NCAA considering stiffening sanctions against S.Carolina over confederate flag issue.

[Bulldog87]

The NCAA is considering aot allowing any postseason contest to be held in SC until the confederate flag is moved off the statehouse grounds according to Sporting news radio. This could affect everything from D-1AA playoff games,NCAA regional Basketball,Baseball and all sanctioned NCAA playoff activity. This will be a fight as it seems that the state government has it's heels firmly entrenched when it comes to this "heritage" symbol. How sad that some SC schools might have to travel even if they deserve to play at home due to something that should've been resolved so long ago. Suffice to say that not all SC taxpaying citizens have such a romanticized view of the antebellum period and this flag that historical value should be displayed in mesuems not on public grounds.

[ehop]

I could not agree with you more, Bulldog! Those flags belong in a museum, this is the 21st Century.... time to put all that behind us now.:nod:

[GannonFan]

Man, imagine the irony if SC State, an HBCU land grant school, gets into position for a home playoff game and the NCAA says no because the state govt there continues to hold onto the confederate flag - imagine the press writing about that one!

[OL FU]

The NCAA is considering aot allowing any postseason contest to be held in SC until the confederate flag is moved off the statehouse grounds according to Sporting news radio. This could affect everything from D-1AA playoff games,NCAA regional Basketball,Baseball and all sanctioned NCAA playoff activity. This will be a fight as it seems that the state government has it's heels firmly entrenched when it comes to this "heritage" symbol. How sad that some SC schools might have to travel even if they deserve to play at home due to something that should've been resolved so long ago. Suffice to say that not all SC taxpaying citizens have such a romanticized view of the antebellum period and this flag that historical value should be displayed in mesuems not on public grounds.

I think the flag should go.
I also think it is not the business of the NCAA.

[Tribe4SF]

While I share the view that the flag does not belong on public ground, I don't believe the NCAA has any business getting involved in this. It's time for the member institutions to reign in the political motivations. The thought of S.C. State suffering NCAA sanctions because of this is just outrageous.

[OL FU]

While I share the view that the flag does not belong on public ground, I don't believe the NCAA has any business getting involved in this. It's time for the member institutions to reign in the political motivations. The thought of S.C. State suffering NCAA sanctions because of this is just outrageous.

Add on top of that, the only two schools from SC that have been to the playoffs in the recent history are private schools.

[LacesOut]

Hey NCAA, get your fuggin' nose out of this issue! Cripes. Why do these people think they need to be involved????

Kinda like Congress getting involved with the steriod issue in baseball. Fix the USA's issues, not sports issues.

[GannonFan]

In the NCAA's defense, I'm sure they don't just sit around and throw darts at a board trying to determine what cause they'll address next. Like anything else, I'm sure there is a very vocal lobbying group that has the NCAA's ear and is pressuring them to act on an issue like this or be the target themselves of bad press for not acting on an issue like this. I agree that it's not the remit of the NCAA to take up political issues like this, but I can't fault them for taking the more expediate course when confronted by potentially damaging lobbying or public condemnation.

[henfan]

You're hopelessly naive if you think the NCAA has no place in the realm of politics or vice versa. The organization likely wouldn't even exist if politicians at the turn of the last century didn't 'stick their noses' into the business of college sports.

As a private organization, the NCAA has the right to boycott in any manner it chooses for any reason it chooses. The organization doesn't have the authority to force the State of SC or any other public entity to do anything it doesn't choose to do on its own.

Whether we agree with their political stances or not (or believe they shouldn't ever take one) is irrelevant. The NCAA will do what they believe is in the overall best interest of its organization and at the behest of its member institutions. That's been the way it's been since 1906 and isn't going to stop anytime soon.

That said, the NCAA is often, if not usually, hypocritical. I'm not sure we can expect more from a organization made up of such diverse and competing constituents.

