Hate Crimes in Auburn

[boartitz]

I would contend that like many other self proclaimed rights activists he has gotten rich by encouraging hate and mistrust.

I agree. Just not to the level a white man would get if he released stuff like this now.

[Kaos]

My opinion on this matter, is the exact opposite of you guys.  I feel that running around, hanging Confederate Flags, is a sign of ignorance and fulfills every stereotype that people try to push on the south.  Also, the Civil War was almost 150 years ago, its over, the North won...  To me, hanging a Confederate Flag is similar to Germans trying to hang the Nazi flag on local graves/monuments and explaining that its "National Socialist Party heritage month."  The German's lost, many of their friends and families died, but they realize it is not ok to bring back up a War that was wrong in the first place.  To say, "But, no, no AWK, we did not commit genocide and try to eliminate an entire race."  Um...Slavery?


However, let me make this clear.  I don't give a fuck what people want to do on their own time.  If people want to hang confederate flags all over their cars and what not, go ahead.  As long as no one personally screws with my property, I have no problems.  Public Property, well, that is another story...

Blah, blah, blah.  Fucking communist hippie fuck.

Please, for God's sake learn some actual history and not just what you get from the back of bubblegum cards.

[Kaos]

Dude, whatever.  To say it was only about state's rights is 1/516 of the truth.  They were angry, because the North was trying to take away their primary method of physical labor, slavery. 

The true sign of ignorance is the person that calls someone ignorant just because they do not agree with them. 

This isn't a matter of agreeance or disagreeance.  This is a simple matter of you not having the slightest fucking idea what you're talking about. 

Your understanding of the war and its reasons is surface at best. 

[Tarheel]

I'm late to this fight but wanted to throw in my $.02 worth. Numerous relatives of mine fought (and 3 died) for their country - the Confederate States of America. I am a proud member of SCV Camp 308 and I am extremely proud not only of my heritage, but for my ancestors who stood up and fought for something they believed in - states rights.

That being said, I would like to add this to the discussion: 

This myth that the War Between the States came about largely because of the slavery issue reeks of ignorance. The fact is that most southern whites did not own slaves - only about 400,000 out of 9 million in 1860 (http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_overview.htm).

At the onset of the war, Lincoln's foremost goals had been to preserve the Union, to bring the war to an end with a minimum of bloodshed, and to avoid lingering animosity between Northern and Southern whites. If that could best be achieved by preserving slavery, he said, he would do so. Lincoln despised slavery, but he, like Thomas Jefferson and many others before him, doubted that blacks and whites could ever live in America in a condition of equality. For this reason, he wanted to deport those who had been brought to the states as slaves. The problem here is that he couldn't find a place to send the black population.

Lincoln's problem during this conflict was twofold; he was confronted at home by abolitionists who insisted that the war should be one for emancipation. Abroad, he was faced with growing skepticism about Northern war aims. If the Union goal was simply to reunite the country and preserve slavery, then the North was undertaking a war of aggression. The South's claim that it was fighting for its independence, just as the United States had done during the Revolution, was therefore valid, and foreign powers had the right to intervene as the French had done in 1778. All these pressures forced Lincoln to conclude that emancipation would have to become a Union war goal. This didn't happen until the war was well underway (after the Battle of Antietam) and only affected slaves held in states or territories still in rebellion against the United States. Didn't help those still indentured in northern households. Their freedom came with the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865 - the year the war ended.

Those men that fought and died for their country deserve as much respect as any other fallen soldier. What this councilman in Auburn did, desecration of their graves, is abominable and can best be described as a hate crime. He should be made to apologize, then personally replace every flag he removed.

Well said, PCT.

I didn't know that you were an SCV member.  I am the 1st Lt. Commander of Camp 1239 Forrest's Escort.

C.S.A.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/

Appalling garbage.  I sat through this mock-umentary just to give it a fair airing but it truly is not worth watching.  Especially, as Sani alluded to, the idea of a victorious South aligning itself with Nazi Germany.  I also thought that the debate over religious freedom portrayed in that movie was utterly ridiculous and as offensive as anything else.

