Confederate flags, tinfoil hat crowd and other nutters.

pokermind wrote:And you are now reading the little lady's mind calling her a racist for celebrating her heritage,

There were actually two possibilities listed in my post, no mind reading involved. But it *is* one of those two options.

how RACIST!

Ummmm... what?

Wait, has our problem this entire time been that you don't know what "racist" means?

Why do people call it the war of northern agression when it was started by southern agression, and indeed a southern attack?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Well I suppose if the South had won and if the North had lost and the South occupied the North for over 10 years under martial law where the North had no civil rights and if the South had taken most of the wealth from the North and had pretty much done to the North what the North DID IN FACT do to the South during the War Of Northern Agression and during the period after also known as the Deconstruction Era ... Then it might have been called the War Of Southern Agression. Other names include the Civil War, The War Between the States, The War of Succession.

Who shot first? We were taught it was the Union guns who first opened up. Then the Southern guns. Nobody was even killed until a Northern gun blew up some how during some sort of strange salute after surrendering. The first apparent deaths of that horrible state of affairs may have been self inflected ... by the North on the North. I suppose it all depends where you lived, where you went to school and what you were told by family who actually did live in the South at that time. Very sad time.

HB of CJ wrote:during the War Of Northern Agression

The south started the war, end of story, you want to claim anything else, then you´re a history revisionist of the bad kind.

Trying to excuse your skewed views by claiming an alternate universe history to be reality.

HB of CJ wrote:Well I suppose if the South had won and if the North had lost and the South occupied the North for over 10 years under martial law where the North had no civil rights and if the South had taken most of the wealth from the North and had pretty much done to the North what the North DID IN FACT do to the South

What wealth? Go back in the thread to my post where i go over the economical disparity of the Confeds vs the Union and then realise that at the end of the ACW, most of the wealth that did exist had either been spent or was simply land ownership.

And even before the war the Confeds started, the south was drastically inferior in wealth compared to the north.

HB of CJ wrote: Then it might have been called the War Of Southern Agression.

What happened AFTER a war does not in any way change who started it. That´s just pure rubbish.

HB of CJ wrote:Who shot first? We were taught it was the Union guns who first opened up. Then the Southern guns. Nobody was even killed until a Northern gun blew up some how during some sort of strange salute after surrendering. The first apparent deaths of that horrible state of affairs may have been self inflected ... by the North on the North. I suppose it all depends where you lived, where you went to school and what you were told by family who actually did live in the South at that time. Very sad time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter
An attempt by U.S. President James Buchanan to reinforce and resupply Anderson, using the unarmed merchant ship Star of the West, failed when it was fired upon by shore batteries on January 9, 1861. South Carolina authorities then seized all Federal property in the Charleston area, except for Fort Sumter.

This is starting the war.

The resupply of Fort Sumter became the first crisis of the administration of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln. He notified the Governor of South Carolina, Francis W. Pickens, that he was sending supply ships, which resulted in an ultimatum from the Confederate government: evacuate Fort Sumter immediately. Major Anderson refused to surrender. Beginning at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, the Confederates bombarded the fort from artillery batteries surrounding the harbor. Although the Union garrison returned fire, they were significantly outgunned and, after 34 hours, Major Anderson agreed to evacuate.

And one more time the south starting the war.

At 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861, Lt. Henry S. Farley, acting upon the command of Capt. George S. James, fired a single 10-inch mortar round from Fort Johnson.
...
The shell exploded over Fort Sumter as a signal to open the general bombardment from 4003 guns and mortars at Fort Moultrie, Fort Johnson, the floating battery, and Cummings Point.


...


Major Anderson held his fire, awaiting daylight.

Exactly how do you get the Union troops starting the battle, when the Confeds began firing 2 hours before the Union troops?


So then, you maintain the North started the war, despite the fact that the South actually started it in January 1861, and then again by starting the bombardment of fort Sumter, after the Union troops there had specifically stayed out of the town to avoid any risks of confrontations.

