jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (86 posts)

The Stars and Bars

  1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
    Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago

    So the confederate flag is often thought of as a flag that symbolizes racism and treason. I myself am from Tennessee, although now live in Ohio, and have never felt that this flag held those principals. It is arrogant to say though that it isn't widely accepted as a racist flag.

    This flag, in my circle, has always represented peoples rights, rebellion against the government and individualism. Bo and Luke duke made the flag a symbol of pop culture during the series Dukes of Hazzard and for them it was a symbol of said rebellion against organized government. I think it has always been a symbol of power to the people but it had just happened to be flown during a time when slavery was an issue amongst the people who flew the flag. However I think it is fair to remind people that the north supported indentured servants where people were owned for 20 years instead of life and the American flag has never had any negative thoughts attached to it for slavery. For that matter it is a flag born of actual treason to England and yet feelings of pride burst in most Americans chest when it is seen. 

    So, what do you people think? Should the confederate flag be something that is accepted or not?
    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6042411_f248.jpg

    1. Greek One profile image78
      Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The swastika is a an ancient symbol, but it had just happened to be flown by the Nazis

      http://www.swastika-info.com/images/asien/hongkong/buddha01.jpg

      Similarly, you can attach whatever symbolic association you want with any symbol or flag.... but the fact remains that the Confederate flag was that of the treasonous secessionists responsible for a war that killed millions of Americans... primarily in a defense of the institution of slavery.

      Their use predates Bo and Luke....although I am not sure about Uncle Jesse

      1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
        Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It was not millions of Americans. It was the deadlist war in American history but millions of Americans did not die in the war. "620,000 soldiers and an undetermined number of civilian casualties" per wikipedia.

        I agree that the civil war was a slave/union war. I do not agree with slavery. I believe that every man and woman has the right to live free and die free regaurdless of skin color or faith or what have you.

        So if a Buddist were to wear a swastika in the meaning of its origin then they should be made to feel like a nazi? I don't fly the stars and bars but if I did in response to say the Indefinate Detention Act of Americans to show my opposition to this type of Government control, should I be made to feel like a racist?

        1. Greek One profile image78
          Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sorry.. hundreds of thousands of Americans died as a result of the civil war started by the Confederacy.

          The Buddist use of the swastika is in no way associated the Nazis movement
          The Confederate flag however, was the symbol of the Confederacy and all it embodies.

          To answer your question, it would be as if someone was to use the flag of Fascist Italy in an effort to promote timely railway transportation.

          If you wanted to oppose the Indefinate Detention Act, why not fly an American flag... the original symbol against oppressive government?

          1. Reality Bytes profile image92
            Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            There ya go  smile!!

            1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
              Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I didn't mean to belittle the number of deaths if that's how you took it. I just wanted to point out it wasnt millions.

              I wouldn't fly the Italian flag because I'm not in Italy, however the REBEL flag is a symbol of protest to the established governement here in America.

              1. Greek One profile image78
                Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                would you fly a Black Panther flag? How about one that had a picture of Timothy McVeigh on it?

                1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
                  Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Well I'm not black nor do I feel oppressed as a black man nor am I a wack job intent on killing men, women and children.

                  I don't know much about the Black Pathers from America but I do know alittle about the one from Wakanda....well cuz I'm a nerd.

              2. Reality Bytes profile image92
                Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                If barbed wire had been invented before the war it would have been millions.

                Little fact, just something to think about.  Barbed wire was patented in 1874.

                I am not much in to "if" statements but this one detail made a huge difference in the civil war.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                  Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't know about that.  If barbed wire had already been invented there probably wouldn't have any stupid frontal assaults such as "Picket's charge"!

                  1. Reality Bytes profile image92
                    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You might be correct but I just found it to be an interesting fact.  I am currently reading a A History of the American People by Paul Johnson  and this was mentioned.

                    It got me thinking so I just thought I would share.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The swastika was a religious symbol

        The REVERSE swastika is a NAZI symbol.

