The fact that the war was over slavery does not automatically
make all
the North
>:: saints. There were good and bad men on both sides.
>: If the war were about slavery, why didn't Lincoln free the slaves
>: in the beginning, instead of waiting until 1863? And why was
>: slavery still in existence in Kentucky and Delaware in 1865, when
>: slavery in those states ended only because of the XIII Amendment?
>: As an aside, Lincoln freed only the slaves in the seceding
>: slavery.
>:
>The secession was all about slavery; the war was about the secession.
Now,
>think a little. If you're trying to get the seceding states back into
the
>fold, why would you outlaw slavery? That's sure as hell not going to
get
>them back into the fold, is it? And Lincoln was never a pure
abolitionist;
>he was concerned with preserving the Union. He even said that if he
could
>preserve the Union either by outlawing or preserving slavery, he would
do
>it. But the Emancipation Proclamation was a punishment to the seceding
>states, and little more, I assure you. In other words, Lincoln in many
>ways started what is still a GOP tradition; putting politics ahead of
>doing the right thing...
>
>http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
>
>"We are taught to believe that there's an invisible man, who lives in
the
>sky, who has a list of ten things he doesn't want you to do, who
watches
>you every minute, and if you do something he doesn't like, you're
going to
>burn forever. YET HE LOVES YOU!"
> --George Carlin, on Politically Incorect, May 29, 1997
>
You are so disgusting putting down our greatest President. Abraham
Lincoln gave his life to preserve the Union. And so that the
government of the people, for the people, and by the people shall not
perish from the earth. The Gettysburg address is one of the most
eloquent speechs ever given in this country.
And this clown has the audacity to say he put politics before what was
right. Before the war started Lincoln said no nation can long endure
half-slave & half-free. Also "a house divided against itself shall
fall"
Please, do you have to be so obnoxious about what most people recognize
as greatness. yasmin2
Brian Carey
ulysses wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 08:31:18 -0400, Brian Carey <sa...@CYBERPROMO.COM>
> wrote:
>
> snip
> >
> >Just to put things in perspective, those who fought for the union fought
> >for a President who suspended habeus corpus and trampled under foot a
> >couple of Constitutional Amendments by directing government officials to
> >raid telegraph offices.
>
> Thay it ithn't tho!!! And here I've been deluding myself all these
> years that ol' Honest Abe was America's greatest president . . . I
> mean containing slavery and saving the Union were important matters,
> but *raiding telegraph offices*?--that puts a whole new complexion on
> the matter.
Apparently the Bill of Rights means nothing to you. Apparently habeus
corpus is an unimportant issue to you. I'm very sorry to hear you
condemn one violation of human rights in favor of another.
--
Brian M. Carey car...@mci2000.com
"Whosoever is guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy, shall be punished;
if a man, by castration; if a woman, by boring through the cartilege
of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least."
---Thomas Jefferson, in his recommendations
of laws for the colony of Virginia
"For nothing has done more than the publication of the English
Bible to encourage freedom of thought and political democracy."
---Jasper Ridley, _Henry VIII_
Milt
On 16 Jul 1997, Mary E Knadler, incapable of holding a reasoned argument,
wrote:
:In <Pine.A32.3.93.970715...@lucia.u.arizona.edu> Milt
:<msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:
:>
<very good, rational discussion of the Civil War causes snipped>
:>The secession was all about slavery; the war was about the secession.
:Now,
:>think a little. If you're trying to get the seceding states back into
:the
:>fold, why would you outlaw slavery? That's sure as hell not going to
:get
:>them back into the fold, is it? And Lincoln was never a pure
:abolitionist;
:>he was concerned with preserving the Union. He even said that if he
:could
:>preserve the Union either by outlawing or preserving slavery, he would
:do
:>it. But the Emancipation Proclamation was a punishment to the seceding
:>states, and little more, I assure you. In other words, Lincoln in many
:>ways started what is still a GOP tradition; putting politics ahead of
:>doing the right thing...
:>
:>--Milt
:>http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
:>
:
:You are so disgusting putting down our greatest President. Abraham
:Lincoln gave his life to preserve the Union.
Lincoln did all he could to preserve the Union; slavery was almost an
afterthought. I'm not putting him down, per se, although he did quite a
few things during the course of the war that were troubling, not the
leaast of which was the suspension of Habaes Corpus. How would YOU like to
be jailed just because the government felt like it, Mary?
:And so that the
:government of the people, for the people, and by the people shall not
:perish from the earth. The Gettysburg address is one of the most
:eloquent speechs ever given in this country.
:
Are you saying that any politician who puts politics ahead of the "right"
thing to do is somehow deficient? Well, take a good look at your hero,
Ronnie Raygun, Mary, because he's the very definition of that. I'm not
insulting Lincoln, mary; I'm stating fact. Lincoln was a great president,
but as presidents go, I would put him about 5th or 6th.
