Confederate Battle Flag.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Agreed, however, Canada is a very decentralized federation. So the concept of provincial/state powers is similar in both situations.

[mroped]

You are right about that! Our neighbors to the north have the same principles as US.
Now the question is, because of so many attempts of separation/secession from Canada, are the Québécois racists? Is the Quebec flag a symbol of racism and discrimination?
I mean, the "fleur de lys" is a former French crown symbol and there is a history behind it loaded with so many not so good things.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

As one of your neighbours to the North, that was my line of thinking as well.

Further, the provinces are able to set their own policy on lots and lots of subjects.. It's not this blanket, "from the top down or else" decision process.(like the Confederates were fighting against.)

[Deleted]

Jan 17, 2016 23:56:58 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

As one of your neighbours to the North, that was my line of thinking as well.

Further, the provinces are able to set their own policy on lots and lots of subjects.. It's not this blanket, "from the top down or else" decision process.(like the Confederates were fighting against.)

Exactly.

Slavery actually fell AFTER the Civil War was over (many people forget that. The war ended April 9, 1865 with Lee's surrender at Appomattox Courthouse, Slavery wasn't abolished by the Federal Government until December 6, 1865. One would think that if Slavery was the issue, the North would have ratified it's end {at least in it's controlled territories/states} long before the end of the war to get rid of it).

What the Civil War decided was "Do state's rights exist or is supreme power centered in the federal government?" With the North being victorious, the answer to that question became "What the Federal Government says, goes."

The Civil War was a turning point. We went from being "the United States of America" with State's Rights being paramount, to being "THE United States of America" with Federal Rights superseding State's Rights (regardless of the Tenth Amendment). I'm not saying whether that's a good thing or a bad thing... just that it "is".

[happyhoix]

Jan 18, 2016 0:52:58 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 17, 2016 23:56:58 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

As one of your neighbours to the North, that was my line of thinking as well.

Further, the provinces are able to set their own policy on lots and lots of subjects.. It's not this blanket, "from the top down or else" decision process.(like the Confederates were fighting against.)

Exactly.

Slavery actually fell AFTER the Civil War was over (many people forget that. The war ended April 9, 1865 with Lee's surrender at Appomattox Courthouse, Slavery wasn't abolished by the Federal Government until December 6, 1865. One would think that if Slavery was the issue, the North would have ratified it's end {at least in it's controlled territories/states} long before the end of the war to get rid of it). 

What the Civil War decided was "Do state's rights exist or is supreme power centered in the federal government?" With the North being victorious, the answer to that question became "What the Federal Government says, goes."

The Civil War was a turning point. We went from being "the United States of America" with State's Rights being paramount, to being "THE United States of America" with Federal Rights superseding State's Rights (regardless of the Tenth Amendment). I'm not saying whether that's a good thing or a bad thing... just that it "is".

Emancipation proclamation on January 1st, 1863 emancipated all slaves in the 'rebellious' states. Why would Lincoln have emancipated the slaves two years before the end of the war in a showy proclamation if slavery wasn't the focus of the war? The fact that the abolishment of slavery throughout the whole country didn't officially occur until 1865 was due to the Northern states being fearful of being flooded with tens of thousands of poor black ex-slaves trying to find work.

To further clarify the purpose of the war, read what Jefferson Davis said at the beginning of the war, as justification for going to war. The South required slave labor to maintain it's economy. The large plantations could not survive without it, and this supported the small wealthy upper class, which in turn supported a whole host of middle class merchants. Doing away with slavery not only meant the downfall of the whole economic system, it meant letting loose thousands of blacks in the South, and the common attitude towards blacks at the time was that they were at best like children who needed oversight from white owners to keep them from goofing off all the time, and at worst they would become rampaging mobs.

The civil war was a fight between a society based on a rural plantation economy dependent on slavery and an industrialized society that relied on cheap immigrant labor for it's success. You might gloss this over by refering to States Rights, but at the core of it, the rights the states wanted were to keep their cheap, enslaved labor pool.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 18, 2016 0:52:58 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 17, 2016 23:56:58 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

As one of your neighbours to the North, that was my line of thinking as well.

Further, the provinces are able to set their own policy on lots and lots of subjects.. It's not this blanket, "from the top down or else" decision process.(like the Confederates were fighting against.)

Exactly.