Seriously man... No the north didn´t start the war. No, the north did not rob the south.
No, the north did not ravage the south, your despised "deconstruction" is mostly a delusion made up by the same kind of people who created the "dagger in the back" myth in Germany after WWI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... _aftermath

Check the comparison table for North vs South, 1860 vs 1864.

South got its ass thoroughly kicked and trashed, DURING the war, not after it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstru ... th_in_1865

We were taught the ship shot first when challanged. The carpetbaggers and swalawags looted great wealth from the South after the War. Most of them came from the North.

The Freeman Bureau (sp?) run by the martial law administrators of the Northern Union army encouraged newly free blacks to run wild. The Southerners had no legal recourse. None.

Then the North gave the free blacks the right to vote. Interesting that at the same time free blacks in the North had much difficulately (sp) voting. The Southerners could not vote.

A great percentage of private property was lost after the war because the North controlled tax rates and taxed people off their own property. This did not happen in the North.

Blacks could rape white Southern women with near immunity. A Southern man could be and were hanged for complaining about it. Again, martial law in the South lasted for 10 years.

Why did the North do this to the South? Probably because they could and wanted to. Deconstruction in the South lasted for 20 years. The KKK was formed to try to head it off. Failed.

Now you know more about what actually happened. And please do not just get mad and huffy about the history lesson. This comes as a shock to lots of folks. They did not learn about this in school.

HB. Respectfully.

HB of CJ wrote:Then the North gave the free blacks the right to vote. Interesting that at the same time free blacks in the North had much difficulately (sp) voting. The Southerners could not vote.

Uhm, what did you expect? South started the war, did you really expect the north to instantly think it´s a great idea to let them just jump back into regular politics and vote in another attempt at seccession or something?

HB of CJ wrote:We were taught the ship shot first when challanged. The carpetbaggers and swalawags looted great wealth from the South after the War. Most of them came from the North.

The Freeman Bureau (sp?) run by the martial law administrators of the Northern Union army encouraged newly free blacks to run wild. The Southerners had no legal recourse. None.

That´s 99% rubbish. It´s not even close to the truth.

I don´t recall the exact event with the ship, but that doesn´t actually matter, because if the south tried to prevent it from proceeding, they were breaking the law(or breaking the nation), if they try to prevent the ship by boarding, then they are effectively making themselves pirates, which means it´s open season anyone can shoot at them, only other way to stop the ship is by shooting.
Either way, south is starting the event.

There was no "great wealth" in the south after the war, much of the wealth that was was spent during the war, much of the rest was destroyed during the war, while the single biggest asset in the south consisted of slaves. Was there looting? Oh heck yes of course there was.

You actually don´t know where they came from however, but considering how the union army generally tried to prevent looting and the lack of travel just after the war, claiming that most of them came from the north is highly questionable even just from a logical standpoint. Those caught looting were far more often than not, southerners anyway.


There was most definitely not any general "encouragement" of anyone to "run wild".
Biggest parts of that was freed slaves on the one hand totally not knowing what to do, and on the other hand freed slaves knowing EXACTLY how much they wanted vengeance. The union army certainly did not encourage those, they stopped them.


No legal recourse? Uh yeah, that kinda tends to be what happens when they start a war on despicable grounds and looses.

What did you expect? A nice little sing-a-long around the campfire? South saying "oops our mistake, lets all be friends again as if nothing ever happened" and the north instantly agreeing?

The south got away EASY. The north actually spent lots of money there to assist rebuilding after the war.
They COULD have simply occupied the place and forcibly extracted enough value to recompense its own expenses for the war. That would barely have gotten a raised eyebrow elsewhere.

HB of CJ wrote:A great percentage of private property was lost after the war because the North controlled tax rates and taxed people off their own property. This did not happen in the North.