:And this clown has the audacity to say he put politics before what was
:right. Before the war started Lincoln said no nation can long endure
:half-slave & half-free. Also "a house divided against itself shall
:fall"
:
Yes, but he also said that if he had to dismantle slavery, or expand it,
to save the Union, he would do it. As I said before, he pretty much
nullified the Constitution for the duration of the war. He was not
perfect, Mary. I think he enjoys the same deification that Kennedy enjoys,
due to the fact that he was assassinated.
:Please, do you have to be so obnoxious about what most people recognize
:as greatness. yasmin2
:
I call 'em as I see 'em. I refuse to deify any politician, Mary. But I
would be careful, because with your views on the Confederacy, and your
deification of Lincoln, you are going to find yourself in the really
unfortunate position of having to justify two counterpositions.
Of course, as obnoxiosity (coined by Woody Allen) goes, Mary. You have the
crown on Usenet. You are right there with odell and Mr Spam in the Usenet
Kook Hall of Fame...
Eric Sieferman
Douglas K Long wrote:
>
> Eric Sieferman (bergamot...@aa.net) wrote:
(snip)
> : > It was originally about state's rights.
>
> : From the point of view of the secessionist states, it was always about
> : slavery. Read the statements of secession. Read what prominent
> : Southern politicians said at the time.
>
> The larger issue was economic. Slavery was a minor part
> of the larger economic issue.
I'd question the idea that slavery was a minor part of the economic
issue. Slavery was the basis of the Confederate economy, and it was
fear of the economic disruptions due to anticipated restrictions on
slavery which was behind the secession movement.
> The issue was agriculture
> in the South versus industry in the North.
The North was more industrial than the South in 1860, but both sections
were primarily agricultural.
> It was about
> trade and tariffs.
And what was the South interested in trading? Items which would have
been uneconomical to produce without slave labor.
The abortive secession movement in New England in the early 1800's was
based almost entirely to disputes over tariffs. Slavery was at the
heart of the secessions beginning in 1860.
> : "states rights" was a convenient slogan to mask the real goal, namely
> : the perpetuation of a particular set of economic relationships. The
> : motivation behind the threats of secession by New England states in the
> : early 1800's was masked by the same phrase.
>
> You give too little credit to the South's idea of states' rights.
> It was a genuine issue, and not a mask for anything.
It was only used by Southerners when they perceived their economic
interests to be threatened. Southern politicians sang a different tune
about states rights earlier in the 19th century.
The conduct of the Confederate government toward the Southern states
didn't reflect a high degree of respect for states rights especially
concerning taxation and military recruitment, despite dixiecratically
correct phrases in the Confederate Constitution. We could be generous
and write this off as excesses due to war, not unlike what the Union
government performed.
> : > The flag's symbolism is of states rights and independence from the
> : > oppression of the federal government.
>
> : An "oppression" which largely consisted of attempts to find an agreeable
> : compromise between the desire of Southerners to expand slavery into the
> : West and the desire of some Northerners to not permit this. Do you see
>
> The desire of Southerners to allow slavery in newly admitted
> states had to do with who would hold the power in Congress -
> industrial states or agricultural states, and the fundamental
> issue was tariffs.
>
> : this "oppression" as more egregious than the real oppression represented
> : by the Confederate flag - the oppression of state governments which
> : allowed human beings to have the status of chattel?
>
> And after the war, the chattel were free but starving, as were
> their former owners.
The chattel were not infrequently starving before the war. After the
war, they were free to move, hold and change jobs, stay together with
their families, vote, hold office, testify in court, attend school,
etc. Not surprisingly, the newly emancipated people saw this condition
as preferable to slavery, regardless of any short-term deprivation.
As to the former owners, well, tough shit.
> The war really didn't work out very well
> for anyone except the owner of the industry of the North.
Call me a bleeding heart, but I think that freedom is always preferable
to slavery. Even though the former slavers rebounded to attempt to
restore de facto economic conditions to the status quo ante, the
ex-chattel were absolutely better off.
> Slavery would have ended in a quiet death before the end of
> the century with the introduction of machines to the fields.
Possibly. However, there were increasing numbers of industrial plants
in the secessionist states which had managed to use slave labor
profitably. The mechanization of the agriculture in the South wasn't
widespread for many decades after the Civil War, and it's very likely
that if the Confederacy had succeeded in its rebellion slavery would
have continued into my parents' lifetimes, and possibly into mine.
> The war reminds me of the Marine company commander in Vietnam
> who said he had to destroy the village to save it.
Civil wars are often this way. If the Northern stategic planners had
figured this out earlier in the war, it could have been ended in a
couple of years at most.
>
> : > View it as a reminder that Americans
> : > remember and always will what the federal government did to hundreds of
> : > thousands of Americans in the civil war.
>
> : The federal government did what the Confederate government did -
> : organise a military force in an attempt to achieve its political ends.
> : One of these ends was (finally) the emancipation of slaves. Sounds good
> : to me.
>
> How much better is the life of a share-cropper than the life
> of a slave?
Much better.