Slavery actually fell AFTER the Civil War was over (many people forget that. The war ended April 9, 1865 with Lee's surrender at Appomattox Courthouse, Slavery wasn't abolished by the Federal Government until December 6, 1865. One would think that if Slavery was the issue, the North would have ratified it's end {at least in it's controlled territories/states} long before the end of the war to get rid of it).

What the Civil War decided was "Do state's rights exist or is supreme power centered in the federal government?" With the North being victorious, the answer to that question became "What the Federal Government says, goes."

The Civil War was a turning point. We went from being "the United States of America" with State's Rights being paramount, to being "THE United States of America" with Federal Rights superseding State's Rights (regardless of the Tenth Amendment). I'm not saying whether that's a good thing or a bad thing... just that it "is".

The U.S. senate approved the Thirteenth Ammendment April 8, 1864. The U.S. House of Representatives approved the ammendment January 31, 1865. The vast majority of the northern states did ratify the Thirteenth Ammendment before the official end of the American Civil War. Much delay in abolishing slavery (December 6, 1865) was due to the delay of the southern states ratifying the ammendment.

Ratification Dates (by state) Of The Thirteenth Ammendment.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Jan 18, 2016 0:52:58 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 17, 2016 23:56:58 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

As one of your neighbours to the North, that was my line of thinking as well.

Further, the provinces are able to set their own policy on lots and lots of subjects.. It's not this blanket, "from the top down or else" decision process.(like the Confederates were fighting against.)

Exactly.

Slavery actually fell AFTER the Civil War was over (many people forget that. The war ended April 9, 1865 with Lee's surrender at Appomattox Courthouse, Slavery wasn't abolished by the Federal Government until December 6, 1865. One would think that if Slavery was the issue, the North would have ratified it's end {at least in it's controlled territories/states} long before the end of the war to get rid of it).

What the Civil War decided was "Do state's rights exist or is supreme power centered in the federal government?" With the North being victorious, the answer to that question became "What the Federal Government says, goes."

The Civil War was a turning point. We went from being "the United States of America" with State's Rights being paramount, to being "THE United States of America" with Federal Rights superseding State's Rights (regardless of the Tenth Amendment). I'm not saying whether that's a good thing or a bad thing... just that it "is".

There is also the fact that it took the Federal Government another 100 years to pass The Voting Rights Act, which you would think would have been among one of the first things they would have done if they were truly concerned for the rights of black people.

For the record I see the market as an extension of or natural world.(Adam Smith's invisible hand.) Which means I know things work out how they should. One thing the North was right about was the USA needed to stay as one country. If the Confederacy would have succeeded, we would have at least three countries on these lands(probably more like five or six) and then we would have ended up in old world feuds across these countries. The Wiemar Republic would have happened regardless of the outcome of the US civil war, and we all know what happened after the fall of that Republic. Without Canada and the USA... well.. wir Deutschen werden..

However, we are now at the point were those Federal Powers are being abused exactly like the Confederates were afraid of, so it's now time to look at transferring powers back to the states.

As an aside: it's JMO, but I think the idea of a Federal Government is a useless old world relic. I believe that the Founding Fathers started the Revolution on the idea that we can govern ourselves. While as a society at the time that was probably an optimist assessment, I don't think it is anymore. I believe that charity can take the place of abused social programs and infrastructure spending, and I think that going this route will naturally start to fix the income equality that we are seeing right now(Which just happens to be at some of the worst levels in history). In other words, the South shall rise again!(and it has nothing to do with slavery)

[Tennesseer]

Jan 18, 2016 11:08:28 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Jan 18, 2016 0:52:58 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Exactly.

Slavery actually fell AFTER the Civil War was over (many people forget that. The war ended April 9, 1865 with Lee's surrender at Appomattox Courthouse, Slavery wasn't abolished by the Federal Government until December 6, 1865. One would think that if Slavery was the issue, the North would have ratified it's end {at least in it's controlled territories/states} long before the end of the war to get rid of it).

What the Civil War decided was "Do state's rights exist or is supreme power centered in the federal government?" With the North being victorious, the answer to that question became "What the Federal Government says, goes."

The Civil War was a turning point. We went from being "the United States of America" with State's Rights being paramount, to being "THE United States of America" with Federal Rights superseding State's Rights (regardless of the Tenth Amendment). I'm not saying whether that's a good thing or a bad thing... just that it "is".

There is also the fact that it took the Federal Government another 100 years to pass The Voting Rights Act, which you would think would have been among one of the first things they would have done if they were truly concerned for the rights of black people.