So, you either get used to it or follow pro sports, where politics never muddy the discussion.:smiley_wi

[OL FU]

You're hopelessly naive if you think the NCAA has no place in the realm of politics or vice versa. The organization likely wouldn't even exist if politicians at the turn of the last century didn't 'stick their noses' into the business of college sports.

As a private organization, the NCAA has the right to boycott in any manner it chooses for any reason it chooses. The organization doesn't have the authority to force the State of SC or any other public entity to do anything it doesn't choose to do on its own.

Whether we agree with their political stances or not (or believe they shouldn't ever take one) is irrelevant. The NCAA will do what they believe is in the overall best interest of its organization and at the behest of its member institutions. That's been the way it's been since 1906 and isn't going to stop anytime soon.

That said, the NCAA is often, if not usually, hypocritical. I'm not sure we can expect more from a organization made up of such diverse and competing constituents.

So, you either get used to it or follow pro sports, where politics never muddy the discussion.:smiley_wi


You are correct. Every organization is subject to political influences. Such is life. And in this case the easy thing to do for the NCAA is to support the boycott. The difficult thing would be to say that the position of the flag is the result of a compromise between black and white legislators in the state of SC and we feel that they should best resolve the issue.

On the other hand there is a brazillion page thread where this has been discussed.

[Marcus Garvey]

I agree with everyone who says the NCAA should have a nice steaming cup of "Shut the Hell Up!" Anyways, if you're punishing the state, shouldn't private colleges be exempt? By definition, state-supported schools are extension of the state government, but not the Furmans and Woffords.

However, all this Confederate Flag on the state house for "Heritage" reasons is denial on the part of many southerners. It was put there in 1962 as a protest against the civil rights movement.

Sorry to break it to you boys, but there ain't nothing "honorable" in that. Get rid of it for a while and bring it back later, clearly stating the non-malicious motives.

[OL FU]

I agree with everyone who says the NCAA should have a nice steaming cup of "Shut the Hell Up!" Anyways, if you're punishing the state, shouldn't private colleges be exempt? By definition, state-supported schools are extension of the state government, but not the Furmans and Woffords.

However, all this Confederate Flag on the state house for "Heritage" reasons is denial on the part of many southerners. It was put there in 1962 as a protest against the civil rights movement.

Sorry to break it to you boys, but there ain't nothing "honorable" in that. Get rid of it for a while and bring it back later, clearly stating the non-malicious motives.


The boycott is on the state, the geographic boundaries. The boycott was put into place to hurt the tourist segment first and foremost which if course is private and not part of the government, so under that logic Furman and Wofford existing within the boudaries are part of the boycott. I don't have numbers but my guess is the boycott has accomplished two things. One, it irritates the hell out of people with issues like this and two, it has kept most democratice presidential nominees from spending a night in our hotels:rolleyes:

You are correct about why the flag went up and that a lot of SC'ers are in denial ( they of course will tell you that it was placed on top of the capital to celebrate the 100 anniversary of the civil war but can't seem to explain why it did not come down with the 100th anniversary of the end of the war).

The tough part of this is that the place the flag now resides was a result of an agreement between the opposing voices for and against the flag. SC settled it in the good old fashion method of compromise. The issue will go nowhere in a hurray now mainly because of the stubborn nature that most of us have.

[Retro]

I agree with everyone who says the NCAA should have a nice steaming cup of "Shut the Hell Up!" Anyways, if you're punishing the state, shouldn't private colleges be exempt? By definition, state-supported schools are extension of the state government, but not the Furmans and Woffords.

However, all this Confederate Flag on the state house for "Heritage" reasons is denial on the part of many southerners. It was put there in 1962 as a protest against the civil rights movement.

Sorry to break it to you boys, but there ain't nothing "honorable" in that. Get rid of it for a while and bring it back later, clearly stating the non-malicious motives.

Sorry, but as a person well versed in american history and civil war history and lifelong southerner and member of the SCV, you're wrong!

The flag is there (on the grounds) as a memorial PERIOD! Why can't people just show let it be and do something productive with their lives instead of trying to divide the country again into races, like al sharpton, jesse jackson and the NAACP do!