Eric Sieferman
Eric Sieferman
Adam Bernay
On 16 Jul 1997, Andrew Hall wrote:
> Adam> Not anymore. Duke has not been a member of the Republican Party
> Adam> *ANYWHERE* for quite some time.
>
> Really? You really should read the newspapers. While he
> was justly denounced by national GOP leaders, he is a bit
> of a force in Louisiana.
But he is not a force in the GOP, as he is no longer a GOP member.
> Adam> Pat Buchanan isn't a leader in the GOP, he's a radio talk show
> Adam> host. The man hasn't been elected to anything, he comes up with
> Adam> *VERY* low percentages in the GOP primaries...he's hardly a
> Adam> representative of the GOP.
>
> Do you really consider 30% to be low? Winning a few primaries
> not to be significant?
30% is far from a majority...
> Adam> This is an absolutely bogus charge made by people who are PO-ed their
> Adam> people haven't won Congressional seats...
>
> Do you deny that both Thurmond and Helms began their careers
> with racist demagoguery?
I have seen no definitive proof of that.
Adam Bernay
Adam Bernay
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Jim Kennemur wrote:
> >> Is Louisiana on the planet? Duke is a powerful force in the Louisiana
> >> Republican party.
> >
> >Not anymore. Duke has not been a member of the Republican Party
> >*ANYWHERE* for quite some time.
>
> Perhaps you had better go over to his web site and let them know. He
> is listed as a Republican over there.
I have no idea why it says that. When was the site last updated? Maybe
the info on it is out-of-date.
> >> I almost forgot old "Know Noting" Buchanan. There is another name for
> >> the list.
> >
> >Pat Buchanan isn't a leader in the GOP, he's a radio talk show host. The
> >man hasn't been elected to anything, he comes up with *VERY* low
> >percentages in the GOP primaries...he's hardly a representative of the
> >GOP.
>
> Are you suggesting that a man who is able to get on the GOP primary
> ballot in almost every state and collect several delegates to the GOP
> National Convention is not one of the party leaders?
Buchanan has tried a number of times for elective office, and, AFAIK, has
never won yet. Also, I just got in the mail today something from a
candidate in the California GOP Senate Primaries referring to me as a
"leader in the party", and that was simply because I'm an Associate Member
of the local Republican Central Committee. I think what a "leader" in any
political party is open to interpretation.
>>>>but the GOP should
>>>>indeed be held accountable for the fact that Jesse Helms and Strom
>>>>Thurmond, who owe their political existence to racism, are among its
>>>>nominal leaders.
> >>
> >> I must agree with you on that one Bill.
>
> I notice you can't answer the Jesse and Strom examples.
>
> >This is an absolutely bogus charge made by people who are PO-ed their
> >people haven't won Congressional seats...
>
> There are only Republicans in Congress?
Excuse me, did I say that? *NO*, but they haven't won *THOSE*
Congressional seats, no matter how hard they've tried, and the Dems are
now in the minority in Congress in general.
Adam Bernay
Milt
On 17 Jul 1997, Douglas K Long wrote:
:Milt (msh...@U.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
:: On 14 Jul 1997, Douglas K Long wrote:
:
:: :Mary E Knadler (yas...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
:: :: In <33c98771...@news.idt.net> hart...@mail.idt.net (Jonathan
:: :: Hartley) writes:
:: :: >
:: :: >On 13 Jul 1997 19:35:10 GMT, yas...@ix.netcom.com(Mary E Knadler)
:: :: >wrote:
:: :: >
:: :: >>You are talking about my ancesters. They were honorable men & I
:: :: revere
:: :: >>their memory by honoring & respecting the "Battle Flag" that they
:: :: died
:: :: >>for. I had two great, great, great uncles who died at Gettysburg. I
:: :: >>think we have the right to honor those men for their bravery as
:: :: gallant
:: :: >>soldiers who gave their lives for the "cause". I am proud to have a
:: :: >>southern heritage. yasmin2
:: :: >
:: :: >Your ancestors, honorable as they may have been, were misguided and
:: :: >died for a miserable, traitorous, evil cause - namely the dissolution
:: :: >of the United States of America IN HOPES OF preserving the barbaric
:: :
:: : Jonathan, read a book or two, will you?
:
:: Why? He's right, so far...
:
: Your ability to discern right seems about as simpleton as
: Jonathan's. Miserable, traitorous, evil cause ...? Neither
: of you understands the context or issues of the war. But
: it feels so good to feel so right, doesn't it? Just like
: a couple of Nazis in the crowd at Nuremburg.
Note that Douglas, who thinks himself an intellectual, is incapable of
arguing the point, so he must engage in ad hominem in lieu of. I seem to
understand the context of the war much better than you; you don't seem to
have a clue. And trying to make us out to be nazis because we think you
and Mary are wrong about the Civil War-- well, that's just icing on the
cake. It PROVES that you have nothing to contribute here...