        1. Greek One profile image78
          Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The reverse swastika was also worn by Nazis who were going the wrong way

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I think I might have been mistaken. I had learned that the reverse swastika was the symbol of the nazi's but a google search quickly shows me that I was mistaken.

            1. Greek One profile image78
              Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The term "Google" in ancient Hindu means "to find misleading facts online"

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                (actually, google corrected me. the incorrect info was from public schooling)

                1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
                  WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Where? Russia?

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The Nazis used the swastika going both ways.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I like the icon! Please vote for the presidential candidate who openly speaks out, vigorously, against internet regulation!

              Ron Paul!
              http://www.dailypaul.com/205426/dr-paul-sopa-ndaa
              http://torrentfreak.com/presidential-ca … pa-111229/

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                smile

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Most people who hate the Confederate flag because it, in an indirect way, symbolizes slavery, fail to realize why the underground railroad had to go into Canada.

      The reason? Because the Northern states made it illegal for new black people to live there.

      The Northern states abolished slavery, but they also abolished the rights of black people to live there.

      1. Greek One profile image78
        Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No one is arguing that racism was/is confined to the south, or to the US.

      2. Cassie Smith profile image74
        Cassie Smithposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't think that's true.  The reason the slave ran away to Canada was because a slave caught in the North could still be brought back to the South.

        1. Greek One profile image78
          Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          many came here because of our affordable healthcare and love of hockey

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Naw, it's true. The northern states hated the south for having slavery, but they didn't want blacks up there.

          This was the opinion of Lincoln and his state Illinois. IN fact, they wanted to send all the black people to a desert.

          1. Reality Bytes profile image92
            Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Lincoln actually supported Missouri Congressman Francis P. Blair, Jr's idea to resettle former slaves in Central or South America.

            The Freemen that were former property refused to leave THEIR country.  The country they had helped establish and build!

          2. WD Curry 111 profile image61
            WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The Northern States did not hate the South for slavery. That is how the industrialists moved the populace. There had been a great revival that filled the hearts of the average citizen with compassion and opened their minds to the truth. They were fighting for a Godly cause. However, the greatest factor would still exist without slavery on the table. The South was ruled by aristocracy, and rich merchants who were selling their cotton for higher prices over seas, cutting the North out of shipping contracts, and disregarding
            the incompetent, corrupt government in Washington D.C. That is how slavery was an issue on that level . . . power and money . . . not conscience.

            The average Floridian owned no slaves, and depended on free African American craftsmen and farmers in many cases. They did not fight for slavery, they fought because they didn't want Yankees telling them what to do.

            1. Greek One profile image78
              Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, power and money would be lost by the aristocracy if it wasnt able to hold on to slavery.

              Anyway you look at it, slavery was the underlying issue that led to the formation of the confederacy and the civil war.  It doesnt matter what was in the hearts and minds of those who were convinced to fight.  The fact is those in charge had a vested interest in maintaining slavery, they feared this interest was under attack, so they decided to violently change the political landscape to maintain their lucrative institution without interference.

              The issue of States rights vis a vis the federal government never led to war in the preceding decades over any other issue...it was only the thought of losing their slavery-related power and money that motivated the elites to rebel.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Indeed. Read the various Declarations of Secession. All of the states that bothered to write one talked about preserving the institution of slavery.

                Look it up.

              2. WD Curry 111 profile image61
                WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Power and money was the issue with the industrialists up North as well. Slavery was not a moral issue with either of these factions. It was used by powerful men who lost no sleep over the morality of the issue. Slavery was used by that elite group as propaganda that is still effective today. Lincoln himself was reluctant to issue the Proclamation of Emancipation. It was something he wrestled with for a long time. Many slaves refused to leave their homes.

                This is the truth . . . there were plantations along the South Carolina coast where the slaves were treated with a certain amount of dignity. They were never beaten. They were given their own land, they planted their own little farms, they had time to work them and have a good home life since they were not required to work more than eight hours a day (it may have been less, I don't remember). They were valued and respected for their skill as craftsmen and builders. They were paid for much of it. Some of the owners bequeathed property, valuables and freedom to their dearest  friends (salves). You never hear of this.