For the record I see the market as an extension of or natural world.(Adam Smith's invisible hand.) Which means I know things work out how they should. One thing the North was right about was the USA needed to stay as one country. If the Confederacy would have succeeded, we would have at least three countries on these lands(probably more like five or six) and then we would have ended up in old world feuds across these countries. The Wiemar Republic would have happened regardless of the outcome of the US civil war, and we all know what happened after the fall of that Republic. Without Canada and the USA... well.. wir Deutschen werden..

However, we are now at the point were those Federal Powers are being abused exactly like the Confederates were afraid of, so it's now time to look at transferring powers back to the states.

As an aside: it's JMO, but I think the idea of a Federal Government is a useless old world relic. I believe that the Founding Fathers started the Revolution on the idea that we can govern ourselves. While as a society at the time that was probably an optimist assessment, I don't think it is anymore. I believe that charity can take the place of abused social programs and infrastructure spending, and I think that going this route will naturally start to fix the income equality that we are seeing right now(Which just happens to be at some of the worst levels in history). In other words, the South shall rise again!(and it has nothing to do with slavery)

That would be the 15th Ammendment of 1870. And then the south introduced poll taxes and literacy tests to block blacks (among others) the right to vote.


See Post-reconstruction

Fifteenth Ammendment

[happyhoix]

I believe that charity can take the place of abused social programs and infrastructure spending, and I think that going this route will naturally start to fix the income equality that we are seeing right now(Which just happens to be at some of the worst levels in history). In other words, the South shall rise again!(and it has nothing to do with slavery)

1) I'm assuming you mean 'fix the income Inequality' and you think that charity will be the magic cure for our income inequality? That once all the government benefit programs go away wealthier people will voluntarily give their money to the poor until there are no poor people? Can you point to any society in the history of mankind where those with all the money and power voluntarily surrendered it to the lower classes so that everyone could live in some kind of utopian middle class?

2) I failed to see the connection between fixing income inequality and the South rising? Are you working on the assumption that income inequality is only occurring in the South and that charity will fix all that, creating one big happy Southern middle class society that will take over the rest of the country?

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

1)Yes, inequality sorry about that. The USA and Canada are the first of their kind; many, many things have worked here that have never worked before. It's called social unrest, and you better believe it would force the hand of the ultra wealthy. I also believe it can be transitioned in, doesn't have to be all or nothing.

2) The South shall rise again is in reference to the state gaining back powers to decide things on their own. In fact, we are already seeing this in the fight for the legalization of Marijuana. Some States are saying, go f*** yourself.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Jan 18, 2016 11:21:01 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 18, 2016 11:08:28 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

There is also the fact that it took the Federal Government another 100 years to pass The Voting Rights Act, which you would think would have been among one of the first things they would have done if they were truly concerned for the rights of black people.

For the record I see the market as an extension of or natural world.(Adam Smith's invisible hand.) Which means I know things work out how they should. One thing the North was right about was the USA needed to stay as one country. If the Confederacy would have succeeded, we would have at least three countries on these lands(probably more like five or six) and then we would have ended up in old world feuds across these countries. The Wiemar Republic would have happened regardless of the outcome of the US civil war, and we all know what happened after the fall of that Republic. Without Canada and the USA... well.. wir Deutschen werden..

However, we are now at the point were those Federal Powers are being abused exactly like the Confederates were afraid of, so it's now time to look at transferring powers back to the states.

As an aside: it's JMO, but I think the idea of a Federal Government is a useless old world relic. I believe that the Founding Fathers started the Revolution on the idea that we can govern ourselves. While as a society at the time that was probably an optimist assessment, I don't think it is anymore. I believe that charity can take the place of abused social programs and infrastructure spending, and I think that going this route will naturally start to fix the income equality that we are seeing right now(Which just happens to be at some of the worst levels in history). In other words, the South shall rise again!(and it has nothing to do with slavery)

That would be the 15th Ammendment of 1870. And then the south introduced poll taxes and literacy tests to block blacks (among others) the right to vote.


See Post-reconstruction

Fifteenth Ammendment

Good point, lets look at after the war for a bit. For instance, the building of the railroad.. First Nations didn't fare to well there under the US flag. Or how about this? civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/losing-ground-school-segregation-in-massachusetts

Segregation in pro sports lasted for another 30-40 years, all under the US flag..