:: :: >tradition of slavery. The Confederate Battle Flag is diametrically
:: :: >opposed to the values and meaning of Old Glory, and it is the banner
:: :: >of traitors. You should decide now: What's it going to be? Are you
:: :: >an American or not? If not, then go somewhere else. We don't need
:: :: >any flag except the Stars and Stripes and we don't need people with
:: :: >divided loyalties. The Stars and Stripes stands for the brave men and
:: :: >women who died for THIS country. The Stars and Bars stands for a
:: :: >short-lived alliance of rebels that wanted to destroy the union for
:: :: >the sake of their own selfish economic motives. The South deserved
:: :
:: : What an unmitigated ignoramous.
:: :
:: It's his opinion...
:
: Founded, evidently, on a tremendous lack of information and thought.
I would say it's a bit overstated, yeah; but it is not entirely ignorant.
They DID want to preserve slavery, and the major reason WAS economic. And
as for the sentiment about the flag; I don't agree with it, but it's his
opinion, and he's entitled...
:: :: >every bit of misery they suffered and they should thank GOD above that
:: :: >they didn't get what was really coming to them for their treatment of
:: :: >blacks through segregation and Jim Crow.
:: :
:: : You dope. Segregation and Jim Crow were results of the Civil War.
:: : They didn't exist until *after* the War. Maybe if you did
:: : some reading before you expressed yourself on these matters,
:: : you might not have shown yourself as such an imbecile.
:: :
:: You know, you're right. The Civil War wasn't about Jim Crow. It was about
:: SLAVERY. The confederates killed in the name of keeping millions of human
:: beings as their property. As for segregation, how many white people do you
:
: You and Jonathan ought to get together. You deserve each other.
:
And this adds what to the discourse, exactly? The confederacy seceded
because of slavery, and the war was fought to preserve the Union. Slavery,
and its preservation, were the cornerstone of the reasons for the Civil
War.
:: think were living in the plantation's slave quarters? He may have gotten a
:: few facts mixed, but the sentiment is there. Are you trying to tell us
:
: Right, sentiment, pure sentiment unadulterated by even a
: modicum of familiarity with the issues - sort of like
: your position. The Spanish Inquisition could have used
: both of you.
:
Oh, give it up! Sentiment does have a place in the discussion. After all,
if the sentiment toward slavery was the opposite of what it is, there
wouldn't be a problem, would there?
:: that people who fight to keep other humans as property are NOBLE??
::Gimme a break!
:
: There's a flaw in your premise. You figure it out.
:
Gee, this is a wonderful post! So full of necessary, useful discourse.
There has been a flaw in your premise since you joined these threads...
:: :: And what would that have been----what was coming to them, I mean.
:: :: Would you have hung them all. The way this country is so divided now &
:: :: with the Libs/Dems refusing to accept the Republican Congress &
:: :: treating Conservatives so bad---sometimes I wish the South had won &
:: :: all of us who believe in the Conservative Cause (not slavery) could
:: :: live in peace without the liberals trying to turn this into a Socialist
:: :: country. yasmin2
:: :
:: And who really needs to comment on the paranoid ravings of mary, above? It
:: is so idiotic, it pretty much speaks for itself...
:
: Look who's talking.
:
Yeah, LOOK who's talking. And saying absolutely nothing...
Milt
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Adam Bernay wrote:
:
:On 16 Jul 1997, Andrew Hall wrote:
:
:> Adam> Not anymore. Duke has not been a member of the Republican Party
:> Adam> *ANYWHERE* for quite some time.
:>
:> Really? You really should read the newspapers. While he
:> was justly denounced by national GOP leaders, he is a bit
:> of a force in Louisiana.
:
:But he is not a force in the GOP, as he is no longer a GOP member.
Yes, he is, Adam. He is a registered Republican...
:
:> Adam> Pat Buchanan isn't a leader in the GOP, he's a radio talk show
:> Adam> host. The man hasn't been elected to anything, he comes up with
:> Adam> *VERY* low percentages in the GOP primaries...he's hardly a
:> Adam> representative of the GOP.
:>
:> Do you really consider 30% to be low? Winning a few primaries
:> not to be significant?
:
:30% is far from a majority...
:
I see. So, in order to be a force in the GOP, you have to have a better
than 50% support? Newt has always been at about 30-34%, Adam; how did he
get to be Speaker...
:> Adam> This is an absolutely bogus charge made by people who are PO-ed their
:> Adam> people haven't won Congressional seats...
:>
:> Do you deny that both Thurmond and Helms began their careers
:> with racist demagoguery?
:
:I have seen no definitive proof of that.
:
What would you acept as definitive proof, Adam? Helms was a segregationist
TV talk show host, and he continued to refer to Blacks as "nigras" on the
Senate floor as late as the early 80s. Thurmond ran for president in 1948
as a third party candidate whose sole platform was the preservation of
forced racial segregation, and he renounced the Democratic party in the
late 60s/early 70s because of their stance on civil rights, and joined the
GOP. Doesn't your daddy teach you anything?
Milt
On 17 Jul 1997, Jean Letruc wrote:
:I love watching religous loons argue. racism, slavery blah blah. The Civil
:War was no more about slavery than the crusades were about "freeing" the
:holy land.