                The point - any system works, if it is run with love. There was no more disparity between the slave and his master than there is between me and the corporate aristocracy of our day. If they say jump, I better ask, "How high?" Forget being treated with dignity. If I lose my job, I will be desolate.

                Have you ever heard of Hilton Head? Until the seventies, it was owned by African Americans who were given the Island as an inheritance by loving "masters". They held title, in some cases, since the 1700's. The people were content to live a productive life on the beautiful island with almost no contact with the mainland. They spoke their own language, Geechy, a mix of African and English. Children took boats to school after the elementary grades. The average income was less than $5,000 per year, but they lived well on that with no rent, and plenty of fish, livestock and farming. Then, investors wanted to get their hands on the island, so you can stay at a time share and play golf. The property appraiser jacked up the value, and raised taxes. The long time owners could not pay the bill. They were evicted and their land was auctioned off to an elite group for back taxes. Those people were displaced to Savannah and beyond where they were not equipped to cope with the culture.

                The moral of this story . . . you don't own your own land in the U.S., you are renting from the state government.

                Do some research and find out who owns that property, now. Saudis, Indians, Germans, Japanese, Yankee Bankees, and Boss Hogg Southerners top the list. In the case of the Geechy, they were treated much better when they were the slaves of Southern Christians. Look what is happening now. We Americans, Canadians and all of the peoples of the world are being reduced to slavery by rich industrialists and corporations. Who will set us free? Hint: Not Marxists.

                1. Greek One profile image78
                  Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "There was no more disparity between the slave and his master than there is between me and the corporate aristocracy of our day"

                  Are you being serious with the comment above?

                  1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
                    WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    In the case of the Plantations I am talking about, yes. I am not defending slavery, I am pointing out some little known facts.

                    I was on the verge of doing well with a business, here in Florida, when the housing boom busted. I had a front row seat for the spectacle, but the price of my ticket was way out of line. I will have to write a hub about it. Anyway, all of those real estate backed securities (mortgaged backed securities is almost a misnomer, usually, the mortgages were thrown in with other investments) tanked. Some guy in New York made BILLIONS from derivatives (an illegal bet in the day) when everyone else went belly up. I lost a lot of money, and Timothy Franz Geithner closed down my bank and gave the assets to BB&T (text book example of government confiscation and redistribution of wealth). Deutsche Bank was an "adviser".

                    Listen, brother, or whatever . . . I had no more choice than the slave. I got to the point where I would do any work at any wage. It is coming your way if it isn't there yet, get a clue!

      3. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No, it was because of the Fugitive Slave Act, which made it legal for bounty-hunters to kidnap ex-slaves in the free states and take them back to the slave states where they were legally property and not citizens. This was upheld by the disastrous (and racist) Dred Scott decision.

        I'm sure there were plenty of White people in the North who didn't want Black people moving in down the street, but that's not why the URR had to go all the way to Canada.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That wasn't the only reason. "Northern Exclusion"

          Exclusion ordinances often were advanced by self-professed friends of the freemen who foresaw only tragedy in attempts of the races to share the land. Robert Dale Owen, speaking in Indiana in 1850, asked if any decent person desired “the continuance among us of a race to whom we are not willing to accord the most common protection against outrage and death.” The writers in such cases seem honestly troubled by the plight of free blacks. The rhetoric hardly is an exaggeration: during the constitutional debate in the state that year, one speaker had frankly acknowledged, “It would be better to kill them off at once, if there is no other way to get rid of them. ... We know how the Puritans did with the Indians, who were infinitely more magnanimous and less impudent than the colored race.”

          Not content with mere legislation, Illinois, Indiana, and Oregon had anti-immigration provisions built into their constitutions. In Illinois (1848), in clause-by-clause voting, this clause was approved by voters by more than 2 to 1. Most of the opposition to it came from the northern counties of the state, where blacks were few. In Indiana (1851), it was approved by a larger margin than the constitution itself. In Oregon (1857), the vote for it was 8 to 1. The Illinois act stayed on the books until 1865. The Black Codes dealt with more than just settlement. Oregon forbid blacks to hold real estate, make contracts, or bring lawsuits. Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and California prohibited them from testifying in cases where a white man was a party.