So again, any symbol can represent negative things. To try and say a battle flag ment to represent standing up to an overreaching Federal Government represents racism is simply dumbing down the subject, and it ignores there were many factors that led to the civil war - yes slavery was one issue that was mixed in - but not the primary reason.

[happyhoix]

So again, any symbol can represent negative things. To try and say a battle flag ment to represent standing up to an overreaching Federal Government represents racism is simply dumbing down the subject, and it ignores there were many factors that led to the civil war - yes slavery was one issue that was mixed in - but not the primary reason.

Yes, slavery was the primary reason. As I said, go read Jefferson Davis's statements at the start of the war.

The South knew their economy would collapse if they couldn't use slave labor. And that's pretty much what happened following the war. 

Besides, that flag was the battle flag of Northern Virginia. Southerners who want to honor their ancestors should fly their actual state or battle flag that their ancestors fought for - I put out the battle flag of my ancestors, on special occasions (battle flag of PA). No one knows what that looks like, because it hasn't been co-opted by northern people who want to romanticize what life was like prior to the Civil War.
 

[Deleted]

Jan 18, 2016 8:32:39 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jan 18, 2016 0:52:58 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Exactly.

Slavery actually fell AFTER the Civil War was over (many people forget that. The war ended April 9, 1865 with Lee's surrender at Appomattox Courthouse, Slavery wasn't abolished by the Federal Government until December 6, 1865. One would think that if Slavery was the issue, the North would have ratified it's end {at least in it's controlled territories/states} long before the end of the war to get rid of it). 

What the Civil War decided was "Do state's rights exist or is supreme power centered in the federal government?" With the North being victorious, the answer to that question became "What the Federal Government says, goes."

The Civil War was a turning point. We went from being "the United States of America" with State's Rights being paramount, to being "THE United States of America" with Federal Rights superseding State's Rights (regardless of the Tenth Amendment). I'm not saying whether that's a good thing or a bad thing... just that it "is".

Emancipation proclamation on January 1st, 1863 emancipated all slaves in the 'rebellious' states. Why would Lincoln have emancipated the slaves two years before the end of the war in a showy proclamation if slavery wasn't the focus of the war? The fact that the abolishment of slavery throughout the whole country didn't officially occur until 1865 was due to the Northern states being fearful of being flooded with tens of thousands of poor black ex-slaves trying to find work.

To further clarify the purpose of the war, read what Jefferson Davis said at the beginning of the war, as justification for going to war. The South required slave labor to maintain it's economy. The large plantations could not survive without it, and this supported the small wealthy upper class, which in turn supported a whole host of middle class merchants. Doing away with slavery not only meant the downfall of the whole economic system, it meant letting loose thousands of blacks in the South, and the common attitude towards blacks at the time was that they were at best like children who needed oversight from white owners to keep them from goofing off all the time, and at worst they would become rampaging mobs.

The civil war was a fight between a society based on a rural plantation economy dependent on slavery and an industrialized society that relied on cheap immigrant labor for it's success. You might gloss this over by refering to States Rights, but at the core of it, the rights the states wanted were to keep their cheap, enslaved labor pool.

Note that he didn't end it in the states still members of the UNITED STATES... just the ones that seceded (something he technically couldn't actually do anyway, since they had broken away).

In the Revolutionary War, the British promised freedom to slaves that fought on their side.

Freeing the slaves of a nation you are invading (or, in the case of the Revolutionary War, trying to keep from creating itself) is more symbolic than anything else... unless you win.

[Deleted]

Jan 18, 2016 10:54:48 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 18, 2016 0:52:58 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Exactly.

Slavery actually fell AFTER the Civil War was over (many people forget that. The war ended April 9, 1865 with Lee's surrender at Appomattox Courthouse, Slavery wasn't abolished by the Federal Government until December 6, 1865. One would think that if Slavery was the issue, the North would have ratified it's end {at least in it's controlled territories/states} long before the end of the war to get rid of it).

What the Civil War decided was "Do state's rights exist or is supreme power centered in the federal government?" With the North being victorious, the answer to that question became "What the Federal Government says, goes."

The Civil War was a turning point. We went from being "the United States of America" with State's Rights being paramount, to being "THE United States of America" with Federal Rights superseding State's Rights (regardless of the Tenth Amendment). I'm not saying whether that's a good thing or a bad thing... just that it "is".

The U.S. senate approved the Thirteenth Ammendment April 8, 1864. The U.S. House of Representatives approved the ammendment January 31, 1865. The vast majority of the northern states did ratify the Thirteenth Ammendment before the official end of the American Civil War. Much delay in abolishing slavery (December 6, 1865) was due to the delay of the southern states ratifying the ammendment.