The Civil War was ALL about slavery...
:
:Facts: (yeah, right!)
:
:1. It was the agricultural South vs the Industrial North.
:
It was the Agricultural South who was trying to justify slavery, and who
seceded for fear the Northern Republican majority would either end it, or
infringe on it. The secession was entirely based on slavery, and the war
was to stop the secession...
:2. The cotton Gin had already killed slavery.
:
Tell that to Dred Scott and the millions of other black people who were
still the property of the plantation masters. Besides; there were lots of
other crops besides cotton, and other duties for the slaves besides
picking crops. And someone had to run the cotton gins...
:3. Lincoln, in his own speeches said he would keep the Union united with.
:without or comprimised on slavery. The goal was a United (read Federal)
:Union. The south lost and now we are in a rematch over centralization. The
:joke is that the computer is playing the role of the cotton gin with the
:current government (Republican and Democrat) fighting a lost cause.
:
This is true, but it conveniently ignores the fact that there would have
been no secession if the southerners had not wanted to perpetuate
slavery. And the goal, the "United States", had been settled long before
the Civil War. You remember the Constitution, dontcha? The federal
government was established at that time, and the Southern staes had
ratified it. Then less than 80 years later, they seceded, and yet
reproduced the SAME configuration in the Confederate States of America;
kind of a strange move for a group of people who supposedly didn't want a
federal government, eh? I mean, why would people protesting a federal
government, then set up a federal government?
:ulysses <I...@no.man> wrote in article <33cce71e...@news.tamu.edu>...
:> On 13 Jul 1997 06:36:58 GMT, "JURIST" <JUR...@prodigy.net> wrote:
:>
:> >Lincoln made the war about racism. It was originally about state's
:rights.
:> >The flag's symbolism is of states rights and independence from the
:> >oppression of the federal government. View it as a reminder that
:Americans
:> >remember and always will what the federal government did to hundreds of
:> >thousands of Americans in the civil war.
:>
:> O.K., here's the history McVeigh failed to tell you about:
:>
:> 1) Lincoln ran on a plank that called for the future containment of
:> slavery--i.e., it shouldn't be allowed to extend into the territories.
:> 2) Lincoln won because Democrats were sectionally torn on this very
:> issue. 3) First South Carolina, then the rest of the Deep South, then
:> the rest of the South (sans KY) secede from the Union.
:>
:> Thus the basis of southern secession was the defense of slavery. The
:> Civil War was a dispute over "state's rights" ONLY to the extent that
:> the principal pertained to the right to practice and promote slavery.
:> Only a Far-Right whack-o-matic, or a blindered White-South-apologist,
:> would argue otherwise.
:>
:> The Confederate battle-flag, together with various wordings in the
:> U.S. Constitution that serve(d) to accomdate slavery, are reminders to
:> Americans that sometimes "we" get it all wrong, and then there's the
:> Devil to pay.
:>
:
:
Jasper O'Malley
Adam Bernay <abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> writes:
>On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Milt wrote:
>> I hope not. What do you you think that will do to flag-burning, Adam? I
>> betcha there'll be more than ever. What are you going to do to someone who
>> buys a flag with his own money, and burns it on private property, in a way
>> that doesn't cause a danger to the community?
>Arrest him.
Even if the amendment is passed, where's the *SENSE* in arresting this person?
What has he truly done? Challenged the will of the State? To use the Cold War
rhetoric I'm sure you used yourself, "What are you, Adam, some kind of god
damned Communist?"
Cheers,
Mick
--
The Reverend Jasper P. O'Malley dotdot:jo...@webspan.net
Freelance Crackerjack ringring:1800fubared
SEND HELP woowoo:http://www.webspan.net/~jooji
USSMontana
Andrew Hall <ah...@remus.cs.uml.edu> writes:
>By the year 2000 we're going to have the best educated Americans
>in the world.
> -Dan Quayle
Unfortunately, it will have been too little, too late for HIM!!!!!
potatoE
Ie ame Quayle ofe Borge. Preparee toe bee assimilatede
Mimi Gallandt-Oakes
USSMo...@aol.com
USSMontana
In article <Pine.A32.3.93.970716...@kitts.u.arizona.edu>,
Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:
>BOGUS!? According to whom? Before he was Senator, Helms >was a
race-baiting segregationist talk show host. It's all on tape. >And
Thurmond ran on a segregationist ticket for president in 1948, >and left
the Democratic Party in the late 60's because of its stand >on civil
rights. BOGUS?! I think not!
It never ceases to amaze me that these ERWWacks run around foaming at the
mouth defending their GOPhers, and yet know NOTHING about the people that
they're defending. Didn't you just LOVE that "Duke isn't a
RepubliKan"????? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
Right and Quayle is no John Kennedy :)
L'chaim
Mimi
(a real Jew, not a fake one)
"Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican."