It's the NAACP's agenda to remove any piece of history relating to the civil war as they seem to think it's going to make like the issue of slavery never existed... There may be a few bad apples who misuse the flag for their own bigotry, but don't disrespect the men who were just fighting for their own country, land and way of life.

If i were any school in south carolina, i would threaten the NCAA with a lawsuit if they denied them a post-season event based on the NCAA's political opinion.. They have no right forcing their OPINION of a state ban called on by a few idiots!

[BULLDOG8180]

I agree with everyone who says the NCAA should have a nice steaming cup of "Shut the Hell Up!" Anyways, if you're punishing the state, shouldn't private colleges be exempt? By definition, state-supported schools are extension of the state government, but not the Furmans and Woffords.

However, all this Confederate Flag on the state house for "Heritage" reasons is denial on the part of many southerners. It was put there in 1962 as a protest against the civil rights movement.

Sorry to break it to you boys, but there ain't nothing "honorable" in that. Get rid of it for a while and bring it back later, clearly stating the non-malicious motives.

Well, while Furman and Wofford are "private", they still receive a great deal of state money. But, the real issue is making a mountain out of a mole hill. The flag is purely a political center piece. Both sides are at fault for creating the situation that exists today.

It is really no different than "seminoles", "redskins", "indians" , etc. issue that is still going on-

The NCAA should stick to managing athletics- let politicans continue to act childish by themselves.:twocents:

[OL FU]

Well, while Furman and Wofford are "private", they still receive a great deal of state money. But, the real issue is making a mountain out of a mole hill. The flag is purely a political center piece. Both sides are at fault for creating the situation that exists today.

It is really no different than "seminoles", "redskins", "indians" , etc. issue that is still going on-

The NCAA should stick to managing athletics- let politicans continue to act childish by themselves.:twocents:

It is very different from the native American issue. That issue involves specific member institutions of the NCAA. :nod: The flag issue involves a state.

[Marcus Garvey]

Sorry, but as a person well versed in american history and civil war history and lifelong southerner and member of the SCV, you're wrong!

The flag is there (on the grounds) as a memorial PERIOD! Why can't people just show let it be and do something productive with their lives instead of trying to divide the country again into races, like al sharpton, jesse jackson and the NAACP do

De-Nile is not a just a river in Egypt!

It was originally put up for racist reasons. Take it down.

[Kill'em]

Well, while Furman and Wofford are "private", they still receive a great deal of state money. But, the real issue is making a mountain out of a mole hill. The flag is purely a political center piece. Both sides are at fault for creating the situation that exists today.

It is really no different than "seminoles", "redskins", "indians" , etc. issue that is still going on-

The NCAA should stick to managing athletics- let politicans continue to act childish by themselves.:twocents:
How true! Remember there are two other parties in this: the NAACP and the Black Coaches Association. All three are pigheaded. Sports should not be a pawn in this ridiculous fight and the NCAA should not bow to the pressure. Keep sports out of politics!

[MarkCCU]

Well, while Furman and Wofford are "private", they still receive a great deal of state money. But, the real issue is making a mountain out of a mole hill. The flag is purely a political center piece. Both sides are at fault for creating the situation that exists today.

It is really no different than "seminoles", "redskins", "indians" , etc. issue that is still going on-

The NCAA should stick to managing athletics- let politicans continue to act childish by themselves.:twocents:

No body is calling us rednecks, or hicks. The flag was put on the dome to honor the defenders of the state and coincided withthe 100th anniversary of the war. it stayed up there for a while, now it serves as a memorial. If you don't like, close your eyes.

[MarkCCU]

The NCAA should worry less about the political climate of a state and worry more on things that matter, like cracking down on schools paying students and things of that nature

[The Gadfly]

Maybe we should do what California (San Francisco @ least) does and take down the American flag because it offends some who are not from this country.