Ratification Dates (by state) Of The Thirteenth Ammendment.

When was it ratified? That's all that matters. The answer to that is "December 6th 1865". That's when it became law.

And maybe "the vast majority" of northern states did ratify it before the war was over... but not all of them did. That's an important distinction.

Here's a list (from your link) of the states that ratified it AFTER the surrender:
21 Arkansas Apr 14, 1865
22 Connecticut May 4, 1865
23 New Hampshire Jul 1, 1865
24 South Carolina Nov 13, 1865
25 Alabama Dec 2, 1865
26 North Carolina Dec 4, 1865
27 Georgia Dec 6, 1865
28 Oregon Dec 8, 1865
29 California Dec 19, 1865
30 Florida Dec 28, 1865
31 Iowa Jan 15, 1866
32 New Jersey Jan 23, 1866
33 Texas Feb 18, 1870
34 Delaware Feb 12, 1901
35 Kentucky Mar 18, 1976
36 Mississippi Mar 16, 1995

Note the bolded states... all states that didn't secede. Also they are all states that ratified AFTER the end of the war.

I ask again... if ridding the country of slavery was the goal, why didn't they do it BEFORE the war was over (at least in their own state)?

(there's only two "m's" in "amendment", by the way)

[Deleted]

Jan 18, 2016 16:34:03 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

So again, any symbol can represent negative things. To try and say a battle flag ment to represent standing up to an overreaching Federal Government represents racism is simply dumbing down the subject, and it ignores there were many factors that led to the civil war - yes slavery was one issue that was mixed in - but not the primary reason.

Yes, slavery was the primary reason. As I said, go read Jefferson Davis's statements at the start of the war.

The South knew their economy would collapse if they couldn't use slave labor. And that's pretty much what happened following the war. 

Besides, that flag was the battle flag of Northern Virginia. Southerners who want to honor their ancestors should fly their actual state or battle flag that their ancestors fought for - I put out the battle flag of my ancestors, on special occasions (battle flag of PA). No one knows what that looks like, because it hasn't been co-opted by northern people who want to romanticize what life was like prior to the Civil War.

You can say "slavery was the primary reason" all you want to. It won't make it any truer than me saying "The moon is made of Limburger cheese" makes the moon be made out of smelly cheese.

Slavery was not the primary cause of the secession. There was no "primary" reason. There was a host of reasons among which slavery was one.

[Deleted]

Jan 18, 2016 18:03:17 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I couldn't even find the Battle Flag of Maine. Maybe it was sunk with The Maine.  Damnable Spaniards!

Here you go:


20th Maine Regimental Flag

The 20th Maine was organized in the state of Maine in 1862. It became part of the 1st Division of the V Corps of the Army of the Potomac. The regiment served at Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Rappahannock Station, Mine Run, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, North Anna, Totopotomoy and Bethesda Church, Cold Harbor, Petersburg, Five Forks, and Appomattox.



At the Battle of Gettysburg, the regiment under the command of Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, was stationed on Little Round Top at the extreme left of the Union line. It was here that the regiment fought its most famous action. When the regiment came under heavy attack from the Confederate 15th Alabama, which was attempting to flank the Union position, and completely ran out of ammunition, it responded by charging downhill with fixed bayonets, empty rifles, and in desperate hand-to-hand combat ending the Confederate attack and turned the tide of the battle. This famous action is depicted in the novels "The Killer Angels," and "Courage on Little Round Top", and subsequently became an important scene in the movie "Gettysburg."

[jkapp]

The whole flag issue is just another liberal hypocrisy...

The Confederate flag is a racist symbol and needs to be abolished.  Yet burning the American flag is okay because its just a flag and doesn't mean anything.

[dondub]

Both would be expressions of someone exercising their 1st amendment rights. Some Americans have difficulty with that. But thanks for this: The Confederate flag is a racist symbol

[Deleted]

Jan 18, 2016 21:05:16 GMT -5 dondub said:

Both would be expressions of someone exercising their 1st amendment rights. Some Americans have difficulty with that. But thanks for this: The Confederate flag is a racist symbol

I believe that was said in jest, in it's most recent posting.