Mimi Gallandt-Oakes
USSMo...@aol.com
Douglas K Long
: :
: :: >tradition of slavery. The Confederate Battle Flag is diametrically
: :: >opposed to the values and meaning of Old Glory, and it is the banner
: :: >of traitors. You should decide now: What's it going to be? Are you
: :: >an American or not? If not, then go somewhere else. We don't need
: :: >any flag except the Stars and Stripes and we don't need people with
: :: >divided loyalties. The Stars and Stripes stands for the brave men and
: :: >women who died for THIS country. The Stars and Bars stands for a
: :: >short-lived alliance of rebels that wanted to destroy the union for
: :: >the sake of their own selfish economic motives. The South deserved
: :
: : What an unmitigated ignoramous.
: :
: It's his opinion...
Founded, evidently, on a tremendous lack of information and thought.
: :: >every bit of misery they suffered and they should thank GOD above that
: :: >they didn't get what was really coming to them for their treatment of
: :: >blacks through segregation and Jim Crow.
: :
: : You dope. Segregation and Jim Crow were results of the Civil War.
: : They didn't exist until *after* the War. Maybe if you did
: : some reading before you expressed yourself on these matters,
: : you might not have shown yourself as such an imbecile.
: :
: You know, you're right. The Civil War wasn't about Jim Crow. It was about
: SLAVERY. The confederates killed in the name of keeping millions of human
: beings as their property. As for segregation, how many white people do you
You and Jonathan ought to get together. You deserve each other.
: think were living in the plantation's slave quarters? He may have gotten a
: few facts mixed, but the sentiment is there. Are you trying to tell us
Right, sentiment, pure sentiment unadulterated by even a
modicum of familiarity with the issues - sort of like
your position. The Spanish Inquisition could have used
both of you.
: that people who fight to keep pther humans as property are NOBLE?? Gimme a
: break!
There's a flaw in your premise. You figure it out.
: :: And what would that have been----what was coming to them, I mean.
: :: Would you have hung them all. The way this country is so divided now &
: :: with the Libs/Dems refusing to accept the Republican Congress &
: :: treating Conservatives so bad---sometimes I wish the South had won &
: :: all of us who believe in the Conservative Cause (not slavery) could
: :: live in peace without the liberals trying to turn this into a Socialist
: :: country. yasmin2
: :
: And who really needs to comment on the paranoid ravings of mary, above? It
: is so idiotic, it pretty much speaks for itself...
Look who's talking.
: --Milt
Jean Letruc
I love watching religous loons argue. racism, slavery blah blah. The Civil
War was no more about slavery than the crusades were about "freeing" the
holy land.
Facts:
1. It was the agricultural South vs the Industrial North.
2. The cotton Gin had already killed slavery.
3. Lincoln, in his own speeches said he would keep the Union united with.
without or comprimised on slavery. The goal was a United (read Federal)
Union. The south lost and now we are in a rematch over centralization. The
joke is that the computer is playing the role of the cotton gin with the
current government (Republican and Democrat) fighting a lost cause.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
http://www.omegacom.com/publish let...@omegacom.com
Omegacom, Inc. Providence, RI 02906
Boston, Providence (RI), Saco (ME) and St. Croix (USVI)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Paul Zukowski
In article <33CCCE...@rt66.com>, an...@Rt66.com wrote:
>Brian Carey wrote:
>>
>> Milt wrote:
>> > :It's typical. They only believe in the Constitutional "rights" they
>> > :agree with, otherwise forget it. They are really "Stalinists" at heart.
>> > : yasmin2
>> > :
>> > :
>> > It's typical, ain't it. Mary only belives in Constitutional rights when it
>> > has to do with guns.
>>
>> I highly doubt that Mary is in favor of unreasonable search and seizure,
>> or having soldiers quartered in her house without her permission.
>>
>She's in favor of the former if she believes in the drug laws that allow
>the homes and property of other citizens to be confiscated. And when
>was the last time the latter happened in this country? I think, to
>answer my own question, it may have been during the Civil War when
>northern troops quartered in southern homes.
>> >
>> > And by the way, there is no INDIVIDUAL right to own a gun in the Second
>> > Amendment...
>>
>> Who are those "people" in the 2nd Amendment?
>>
>They're people who are members of a well-regulated militia. Like the
>National Guard, or your legislatively-supported state militia (not the
>nuts in fatigues who call themselves militia; those are paranoids, not
>patriots). You have to read the whole amendment, Brian, not just those
>parts you like.
>
>Annie
>You have to read the whole amendment, not just those
>parts you like.
Is real good advice unfortunately you didn't either.
What it really says is
Due to need of well-regulated militia,
the right keep and bear arms shall not be infridged.
Who was the militia?
Not the National Guard, it didn't exsist and is really the a reserve
componet of the US Army. It says nothing about a legislatively-supported
state militia.
The founding fathers were opposed a large state sponcered standing army of
any size.
It was the individual people who made up the militia using thier OWN arms.
The perfect example of this is Minuteman. The name coming from he could be
ready to fight in a minute. i.e. Drop the hoe grab his gun and go.
Why was there a need to have a well well-regulated militia?