[AWK]

This isn't a matter of agreeance or disagreeance.  This is a simple matter of you not having the slightest fucking idea what you're talking about. 

Your understanding of the war and its reasons is surface at best. 

This party was a week ago, which you missed out on.  Once again though Kaos, your opinion on the matter and the facts are two completely different things.  If you honestly think the war had nothing to do with slavery, well, you are an ardtard.

[Kaos]

This party was a week ago, which you missed out on.  Once again though Kaos, your opinion on the matter and the facts are two completely different things.  If you honestly think the war had nothing to do with slavery, well, you are an ardtard.

Sorry.  I've been busy.  I was prowling. 

The war is over when I say it's over, dammit.  And it ain't over.

I never said the war had nothing to do with slavery. But if you'd do your research you'd find that slavery was a very minor part of the motives behind the war.  Yes there were objections to certain states which had no need for slave labor dictating regulations and rules to those states which did have that need, but the actual disagreement was over the right to legislate, not over the moral implications of slavery.

Slavery became an issue when -- and only when -- the passion for the war in the northern states had all but abated, the Confederate Army was on the verge of winning (due to that lack of passion) and the public sentiment in the Union States had turned to "ahhh, fuck 'em.  Let them have their own shit country, who gives a fuck." 

Lincoln realized that he needed something to energize the flagging Union passions. The people couldn't be convinced to fight -- or at least fight well -- for a political cause, particularly against their own countrymen. He needed a moral standard to ignite the flame.  Slavery was the issue he chose.  Not out of some deep moral obligation, but in order to give his war a cause. 

For you, or anyone else, to say "the war was about slavery" shows a tremendous lack of understanding.

If the war was about slavery, why didn't Lincoln free the slaves?  Read the emancipation proclamation. He freed no one.  That document was nothing but posturing/grandstanding.

[Saniflush]

Sorry.  I've been busy.  I was prowling. 

The war is over when I say it's over, dammit.  And it ain't over.

I never said the war had nothing to do with slavery. But if you'd do your research you'd find that slavery was a very minor part of the motives behind the war.  Yes there were objections to certain states which had no need for slave labor dictating regulations and rules to those states which did have that need, but the actual disagreement was over the right to legislate, not over the moral implications of slavery.

Slavery became an issue when -- and only when -- the passion for the war in the northern states had all but abated, the Confederate Army was on the verge of winning (due to that lack of passion) and the public sentiment in the Union States had turned to "ahhh, fuck 'em.  Let them have their own shit country, who gives a fuck." 

Lincoln realized that he needed something to energize the flagging Union passions. The people couldn't be convinced to fight -- or at least fight well -- for a political cause, particularly against their own countrymen. He needed a moral standard to ignite the flame.  Slavery was the issue he chose.  Not out of some deep moral obligation, but in order to give his war a cause. 

For you, or anyone else, to say "the war was about slavery" shows a tremendous lack of understanding.

If the war was about slavery, why didn't Lincoln free the slaves?  Read the emancipation proclamation. He freed no one.  That document was nothing but posturing/grandstanding.

I can't quit you.

[Tarheel]

This party was a week ago, which you missed out on.  Once again though Kaos, your opinion on the matter and the facts are two completely different things.  If you honestly think the war had nothing to do with slavery, well, you are an ardtard.

I don't think that anyone is disagreeing about slavery being a cause to a greater or lesser extent of the American Civil War, AWK. 

But it was not the one and only reason for the war; it was about state's rights (rights to allow slavery being part of that issue).  PCT explained it well in his post above.  That is a matter of historical fact; it is not a matter of agreeing (or not) about it. 

No personal offense but you are misguided if you think that slavery was the ONLY reason for the war.

As to having an opinion about the appropriateness of displaying the Confederate flag, that is a subjective matter, generally, and you are entitled to have an opinion (in my opinion); but as it specifically relates to placing those flag types on the Confederate Veteran's graves in Auburn it was entirely appropriate to do so (given the group that did it got the appropriate permission) and it was an act of vandalism to remove them.