          Indiana's anti-immigration rule was challenged in the case of a black man convicted for bringing a black woman into the state to marry her. The state Supreme Court upheld the conviction, noting that, “The policy of the state is ... clearly evolved. It is to exclude any further ingress of negroes, and to remove those already among us as speedily as possible.” There was no legal segregation in Indiana's public schools: none was necessary. The white citizens of the state would keep the schools racially pure more thoroughly than any legal provision could. A court upheld the white-only Indiana public schools in 1850, finding that, in the eyes of the state, “black children were deemed unfit associates of whites, as school companions.”

          http://www.slavenorth.com/exclusion.htm (wikipedia is down for the day)

    3. Shinkicker profile image90
      Shinkickerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I've always associated the southern flag with rock n' roll, motorbikes and rebellion. A symbol of freedom, pride and an independent spirit.

      1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
        WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That's all it is anymore, Shinkicker.

                                       https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTReUR-qdYP4_wZI4N4-DKiCVQz2zqG1qvNOFlP2v0IqFpP9LTkvw

        1. Repairguy47 profile image60
          Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          hell, I'm flying it right now and I'm not too concerned as to who it may offend. Must be the rebel in my blood.

          1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
            Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            nice

          2. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Duh.

            1. Repairguy47 profile image60
              Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Statement or Georgia question?

              1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Standard Texas answer!  smile

                1. Repairguy47 profile image60
                  Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No Randy, that was a question.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                    Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Doh!  smile

          3. WD Curry 111 profile image61
            WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRuXmJ3RvzJLtFzaQvMNbJXTIKwNpcUcOLixCXOHUyoF5WE0p80

                                                       https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRAfkT7MmElD0qXFh7TagRTqbVEuBmL295hu7EDaFBiszqDsQY-

  2. Reality Bytes profile image92
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    Rebel flag, in your schools
    Rebel flag, in your parks
    Rebel flag, in your court rooms
    Rebel flag, in your hearts
    Rebel flag, stood for slavery
    Rebel flag, stood for war
    Rebel flag, stood for hatred
    But just go ahead and hang your flag up some more

    Terrible Lyrics
    Artist(Band):ICP (Insane Clown Posse)

    1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
      WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Insane Clown Posse? You listen to Insane Clown Posse? No wonder your reality bytes.

      This is an interesting bit of trivia. Who's record label first put them out? That's right realbyte . . . Disney was the holding company. I read about the whole deal in "Team Rodent" by Carl Hiassen, how Florida allowed Disney to disregard every kind of law and use public funds to develop, etc., etc.

      The headbangers and "children of the corn" that we got at Devereux were into that mess. You would have to be right there with them to quote  what you did. Good to get to know who I am talking to a little better . . . an emotionally disturbed adolescent.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image92
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You simply cannot help yourself.  Oooh well back in the TO bin.  See ya soon!

        1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
          WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Office politics at HubPages, ain't it a trip.

          You don't get it yet. This hotrod is running on auto, while Big Brother is out playing golf.

          Seriously, how is it that you know the lyrics of that song? You either listened yourself, or the Marxit organization that is funding your posts pulled it out of their files and handed it to you.

          1. Reality Bytes profile image92
            Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, I am a wicked clown Juggalo, ax wielding psychopath.  WHOOP WHOOP!  AND I AM GOING CHICKEN HUNTING!!!