[Deleted]

Jan 18, 2016 21:14:11 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Jan 18, 2016 20:13:19 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Here you go:


20th Maine Regimental Flag

The 20th Maine was organized in the state of Maine in 1862. It became part of the 1st Division of the V Corps of the Army of the Potomac. The regiment served at Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Rappahannock Station, Mine Run, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, North Anna, Totopotomoy and Bethesda Church, Cold Harbor, Petersburg, Five Forks, and Appomattox.



At the Battle of Gettysburg, the regiment under the command of Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, was stationed on Little Round Top at the extreme left of the Union line. It was here that the regiment fought its most famous action. When the regiment came under heavy attack from the Confederate 15th Alabama, which was attempting to flank the Union position, and completely ran out of ammunition, it responded by charging downhill with fixed bayonets, empty rifles, and in desperate hand-to-hand combat ending the Confederate attack and turned the tide of the battle. This famous action is depicted in the novels "The Killer Angels," and "Courage on Little Round Top", and subsequently became an important scene in the movie "Gettysburg."

Thanks Richard, but that is NOT the battle Flag of Maine.  It is the flag of the 20th Maine Infantry Regiment (a very famous unit, btw, hero of Little Round top)  I don't think Maine has a battle flag, per se.  There are flags for individual units, like the above, most of which seem to be variations of the actual state flag.

Well... I figured one was better than none. LOL.

I don't believe most states had "State Battle Flags", as most states had multiple armies and each one had their own Battle Flag. Case in Point the "Rebel Flag" that's the cause of all the rukus lately is the Battle Flag for The Army of Northern Virginia... Not the Army of Virginia... Just Northern Virginia.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 18, 2016 19:56:38 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 18, 2016 10:54:48 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

The U.S. senate approved the Thirteenth Ammendment April 8, 1864. The U.S. House of Representatives approved the ammendment January 31, 1865. The vast majority of the northern states did ratify the Thirteenth Ammendment before the official end of the American Civil War. Much delay in abolishing slavery (December 6, 1865) was due to the delay of the southern states ratifying the ammendment.

Ratification Dates (by state) Of The Thirteenth Ammendment.

When was it ratified? That's all that matters. The answer to that is "December 6th 1865". That's when it became law.

And maybe "the vast majority" of northern states did ratify it before the war was over... but not all of them did. That's an important distinction.

Here's a list (from your link) of the states that ratified it AFTER the surrender:
21 Arkansas Apr 14, 1865
22 Connecticut May 4, 1865
23 New Hampshire Jul 1, 1865
24 South Carolina Nov 13, 1865
25 Alabama Dec 2, 1865
26 North Carolina Dec 4, 1865
27 Georgia Dec 6, 1865
28 Oregon Dec 8, 1865
29 California Dec 19, 1865
30 Florida Dec 28, 1865
31 Iowa Jan 15, 1866
32 New Jersey Jan 23, 1866
33 Texas Feb 18, 1870
34 Delaware Feb 12, 1901
35 Kentucky Mar 18, 1976
36 Mississippi Mar 16, 1995

Note the bolded states... all states that didn't secede. Also they are all states that ratified AFTER the end of the war.

I ask again... if ridding the country of slavery was the goal, why didn't they do it BEFORE the war was over (at least in their own state)?

(there's only two "m's" in "amendment", by the way)

Thus the use of the word 'vast' as in 'of very great extent or quantity;' And if your going to give me a spelling lesson, I will give you a definition lesson.

Also, Lee may have surrendered April 9, 1865, but the civil war was not offically proclaimed over by President Johnson until May 9, 1865.

www.nytimes.com/1865/05/10/news/important-proclamations-belligerent-rights-rebels-end-all-nations-warned-against.html

Even then, there were still a few skirmishes after May 9th.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclusion_of_the_American_Civil_War#Andrew_Johnson.27s_May_9_declaration_.28May_9.29


Bottom line is the majority of the Confederate states did not ratify the 14th Amendment until after the proclaimed end of the war. On the other hand, their votes were not need (nor were the northern states you highlighted (OR, CA, IA, NJ, DE and KY) as there were only 36 states as of 1/1/1866 and only 24 states were needed to ratify the amendment with only NH and SC needed to make it 24 after the official end of the war.