[boartitz]

I can't find a link verifying this,yet, but I remember a professor in a college history class saying that the south had black troops fighting before there were any on the union side.
The northern blacks enlisted/were drafted after slavery became a northern rallying cry.
There are several sites mentioning blacks on our side of the war. The south was their country, too.

[Tarheel]

I can't find a link verifying this,yet, but I remember a professor in a college history class saying that the south had black troops fighting before there were any on the union side.
The northern blacks enlisted/were drafted after slavery became a northern rallying cry.
There are several sites mentioning blacks on our side of the war. The south was their country, too.

I've posted a good article by Walter Williams below. it does not verify that there were blacks fighting for the South before they were allowed to fight with the Northern troops but it's still a good article:

Blacks Who Fought For the South

[Walter Williams]

      Most historical accounts portray Southern blacks as anxiously awaiting President Abraham Lincoln's "liberty-dispensing troops" marching south in the War Between the States. But there's more to the story; let's look at it.

        Black Confederate military units, both as freemen and slaves, fought federal troops. Louisiana free blacks gave their reason for fighting in a letter written to New Orleans' Daily Delta: "The free colored population love their home, their property, their own slaves and recognize no other country than Louisiana, and are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for Abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana. They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought in 1814-15." As to bravery, one black scolded the commanding general of the state militia, saying, "Pardon me, general, but the only cowardly blood we have got in our veins is the white blood."

        Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest had slaves and freemen serving in units under his command. After the war, Forrest said of the black men who served under him, "These boys stayed with me.. - and better Confederates did not live." Articles in "Black Southerners in Gray," edited by Richard Rollins, gives numerous accounts of blacks serving as fighting men or servants in every battle from Gettysburg to Vicksburg.

        Professor Ed Smith, director of American Studies at American University, says Stonewall Jackson had 3,000 fully equipped black troops scattered throughout his corps at Antietam - the war's bloodiest battle. Mr. Smith calculates that between 60,000 and 93,000 blacks served the Confederacy in some capacity. They fought for the same reason they fought in previous wars and wars afterward: "to position themselves. They had to prove they were patriots in the hope the future would be better ... they hoped to be rewarded."

        Many knew Lincoln had little love for enslaved blacks and didn't wage war against the South for their benefit. Lincoln made that plain, saying, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ... I am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." The very words of his 1863 Emancipation Proclamation revealed his deceit and cunning; it freed those slaves held "within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States." It didn't apply to slaves in West Virginia and areas and states not in rebellion. Like Gen. Ulysses Grant's slaves, they had to wait for the 13th Amendment, Grant explained why he didn't free his slaves earlier, saying, "Good help is so hard to come by these days."

        Lincoln waged war to "preserve the Union". The 1783 peace agreement with England (Treaty of Paris] left 13 sovereign nations. They came together in 1787, as principals, to create a federal government, as their agent, giving it specific delegated authority -specified in our Constitution. Principals always retain the right to fire their agent. The South acted on that right when it seceded. Its firing on Fort Sumter, federal property, gave Lincoln the pretext needed for the war.

        The War Between the States, through force of arms, settled the question of secession, enabling the federal government to run roughshod over states' rights specified by the Constitution's 10th Amendment.

       Sons of Confederate Veterans is a group dedicated to giving a truer account of the War Between the States. I'd like to see it erect on Richmond's Monument Avenue a statue of one of the thousands of black Confederate soldiers.

The Link:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/blacks.htm

[boartitz]

I want a rematch.

[Tarheel]

I can't find a link verifying this,yet, but I remember a professor in a college history class saying that the south had black troops fighting before there were any on the union side.
The northern blacks enlisted/were drafted after slavery became a northern rallying cry.
There are several sites mentioning blacks on our side of the war. The south was their country, too.

