Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Natty, Feb 13, 2012.
In before the southern apologists.
This should prove amusing. I'm noticing a distinct lack of coverage about this guy's party affiliation in almost any paper, though. I wonder why that is.
He's a city councilman, should his party affiliation matter?
I'm looking forward to Gray Rider telling us how awesome the slaves had it.
My comment was more about the depth of reporting rather than this individual story.
If he were a Republican I would expect it to be the first or second word of the article. It just amuses me to see reporting with these rules:
Report neutral or positive for Dem
Report neutral or negative for Rep
If you must report a negative for a Dem drop party affiliation
If you must report a positive for a Rep make sure to use the word bipartisan a lot
It's just interesting. I still do wonder what party this guy is.
I would say probably D, but you might jump on me again asking what kind of agenda I'm pushing.
I live across the Mississippi from W St.Paul.
I would suspect he is Republican as it's said that he's "conservative on taxes". If the Pioneer Press reported the story, it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't allude to his Republican affiliation as it's a much more conservative newspaper than the Star Tribune in MPLS. Good deal I say.
He's definetly being provocative given there's so much misinformation about the stars and bars. Whether he knows the true meaning or just chooses part of what it stands for, he knows he's in for a ____storm by putting it out there.
Freedom also means you are free to be as stupid as you want. Not saying I give a dang one way or the other about flying that flag, but he's got balls, I'll give him that.
He has the right of free speech to make a statement to fly the flag of his choice. His constituents have the right to recall him if they don't like what he has to say.
They have the right to not reelect him, for sure. Recall might require him actually breaking the law. I'd have to look into the local laws for that one.
I don't understand why Yankees are offended by the Confederate Flag. Is there anything wrong with honoring your heritage and being proud of where you came from?
maybe because they recognize the flag for what it is. The symbol for rebellion, treason and white supremacy.
Neo confederates have labored hard to equate "Southern" with "Confederate" trying to make them one and the same. But not all the South seceded. And many of the border states had more of it's citizens fight for the union than for the confederacy. Kentucky is a good example. Never left the union and more Kentuckians fought for the union than for the Confederacy. But years after the war through the efforts of neo confederates Kentucky forged for itself a confederate Identity.
To be historically accurate that can also be said of the American Flag.
What most people refer to as the "Confederate" flag wasn't even the flag of the Confederacy. It was a battle flag for the southern army. No more, no less.
As far as treason and rebellion I don't see a connection between the American revolution and the seceding states.
But as far as racism absolutely true. Even those that opposed slavery did not want the former slaves to have equality or even to live in their states. That is why emancipation was always connected to colonization. They wanted slavery ended and slaves free, but they wanted them free somewhere else.
You are well grounded in the media "rules." This is how it has worked for some time now, although most observers are not quite as perceptive as you are.
Treason and rebellion is exactly what the British called the American Revolution. If they had won the war all the American Revolution leaders would have been hanged for treason and rebellion.
And yes Dragoon you are correct, Northern states like Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois freed their slaves and then passed anti-black immigration laws to keep free blacks out of their states.
That is true but the circumstances were quite different. The colonists had not legally and voluntarily bound themselves to England in a union and in fact one of the controversies was that the colonists had no set status. Many in England did not consider them English citizens or subjects but just colonials.
And one needs to remember that the colonists grievances was taxation without representation. The seceding states had no such complaint not only did they have representation they had OVER REPRESENTATION due to the 3/5ths compromise.
And denied free blacks in their state the right to vote. although this was not uniform across the North. One of the grievances stated in the South Carolina articles of secession was that some Northern States had given blacks the right to vote.
When Frederick Douglas named the man most responsible for promoting hatred of the black man he did not name a southerner he named a northerner. Stephen Douglas one of the most rabid and vocal racists of his day.
You lost me. What would the relevance be?
Not even Lincoln tried to attribute the war to freeing slaves. In fact:
"If I could stop the secession of the South without freeing a single Negro I would."
Quotes are there for a reason you may be able to guess no matter how convenient you may find it to believe otherwise.
One cannot really say the Confederacy committed treason because secession was not prohibited by the US Constitution at the time. Each state voted fair and square to secede from the Union.