Lol... There´s a lot more to THAT. One of the primary reasons for that is actually the loss of slaves. Both counted as "lost private property" but also as the reason why people couldn´t pay taxes, because they had relied far too heavily on slave labour, and when that was gone, they couldn´t maintain their estates or the often excessive lifestyles.

THEN there is the little issue about how the war caused the US cotton export to disappear, which forced Europe to switch to supplies from elsewhere, which essentially bombed the southern economy after the war.

Setting up such stupid almost monoeconomy was insane from the beginning, and there´s plenty of evidence that what happened during the war was eventually going to happen anyway, and probably before the end of the 1870s even without the war.

Northern tax implementation was a minor issue by itself.

HB of CJ wrote:Blacks could rape white Southern women with near immunity. A Southern man could be and were hanged for complaining about it.

Again, rubbish. It´s extremely sad if you actually believe that claim has much of anything to do with reality.

Your statement is so absurd and far from reality that it is embarassing.

HB of CJ wrote:Why did the North do this to the South? Probably because they could and wanted to. Deconstruction in the South lasted for 20 years. The KKK was formed to try to head it off. Failed.

And rubbish again. The KKK primary goals were effectively the same as the Confederation had. White supremacy was their basic goal, claiming anything else is just falsifying history.

Their biggest "success" was assassinating blacks trying to get into politics. Oh my what amazing freedom fighters!

Again, the south got away easy. Try researching how much destruction was sometimes caused in other wars, the ACW was mostly on the mild side.

"deconstruction"...

Oh yes, because the north spending extra money there on reconstruction counts as tearing it down... Newspeak in a box...

I expected better from you.

HB of CJ wrote:Now you know more about what actually happened.

I clearly know more than you of what ACTUALLY happened.

HB of CJ wrote:And please do not just get mad and huffy about the history lesson. This comes as a shock to lots of folks. They did not learn about this in school.

Probably because it is mostly lies, distortions and whining from sore loosers.

The south started the war for disgusting reasons and then LOST. Sheesh, accept it and GET OVER IT.

Respectfully. All I can do is try to tell you the way it was in the South. Again I have hijacked the thread. For that I sorry. Not my intention. And ... in a feeble attempt to lighten things up here ... do you know the difference between Oven Tempered" vs "Quilted Strength"? It has to do with the type of aluminimuminmm foil used in ones hat. HB

My biggest problem with this controversy is that it's being used to distract the public from the real problem -- despite the laws we've passed and the changes in individual people's attitudes, we are still mired in institutionalized racism.

As for the flag itself, I was born and raised in New York. In my "heritage", it's an enemy flag. It symbolizes treason, people who took up arms against their own country.

I also think it's relevant that the Confed flag was nowhere to be seen outside of museums after the Civil War, until the 1954 Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned the old "separate but equal" doctrine of the earlier Plessy v. Ferguson case. Southerners began flying the flag as a protest against school desegregation. I suspect it only gained mainstream credibility because of "The Dukes of Hazzard", a TV show that can best be described as "Hee Haw" without music.

To me, the heritage argument is pure sophistry. I believe that anyone today who displays the Confederate flag is either ignorant of history, determined to piss people off for the sheer joy of it, or a racist.

Respectfully. Or perhaps some individuals have a BA degree in American History with their senior thesis based upon the economic, social and political reasons for the War Between The States? Pick you poison.

Also does anybody know the difference between "Oven tempered" vs "Quilted Strength?" It does make a big difference in how ones foil hat is configured and how it works against stray evil bad thoughts.

There may be some room here between knowledge, points of view, opinions and just book learned stuff between people who have no idea what happened and those who actually had ancestors who lived it?

Furgeson Mo. other than the police shooting what else might it have to do with Civil Rights?

The land mark case before the Supreme Court that legalized the Jim Crow Laws: Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896), see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

That was over turned by Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

Not that I condone the violence and rioting, but I can see how the City's unfortunate name might be pouring gasoline on the flames of black discontent.

Other opinions?

Poker