When I was a kid at Citadel football games in the late 70's - early 80's, the flag was all over the place and they played Dixie for their fight song. So thought it was a symbol of the community I live in, until I found out later that the KKK and other hate groups used it... but why? Because that "socialite," Bedford Forest, changed the KKK from a social group against carpetbaggers, (think Wal-Mart, China, and illegal immigrants) who were taking away jobs, stealing land, and keeping the local businesses stagnate, to a racist terrorist organization who wanted to sway freedmen to vote for Democrates and the old days. He and his little band of rednecks (poor white trash, NOT the semi-cultured old plantation owners) mixed in with the opposite hate group who is responsible for this "boycott" today, has turned my state and nation into ***** with both of their hate. Having the NCAA picking sides, I believe, means they hate the people of this state, INCLUDING SC State, and the other HBCU's. Both sides of the issue in OUR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC known as the SC state government agreed with the idea of putting the flag on the state capital grounds' Civil War monument. WHY? TO KILL THIS ISSUE ONCE AND FOR ALL. But a Democratic process is not enough for those who think they can run over people (black and white) that don't agree. Sound familiar?

Do I like the flag? I have ancestors that were CSA soldiers in the War, but I was brought up in a desegregated public high school in the South where I made many black friends. The same is true in college. If I knew that something was holding them back from reasonably achieving their goals I would help without a doubt. BUT this issue aimed at a piece of cloth on a pole, that represents a country this state was apart of, is unreasonable, childish and not helping the situation, but hurting it even more. Here's a crazy idea, change the symbolism of the flag like the KKK did. Make it a symbol of the whole South, Black and White. Maybe the Jamacian flag, which has St. Andrew's cross, with stars in the crosses?


Or maybe the one now with some representation of the of the American Slaves, and their posterity, who have helped build the South.

I think that's what the NAACP's goal should be. Bring people together, NOT to keep them separated so the big wigs in the organization can keep a job.

I didn't feel like writing this all over again.

[Bulldog87]

Sorry, but as a person well versed in american history and civil war history and lifelong southerner and member of the SCV, you're wrong!

The flag is there (on the grounds) as a memorial PERIOD! Why can't people just show let it be and do something productive with their lives instead of trying to divide the country again into races, like al sharpton, jesse jackson and the NAACP do!

It's the NAACP's agenda to remove any piece of history relating to the civil war as they seem to think it's going to make like the issue of slavery never existed... There may be a few bad apples who misuse the flag for their own bigotry, but don't disrespect the men who were just fighting for their own country, land and way of life.

If i were any school in south carolina, i would threaten the NCAA with a lawsuit if they denied them a post-season event based on the NCAA's political opinion.. They have no right forcing their OPINION of a state ban called on by a few idiots!
I must respectfully disagree with you. The people that fought under that banner were fighting for"states rights" code for keping Blacks enslaved. When the flag went back up it was to protest intergration of Black people into everyday non discriminatory SC society. BTW Blacks pay taxes in this state and therefore shouldn't have to spend hard earned money on the maintaince of the flag with one red cent. The official African-American flag was created in Charleston years ago by an SC native and it's doubtful that it'll ever fly on the statehouse grounds. No citizen of the state should have to close it's eyes when passing any government building to not recognize a symbol under which his ancestors were raped,hung,separated from his family,etc under the notion of some "honorable" act by those who fought under that symbol. As a student of history I do understand that SOME confederate soldiers fought without owning slaves and felt that they were protecting their homeland but the bottom line is that had they won slavery would've continued and the flag was put there in 62 to show solidarity for those opposed to an intergrated society. Perhaps you would understand if you saw photos of Blacks hung here in SC while Sunday picnics were occuring with the audience waving confederate falags.

[OL FU]

Well, while Furman and Wofford are "private", they still receive a great deal of state money. But, the real issue is making a mountain out of a mole hill. The flag is purely a political center piece. Both sides are at fault for creating the situation that exists today.