[gregintenn]

Jan 18, 2016 11:21:18 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I believe that charity can take the place of abused social programs and infrastructure spending, and I think that going this route will naturally start to fix the income equality that we are seeing right now(Which just happens to be at some of the worst levels in history). In other words, the South shall rise again!(and it has nothing to do with slavery)

1) I'm assuming you mean 'fix the income Inequality' and you think that charity will be the magic cure for our income inequality? That once all the government benefit programs go away wealthier people will voluntarily give their money to the poor until there are no poor people? Can you point to any society in the history of mankind where those with all the money and power voluntarily surrendered it to the lower classes so that everyone could live in some kind of utopian middle class?

2) I failed to see the connection between fixing income inequality and the South rising? Are you working on the assumption that income inequality is only occurring in the South and that charity will fix all that, creating one big happy Southern middle class society that will take over the rest of the country?

What is this "income inequality" of which you speak, and what the hell does it have to do with the confederate battle flag?

[Deleted]

Jan 18, 2016 21:33:13 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 18, 2016 19:56:38 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

When was it ratified? That's all that matters. The answer to that is "December 6th 1865". That's when it became law.

And maybe "the vast majority" of northern states did ratify it before the war was over... but not all of them did. That's an important distinction.

Here's a list (from your link) of the states that ratified it AFTER the surrender:
21 Arkansas Apr 14, 1865
22 Connecticut May 4, 1865
23 New Hampshire Jul 1, 1865
24 South Carolina Nov 13, 1865
25 Alabama Dec 2, 1865
26 North Carolina Dec 4, 1865
27 Georgia Dec 6, 1865
28 Oregon Dec 8, 1865
29 California Dec 19, 1865
30 Florida Dec 28, 1865
31 Iowa Jan 15, 1866
32 New Jersey Jan 23, 1866
33 Texas Feb 18, 1870
34 Delaware Feb 12, 1901
35 Kentucky Mar 18, 1976
36 Mississippi Mar 16, 1995

Note the bolded states... all states that didn't secede. Also they are all states that ratified AFTER the end of the war.

I ask again... if ridding the country of slavery was the goal, why didn't they do it BEFORE the war was over (at least in their own state)?

(there's only two "m's" in "amendment", by the way)

Thus the use of the word 'vast' as in 'of very great extent or quantity;' And if your going to give me a spelling lesson, I will give you a definition lesson.

Also, Lee may have surrendered April 9, 1865, but the civil war was not offically proclaimed over by President Johnson until May 9, 1865.

www.nytimes.com/1865/05/10/news/important-proclamations-belligerent-rights-rebels-end-all-nations-warned-against.html

Even then, there were still a few skirmishes after May 9th.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclusion_of_the_American_Civil_War#Andrew_Johnson.27s_May_9_declaration_.28May_9.29


Bottom line is the majority of the Confederate states did not ratify the 14th Amendment until after the proclaimed end of the war. On the other hand, their votes were not need (nor were the northern states you highlighted (OR, CA, IA, NJ, DE and KY) as there were only 36 states as of 1/1/1866 and only 24 states were needed to ratify the amendment with only NH and SC needed to make it 24 after the official end of the war.

You missed the most important question though in all that pointless rambling...

I ask again... if ridding the country of slavery was the goal, why didn't they do it BEFORE the war was over (at least in their own state)?

[Tennesseer]

Jan 18, 2016 21:57:48 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 18, 2016 21:33:13 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Thus the use of the word 'vast' as in 'of very great extent or quantity;' And if your going to give me a spelling lesson, I will give you a definition lesson.

Also, Lee may have surrendered April 9, 1865, but the civil war was not offically proclaimed over by President Johnson until May 9, 1865.

www.nytimes.com/1865/05/10/news/important-proclamations-belligerent-rights-rebels-end-all-nations-warned-against.html

Even then, there were still a few skirmishes after May 9th.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclusion_of_the_American_Civil_War#Andrew_Johnson.27s_May_9_declaration_.28May_9.29


Bottom line is the majority of the Confederate states did not ratify the 14th Amendment until after the proclaimed end of the war. On the other hand, their votes were not need (nor were the northern states you highlighted (OR, CA, IA, NJ, DE and KY) as there were only 36 states as of 1/1/1866 and only 24 states were needed to ratify the amendment with only NH and SC needed to make it 24 after the official end of the war.

You missed the most important question though in all that pointless rambling...

I ask again... if ridding the country of slavery was the goal, why didn't they do it BEFORE the war was over (at least in their own state)?

Because there was a civil war at hand..

[Deleted]

Jan 18, 2016 22:19:48 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 18, 2016 21:57:48 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

You missed the most important question though in all that pointless rambling...