Here's a link to another (lengthy) article entitled "The Role of Blacks in the Confederate Army" by SSG Harry W. Tison, II; it's up on the SCV national website:

http://www.scv.org/documents/genworks/RoleofBlacksConfederateArmy.pdf

To quote from a portion of the article in response to your immediate question:

...
Although the Confederates did not officially enlist blacks until March 1865, some
states allowed them to serve on a local level as early as 1861. Nobody really knows how
many blacks actually served in the Confederacy; some estimates go as high as 50,000.
...

[boartitz]

Here's a link to another (lengthy) article entitled "The Role of Blacks in the Confederate Army" by SSG Harry W. Tison, II; it's up on the SCV national website:

http://www.scv.org/documents/genworks/RoleofBlacksConfederateArmy.pdf

To quote from a portion of the article in response to your immediate question:

http://www.cyberessays.com/History/60.htm

  A very important aspect of Blacks proving themselves was
that of the Black Man acting as a soldier in the Civil War.  During
the Civil War the official decision to use Blacks as soldiers in the
Union Army was a slow gradual process and a series of  strategic
political decisions.  The actual use of Blacks as soldiers in the
Union Army was completed by a series of actions the Black Man
performed that won him the respect of becoming a soldier.  The
two differ in that it was to President Lincoln's benefit to enlist
Blacks as soldiers when he did.  Whereas the later was the Black
Man's will to fight for his freedom and prove himself as an equal
human being.  However, because the Black population was barred
from entering the army under a 1792 law(4) the Black Man
becoming a soldier was not officially recognized until late 1862.

[AWK]

Good God, guys... Nevermind, I am not going to stir this hornet's nest.  They were fighting Northern aggression?  They were fighting for state's rights?  What right in particular?  What was the north forcing the south to do with their aggression? 

All leads back to one issue, but whatever... I'm done. 

[CCTAU]

Good God, guys... Nevermind, I am not going to stir this hornet's nest.  They were fighting Northern aggression?  They were fighting for state's rights?  What right in particular?  What was the north forcing the south to do with their aggression? 

All leads back to one issue, but whatever... I'm done. 

Modern government education. My kids come home and discuss the issues. Then they go back to school and ask the tough questions. The teacher pulls them to the side ans says you are correct but we have to teach what is in the book.

The victor always rewrites history.

[Kaos]

All leads back to one issue, but whatever... I'm done. 

You are WRONG.  Period. 

Your understanding of historical context is about as solid as your understanding of the eating habits of toucans you gleaned from your cereal box this morning. 

For the record, AWK, toucans actually DON'T follow their nose to find the delicious flavor of froot loops.

[Tarheel]

Good God, guys... Nevermind, I am not going to stir this hornet's nest.  They were fighting Northern aggression?  They were fighting for state's rights?  What right in particular?  What was the north forcing the south to do with their aggression? 

All leads back to one issue, but whatever... I'm done. 

I am reminded of a quote from Maj. Gen. John B. Gordon, CSA (and a former Governor of Georgia):

"The argument is exhausted!  We stand to our guns!"

[Tarheel]

Your both racist bastards.

Heel hates Duke and Taylor hates the women.

I couldn't let that pass after all; when it comes to the subject of Carolina versus Duke I am a bigot.

[boartitz]

Good God, guys... Nevermind, I am not going to stir this hornet's nest.  They were fighting Northern aggression?  They were fighting for state's rights?  What right in particular?  What was the north forcing the south to do with their aggression? 

All leads back to one issue, but whatever... I'm done. 

We didn't like the way yankees were doing things. Much like today.
As bad as I hated Texan presidents, I really don't like one from Illinois either.

[AWK]

You are WRONG.  Period. 

Your understanding of historical context is about as solid as your understanding of the eating habits of toucans you gleaned from your cereal box this morning. 

For the record, AWK, toucans actually DON'T follow their nose to find the delicious flavor of froot loops.

Right, I'm uneducated.  I'm about to graduate with a doctrate...and I wrote a thesis on American Government to graduate undergrad.  Not only did you not refute anything I said, you referred to a fucking cereal box for an analogy.  I'm perplexed...