            Marxit organization........pathetic  sad

            1. GoldenBird profile image60
              GoldenBirdposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6046777_f248.jpg

              1. Reality Bytes profile image92
                Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Already forced to use your sockpuppet  WD?   awwwwww  sad

                1. GoldenBird profile image60
                  GoldenBirdposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  http://s3.hubimg.com/u/6046814_f248.jpg

                  lol lol

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    MEANINGLESS RESPONSES DESERVE NO REPLY

  3. profile image0
    Muldaniaposted 5 years ago

    The same association has been attached to the England flag, which shows the cross of St. George.  The flags of Scotland and Wales do not have the same associations, but the fact that the England flag has been adopted by racist organisations means it came to be associated with them.  Thankfully, in recent years, it has been used more, and can be seen flying from some town halls, taking it back from the racists and is seen almost as much as the Union flag now.

    1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
      WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's interesting, Muldania. Our media is so focused on us, that we never hear about you. You have some interesting hubs. Maybe you should add this to the cache.

  4. aware profile image72
    awareposted 5 years ago

    the us flag flew over slavery way before  the stars and bars. .is the stars and stripes a racist flag?

    1. Greek One profile image78
      Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The United States was not created as a means to save the institution of slavery... the Confederacy was.

  5. aware profile image72
    awareposted 5 years ago

    Betsy Ross . was she a racist?

  6. aware profile image72
    awareposted 5 years ago

    the  Constitution was written by slave owners .1% of Americans at the time owned  slaves .You saying that  Confederate soldiers   fought to save a institution   they didn't participate in?

    1. Greek One profile image78
      Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      nope.. i wouldn't fathom to guess the individual motivation of each and every confederate soldier.

  7. Jeff Berndt profile image92
    Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago

    Anyone who thinks that the South was trying to preserve States' Rights would do well to read the various Declarations of Secession. They all talk about preserving slavery, and mention that the Northern states are trying to stop it.

    Why did the Underground Railroad have to go all the way to Canada? Because of the Fugitive Slave Act. Under this law, an escaped slave in a free state could be legally kidnapped and returned to the state he escaped from, to be treated as property again. This law, pushed by the slave-states, is in direct contravention to the principle of States' Rights. It had less to do with white people in the North not wanting free blacks to live there than it did to do with pro-slavery southern interests betraying the principles of states' rights in favor of promoting slavery.

    Why did non-slave-owning Southerners fight to preserve slavery? For the same reason poor people vote to repeal the estate tax: they don't have slaves (or estates) now, but someday they might.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So.. when a STATE exerts it's RIGHT to repeal it's contract with OTHER STATES...

      ... it's NOT about state's rights?

      ...?

      Your claim can not be justified. Perhaps slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back, but the sheer fact that the states individually broke free from their bondage destroys your argument.

      Indeed, slavery was mentioned, but if you read the Ordinances of Secession from the states, it's clear that State's Rights was the main issue:

      http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordinan … ession.htm

      1. Greek One profile image78
        Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        1.  They didn't have that right to repeal their contract according to the constitution, which they willingly agreed to..  If they felt they did have that right in law, they should have pursued that argument via the courts.  The constitution they helped to create set out what states could and couldn't do, didnt it?  States themselves do not have natural and inalienable rights that are not defined by the law.  The fact that they resorted to armed insurrection instead is treason.

        2.  Slavery wasn't the straw that broke the camel's back.. it WAS the camel. States rights was only an issue because the States wanted to protect slavery from the federal government.  They didnt go to war because they felt the federal government was interfering in eduction or transportation.. they did it over slavery

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          They did have a right to repeal the Constitution. It was promised during signing AND it was immortalized in the 10th amendment.

          In fact, it was taken for granted: If the states had to agree to create the union, then surely an individual could leave the union whenever it wanted.

          People have the right of association - thus they can choose which groups to belong to. Thus, a state can have this power. And the states never gave up this power in the Constitution.

          To claim that the states didn't have the power to leave the union is to claim that people don't have the right of succession OR to claim that there is a clause in the Constitution of absolute bondage to the Union.

          Neither of these are accurate. IN fact, we can find just the opposite in both the 10th amendment and the Articles of Confederation.

          And, finally - NORTHERN STATES WERE THE FIRST TO THREATEN TO SECEDE!!! New England wanted to leave when Jefferson was president. They just didn't have the cajones to do it.