I ask again... if ridding the country of slavery was the goal, why didn't they do it BEFORE the war was over (at least in their own state)?

Because there was a civil war at hand.

BZZZZT
Wrong answer. Several states managed to do it. Some even BEFORE the war (Vermont banned it in 1777)!


Here's the right answer: Ending slavery wasn't the goal.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 18, 2016 23:10:59 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 18, 2016 22:19:48 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Because there was a civil war at hand.

BZZZZT
Wrong answer. Several states managed to do it. Some even BEFORE the war (Vermont banned it in 1777)!


Here's the right answer: Ending slavery wasn't the goal.

All all this time I thought we were posting about the the 13th Amendment. Or at least I was.

[Deleted]

Jan 18, 2016 23:34:23 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 18, 2016 23:10:59 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

BZZZZT
Wrong answer. Several states managed to do it. Some even BEFORE the war (Vermont banned it in 1777)!


Here's the right answer: Ending slavery wasn't the goal.

All all this time I thought we were posting about the the 13th Amendment. Or at least I was.

The 13th Amendment is just a minuscule component of "All the stuff that has some sort of tie to the Confederate Battle Flag"... and the thread is about (well... my take on it anyway) basically what the flag does or doesn't stand for, and how all that applies to the rest of everything else.

[dondub]

I believe that was said in jest, in it's most recent posting.

I did not say this in jest, Richard.

Both would be expressions of someone exercising their 1st amendment rights. Some Americans have difficulty with that. But thanks for this: The Confederate flag is a racist symbol

[happyhoix]

Jan 18, 2016 20:07:17 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 18, 2016 16:34:03 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Yes, slavery was the primary reason. As I said, go read Jefferson Davis's statements at the start of the war.

The South knew their economy would collapse if they couldn't use slave labor. And that's pretty much what happened following the war. 

Besides, that flag was the battle flag of Northern Virginia. Southerners who want to honor their ancestors should fly their actual state or battle flag that their ancestors fought for - I put out the battle flag of my ancestors, on special occasions (battle flag of PA). No one knows what that looks like, because it hasn't been co-opted by northern people who want to romanticize what life was like prior to the Civil War.

You can say "slavery was the primary reason" all you want to. It won't make it any truer than me saying "The moon is made of Limburger cheese" makes the moon be made out of smelly cheese.

Slavery was not the primary cause of the secession. There was no "primary" reason. There was a host of reasons among which slavery was one.

And you can say slavery was not the primary cause of the secession if you want, which also matters as much as saying the moon is made of limburger cheese.

All the 'causes' you point to come back to slavery. States rights, for instance, come back to the fact that the Southern States wanted to continue to allow slavery in their own states and didn't want the federal government dictating whether they could have slavery or not.

Wave your magic wand and remove slavery from the Southern states - would they still want to separate themselves from the union due to States rights? What right did they want to keep that the rest of the Union didn't want them to continue to have, other than the right to keep slaves?

Any reason you give leads right back to the ability to keep slaves. It's the root of the whole conflict. Pretending the Southern Cause was some romantic, Quixotic, Gone with the Wind type fantasy doesn't make it true.   

[happyhoix]

Jan 18, 2016 20:28:33 GMT -5 jkapp said:

The whole flag issue is just another liberal hypocrisy...

The Confederate flag is a racist symbol and needs to be abolished.  Yet burning the American flag is okay because its just a flag and doesn't mean anything.

I live in the South. I don't have a problem with the flag, which is a good thing, because I see it everywhere. Everyone who wants to fly it should fly it proudly.

However, they shouldn't pretend it only stands for some glorious Southern Cause. It began as a Virginia battle flag. Then it was adopted by Southern groups in the 60's during the time of the civil rights unrest as a symbol of their Southern pride, but unfortunately, it was co-opted by racial hatred groups like the KKK and skin heads as racist symbol. It's unfortunate that it got sullied with that association, but it did, and when you fly it, you need to be aware that other people will make that association, even if you don't.

Ironically, where I live in the South, there were few plantations and a lot of industrial work. Very few slave holders. When the war came, the population was split half and half. A lot of men served for whichever army paid the most, and some served for both sides. Yet periodically the locals dress up in their pretend Southern uniforms and wave their Virginia battlefield flags, apparently not knowing (or not caring) that their ancestors were just as likely to have fought for the Union.


If you want to celebrate your heritage, I think you should spend some time researching it, and if you want to display a flag, make sure it's one that your ancestors would have recognized as theirs.