The idea being that a government out of control could not use force
against the will against armed citizens. Like the British had attempted
here in the US.
What does well-regulated mean?
That there should be training and a command structure in place.
What it real meaning is that we should be armed and show up for drills on
the town sq.
If you take the Constitution in the time and place it was written and by
the meanings of the words then, not now, you have to come to the
conclusion that is an INDIVIDUAL right to own a gun in the Second
Amendment. The reason being you can't have a well-regulated militia
without the citzens having arms.
If you want to make an aurgument that time and place changes definitions,
but it's not vaid and would be hard to defend.
Later
PEZ
Brian Carey
annie shank wrote:
> > Who are those "people" in the 2nd Amendment?
> >
> They're people who are members of a well-regulated militia. Like the
> National Guard, or your legislatively-supported state militia (not the
> nuts in fatigues who call themselves militia; those are paranoids, not
> patriots). You have to read the whole amendment, Brian, not just those
> parts you like.
How come an Amendment was necessary to give a military force such as the
National Guard the right to keep and bear arms? Did you ever stop to
think about how really stupid this position is?
And why are the "people" in the 2nd Amendment any different from the
"people" in the other Amendments?
And did you ever read in the US Code where it says that militia consists
of all able-bodied males ages 17-45?
And totally apart from the Constitution, what business is it of yours
whether or not I own a gun?
Conan The Librarian
In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.970716...@mammoth.psnw.com>,
Adam Bernay <abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> writes:
>On 16 Jul 1997, Andrew Hall wrote:
>
>> Adam> Not anymore. Duke has not been a member of the Republican Party
>> Adam> *ANYWHERE* for quite some time.
>>
>> Really? You really should read the newspapers. While he
>> was justly denounced by national GOP leaders, he is a bit
>> of a force in Louisiana.
>
>But he is not a force in the GOP, as he is no longer a GOP member.
Please give me a cite to that effect. I searched his own home-page
(http://www.duke.org), and found the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently a publicly-elected Republican official. He was recently elected
(unopposed) to the Republican Parish Executive Committee of the second
largest Republican parish (county) in Louisiana. (St. Tammany RPEC,
At-Large Representative, term 1996-2000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The latest update on the page appears to have taken place around 6-1-97,
so this info may not be current up to the present day, but it certainly
does not follow that he has not been a member of the Republican party for
"quite some time".
>> Adam> Pat Buchanan isn't a leader in the GOP, he's a radio talk show
>> Adam> host. The man hasn't been elected to anything, he comes up with
>> Adam> *VERY* low percentages in the GOP primaries...he's hardly a
>> Adam> representative of the GOP.
>>
>> Do you really consider 30% to be low? Winning a few primaries
>> not to be significant?
>
>30% is far from a majority...
Setting aside the fact that no one was discussing "majorities", getting
30% in primaries where there were six major candidates (assuming we can
consider Keyes to be a viable candidate) is not a "*VERY* low percentage".
>> Adam> This is an absolutely bogus charge made by people who are PO-ed their
>> Adam> people haven't won Congressional seats...
>>
>> Do you deny that both Thurmond and Helms began their careers
>> with racist demagoguery?
>
>I have seen no definitive proof of that.
If you want proof, get thee to a library and look up the States Rights
Party. You should be able to find it in any halfway decent political
encyclopedia.
Check out Helms' career as a talkshow host in the 60's. Look up the
date that Thurmond resigned the Democratic Party, and tell us what
important piece of legislation was passed that year (1964).
Chuck Vance
Robert W Lawrence
"Jean Letruc" <let...@omegacom.com> wrote:
<>I love watching religous loons argue. racism, slavery blah blah. The Civil
<>War was no more about slavery than the crusades were about "freeing" the
<>holy land.
<>
<>Facts:
<>
<>1. It was the agricultural South vs the Industrial North
So why didn't the agrarian States of North secede also(hint-because they didn
have slaves)
<>2. The cotton Gin had already killed slavery.
Where did you ever get this idea!!!! You've got it exactly backwards-the
invention of the cotton gin made cotton farming and slave labor much more
profitable.
<>3. Lincoln, in his own speeches said he would keep the Union united with.
<>without or compromised on slavery. The goal was a United (read Federal)
<>Union. The south lost and now we are in a rematch over centralization. The
<>joke is that the computer is playing the role of the cotton gin with the
<>current government (Republican and Democrat) fighting a lost cause.
<SIGH> it is interesting on how everyone likes to focus in on one comment
Lincoln made two years after the war began and ignore not only the 75 years of
history proceeding the war but also the innumerable speeches given by Lincoln
stating his opinion that slavery was wrong and should be abolished. Once again I
ask you to merely read the articles of secession and the speeches and papers of
the southern leaders before and during the war. They made no bones about the
fact they seceded over slavery. Period.
Robert W Lawrence
lawr...@arthes.com
ulysses
On 17 Jul 1997 05:17:59 GMT, "Jean Letruc" <let...@omegacom.com>
wrote:
>I love watching religous loons argue. racism, slavery blah blah. The Civil
>War was no more about slavery than the crusades were about "freeing" the
>holy land.