          1. Greek One profile image78
            Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It was promised during the signing?  Was that a pinky swear too?  lol

            Where exactly in the 10th Amendment does it talk about the procedure to dissolve the Union?... because evidently the north didn't take the right to secede 'take for granted'.  Weird that a contract wouldn't have outlined the right to secede if that was the intent.

            The individual states created a new entity to which they were bound.  The Constitution and its amendments laid out the powers the different powers this entity's different parts would have, including the individual states.  It also explains how the law of the land could be changed, and that "Treason against the United States"

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Don't get me wrong, I think the entire "promised at signing" thing is a weak response, too. But it was. It was promised by the Federalists, who then took back their word.

              It was also understood to be true. Read just about any document back in the time and it's understood that the people gave the states the right to associate with whom they wanted, and then the Constitution prohibited them from interacting in only specific ways (interstate trade barriers, for example).

              The 10th amendment? It clearly says that powers NOT granted to the Federal government are RESERVED FOR THE STATES. It then proceeds that ANY power TAKEN AWAY from the states are granted to the people. --- NO where in the Constitution is the power stripped, nor is it granted to the federal government. Thus, it's a state power.

              When you can show me in the Constitution that the power to secede was taken away from the states (pre-civil war), then I'll take your argument seriously.

              Until then, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you're just not accurate.

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "So.. when a STATE exerts it's RIGHT to repeal it's contract with OTHER STATES...

        ... it's NOT about state's rights?"

        No. Not really. The South seceded so they could continue to enslave black people without interference from people who thought that maybe we shouldn't treat human beings as property.

        It's all about slavery for the South. Sure, they dress it up in States' Rights, but their Declarations of Secession all make it clear that they mainly felt threatened by the growing abolitionist movement, and feared that someday they might be legally required to stop enslaving people unless they split from the Union.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Jeff, your statement is nonsense at the roots. I'm not saying that slavery wasn't an issue, but to claim that it was not about State's rights is just to be incorrect.

          Only three of the ordinances mention slavery at all (which is NOT to say that it wasn't an issue), but they ALL mention state's rights.  3/13 vs. 13/13.

          Here's a few for you to read (i posted them earlier, but I have my doubts that anyone read them):

          SC:
          "AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."

          We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved."

          Mississippi:
          "The people of the State of Mississippi, in convention assembled, do ordain and declare, and it is hereby ordained and declared, as follows, to wit:

          Section 1. That all the laws and ordinances by which the said State of Mississippi became a member of the Federal Union of the United States of America be, and the same are hereby, repealed, and that all obligations on the part of the said State or the people thereof to observe the same be withdrawn, and that the said State doth hereby resume all the rights, functions, and powers which by any of said laws or ordinances were conveyed to the Government of the said United States, and is absolved from all the obligations, restraints, and duties incurred to the said Federal Union, and shall from henceforth be a free, sovereign, and independent State.

          Sec. 2. That so much of the first section of the seventh article of the constitution of this State as requires members of the Legislature and all officers, executive and judicial, to take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States be, and the same is hereby, abrogated and annulled.

          Sec. 3. That all rights acquired and vested under the Constitution of the United States, or under any act of Congress passed, or treaty made, in pursuance thereof, or under any law of this State, and not incompatible with this ordinance, shall remain in force and have the same effect as if this ordinance had not been passed.

          Sec. 4. That the people of the State of Mississippi hereby consent to form a federal union with such of the States as may have seceded or may secede from the Union of the United States of America, upon the basis of the present Constitution of the said United States, except such parts thereof as embrace other portions than such seceding States."

          Florida:
          "We, the people of the State of Florida, in convention assembled, do solemnly ordain, publish, and declare, That the State of Florida hereby withdraws herself from the confederacy of States existing under the name of the United States of America and from the existing Government of the said States; and that all political connection between her and the Government of said States ought to be, and the same is hereby, totally annulled, and said Union of States dissolved; and the State of Florida is hereby declared a sovereign and independent nation; and that all ordinances heretofore adopted, in so far as they create or recognize said Union, are rescinded; and all laws or parts of laws in force in this State, in so far as they recognize or assent to said Union, be, and they are hereby, repealed."

  8. WD Curry 111 profile image61
    WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago

    I lived in South Carolina for awhile. Some of the folks in Charleston can't forget how the Yankees, who were laying siege to the city, would shell the civilians on Sunday morning when they were on their way to church. They still defy the forces who killed their great grandfather's baby brother and mother while she was pushing the baby to services in his carriage.

    General Butler did a job on the civilian population of Louisiana. The Union generals unleashed this kind barbarism to break the will of the people. They continued the practice in the "Indian Wars". What do the stars and stripes stand for?

    There is what we idealize, but how do you suppose the Sioux feel about it? Funny, they are the staunchest patriots. Go figure. We rallied in WW2 and became more consolidated.

                                    https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSuZAeQqrhn0x7rojhD2g11N9Ux1jkddzx1U6O6ukCXtJJdlsz2mQ

    Rednecks in the South don't mean anything by it, lighten up, don't be a hater. Even African Americans around here see it as a matter of "Southern Pride" and flaunt it themselves. Who wants to force harmless people into submission by law? Watch out, now that slavery is off the table . . . the South may rise again!

    1. Greek One profile image78
      Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      those kind of pics will make parts of Northerns rise too

      1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
        Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        HAHA

      2. WD Curry 111 profile image61
        WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Right on!

                                     https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR3fe3HHsiykdsuEuMhU5O0FV73zPb1FWq1ZBiRbDnsMG7SNVUvAQ

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The North waged ABSOLUTE WAR against the south.

      Lincoln never freed a single slave.

      The North didn't want black people moving to their states.

      Abolitionists didn't want to abolish slavery, they wanted to abolish black people from living in their states.

      Slavery IS wrong, but the understanding of the Civil War is GROSSLY incorrect in this country.

      1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
        WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You aren't Russian after all?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          ?

          1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
            WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry, I got you mixed up with another couple. My bad.

  9. Repairguy47 profile image60
    Repairguy47posted 5 years ago

    If you travel around Texas you'll find many Mexican flags flying, I am never offended by them. I'm sure the ones flying them are just proud of where they are from, although, I am perplexed as to why if they are so proud why not live in Mexico?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      One can be proud of heritage, but want a better life in a different country.

      Just ask [insert minority grouping with heritage-loving old person]. Remember the movie "My Big Fat Greek Wedding"?

      1. Greek One profile image78
        Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That movie actually written by a Greek Canadian, based on her experiences growing up in multicultural Canada, and filmed in Toronto.

        The film was based in Chicago to make the movie more marketable to American audiences

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I feel that One who is as Greek as you might be biased! I need an independent source!

          1. Greek One profile image78
            Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            well, the house she lived in in the movie with the big Greek flag on the garage is located near my home.

            as for an independent source, how about Wikipedia....

            "The film was shot in Toronto and Chicago. Toronto's Ryerson University and Greektown neighborhood feature prominently in the film. Despite its writer being from Winnipeg, and the use of Toronto for location shots, the movie was set in Chicago. Walking tours of Greektown on Danforth Avenue point out scene locations. The home used to depict Gus and Maria Portokalos' residence (as well as the home bought next door at the end of the film for Toula and Ian) is located on Glenwood Crescent just off O'Connor Drive in East York. The real home representing the Portokalos' residence actually has most of the external ornamentation that was shown in the film. Also, some minor parts of the movie were shot in Jarvis High School in Toronto."

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Lol, I'm surprised you had a source. I was just goofing off cuz you're the Greek One.

  10. Greek One profile image78
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    PS.. Mike Myers (another good Toronto boy), based Wayne's World in part on his experiences growing up in Toronto.  The Stan Makita Donut shop featured in the movie was of course based on the popular Canadian franchise 'Tim Hortons'  (and ironically enough, I have written a Hub about that same franchise smile )

 
working