>
You are, Sir, a perfect moron.
>Facts:
>
>1. It was the agricultural South vs the Industrial North.
No, it was the slave-based agricultural South vs. the Free Soil North.
The great majority of northerners in 1860 were farmers.
>
>2. The cotton Gin had already killed slavery.
No, slavery MIGHT have died in the South HAD the gotton gin NOT been
invented. The cotton gin SPURRED the rapid increase in demand for
slave labor BECAUSE it made cotton an immensely attractive new fiber.
Because of the cotton gin, cotton became the fiber of choice over wool
during the early to mid 1800s. Cotton simply could not be grown fast
enough to meet demand--hence the increased reliance upon slave labor
(especially as northern whites, and incoming Europeans had NO desire
to immigrate to the slave states).
It helps if you stay awake during class. Otherwise your notes make no
sense at all.
>
>3. Lincoln, in his own speeches said he would keep the Union united with.
>without or comprimised on slavery.
I'm sorry, what are you sputtering about here?
>The goal was a United (read Federal)
>Union. The south lost and now we are in a rematch over centralization. The
>joke is that the computer is playing the role of the cotton gin with the
>current government (Republican and Democrat) fighting a lost cause.
Rematch is correct. White southern ultra-conservatives now rule the
Republican party--Gingrich, Lott, Helms, Delay, Archer,
Thurmond--basically the entire leadership (crushing irony, ain't it?).
>
ulysses
snip
>If you are looking at the cause of the Civil War it is complicated.
>
>The roots of it is economic.
True, in 1860 more than 50% of US export dollars came from the trade
in cotton. That is serious coin. Serious to go to war over. Also,
slaves represented a HUGE capital investment. Slave labor was by no
means "free". The slave interest had a tremendous monetary interest
in the expansion of slavery into the territories because it would
increase demand for slaves, which would keep slave prices rising.
>
> Industry VS Agro
>raw materials vs finished products
>imports vs export
>&
>tariffs vs free trade
yada yada yada
>
>The issue of states rights was an expression of this conflict.
>
>The expansion of slavery was the polarizing issue.
Precisely
>But it was far from the only issue.
Drop the "far" and I might agree with you.
>
>Abolitionist Movement was relativily small radical group.
Numerically yes. But they sure had the slavers foaming at the mouth.
>
>The cause of the out break of fighting was "if states could leave the Union and
>take federal property with them.
>Fort Sumpter spark of this.
Sorry, can't follow the syntax here.
>
>Most people from the North were fighting for Union;
>Not the abolition of slavery.
True, most northern whites were not "friends of the Negro".
>
>Most in the South were fighting because they were invaded.
>Most of the people in CSA Army were not slave holders.
True, true. But I think as well that northerns and southerns of the
day fairly despised one another. At least their respective newpaper
editorialists did (a principal source for historical reconstruction of
"attitudes"). The country had been spoiling for this fight for a LONG
time.
>
>To answer this question:
>If the war were about slavery, why didn't Lincoln free the slaves
> in the beginning, instead of waiting until 1863?
>Because he feared that the border states would leave causing Washington DC
>to become an island surrounded the CSA. He also feared that most of the
>Union Army would desert.
True. So what? Lincoln ran on a "Free Soil" plank that sought to
contain slavery territorially. Not outlaw it. He had widespread
support for this position not because the average northerner abhorred
slavery, but because they abhorred the idea of having to compete, as
free laborers, with slaves.
The average northern white was a racist, but he was not, at least, a
slaver, or slaver-lick-spittle, as was the average southern white.
>
>If the question is what the CSA Battle Flag means the answer is, it's original
>meaning was simply to identify the South army.
The flag is a symbol. It is intrepretable. Can you understand why
many African Americans despise the thing?
>
>It became a symbolism is of states rights and independence from the
>oppression of the federal government. View it as a reminder that Americans
>remember and always will what the federal government did to hundreds of
>thousands of Americans in the civil war.
Militia whacko rant . . . (haven't I been here before?)
>
>It has been, in this century, used as a symbol of white supremacy.
It was also a symbol of SOUTHERN white supremacy in 1860.
>
>What does it really mean??
>Whatever YOU think it means.
>I'm sure most everyone won't like this answer.
>Because it the true.
>As with most things in this world it is not a Black & White issue.
Brilliant argumentation, I must say. You should run for publican vice
president.
>Sorry for the pun.
>But it is interesting that are still people upset about the Civil War issues.
>Should CSA Battle Flag be on a state flag??
Bitter legacies die hard.
>
>If we truely believe in democracy, it should be
>upto the majority of the people who live in that state.
>Since thier state flag is thier symbol, not anyone elses.
>I happen to live in Ct and would NOT want, say people from Arizona,
>telling the people of Ct thay had to remove the grapes on our flag.
Grapes?
>Which brings us back to were all this started.
>What are the rights of each state.