It is really no different than "seminoles", "redskins", "indians" , etc. issue that is still going on-

The NCAA should stick to managing athletics- let politicans continue to act childish by themselves.:twocents:

I am not disputing nor am I being sarcastic. just wondering how you verify that and how much you consider a great deal. curiousity more than anything

[PaladinFan]

South Carolina might look at a page from Georgia's playbook. The State of Georgia had the battleflag of the CSA, the St. Andrews Cross (what many know as "the confederate flag") on their state flag since the 1950s, undoubtedly in protest of Brown v. Board.

Much a stink was finally raised. Georgia compromised on another flag, one in which the St. Andrew's cross was substituted for the formal flag of the confederacy (circle of stars and red and white stripes). This is not the overt symbol of hate many had come to associate with the former, yet it kept "heritage" advocates appeased because it was still a symbol of southern history. So far, both sides appear assuaged.

Perhaps if SC substituted the confederate cross for a less offensive symbol representing their history (there has to be 20 possibilites), then this problem might be avoided.

I do agree, however, that the NCAA is sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. But, for those of you who believe that National Collegiate Athletics does not hold a place in Politics, well, you obviously haven't been to the south.

[SouthernEagle02]

Yeah we changed our flag (look below) because we at one time were threatend with economic boycotts and other non-sense. I really could careless about what's going on in S.C. My beef is with the groups of people who are trying to erase my heritage. I got a degree in Southern Politics, so don't come at me with "They did it in response to..." I know that, I wrote several lenghty papers about the "why." I had two relatives fight for the CSA & I proudly fly both the CSA nat'l flag and the battle flag. S.C. already gave in once when they moved it from atop the capital dome to the grounds. Hopefully they will not give in anymore. Its funny that the NCAA is going after S.C. Heck if this is such an issue why haven't they gone after Alabama (may not be the battle flag but its got the St. Andrews cross) or Mississippi? NCAA has got enough on thier plates, they shouldn't play Abe Lincoln and try to interfere with what one state does within it own borders. Its how the whole got started anyway.

[BULLDOG8180]

I am not disputing nor am I being sarcastic. just wondering how you verify that and how much you consider a great deal. curiousity more than anything

Yeah, it is hard to verify. The "great deal" probably isn't a great deal in terms of overall budget. But the money I was mainly referring to is public scholarship monies awarded to qualified students attending private schools. Palmetto and Life scholarships to name just a few. My daughter is considering Furman as an option. She is a rising junior in high school. I am getting ready to start digging to see what kind of money I can find. I don't care if it is public or private.:eek:

I keep you informed what I find.

[Retro]

I must respectfully disagree with you. The people that fought under that banner were fighting for"states rights" code for keping Blacks enslaved. When the flag went back up it was to protest intergration of Black people into everyday non discriminatory SC society. BTW Blacks pay taxes in this state and therefore shouldn't have to spend hard earned money on the maintaince of the flag with one red cent. The official African-American flag was created in Charleston years ago by an SC native and it's doubtful that it'll ever fly on the statehouse grounds. No citizen of the state should have to close it's eyes when passing any government building to not recognize a symbol under which his ancestors were raped,hung,separated from his family,etc under the notion of some "honorable" act by those who fought under that symbol. As a student of history I do understand that SOME confederate soldiers fought without owning slaves and felt that they were protecting their homeland but the bottom line is that had they won slavery would've continued and the flag was put there in 62 to show solidarity for those opposed to an intergrated society. Perhaps you would understand if you saw photos of Blacks hung here in SC while Sunday picnics were occuring with the audience waving confederate falags.

I'm well versed in ALL THE ATROCITIES committed around the world througout history and i don't condone them by any means.. That being said, you are wrong in the just SOME confederate soldiers didn't own slaves.. In fact, 99% of them including many black soldiers didn't have any slaves.. That's what people don't seem to understand..

Another thing to remember is that just because groups like the KKK and others used the confederate flag to stop integration or civil rights shouldn't take away from it's original intent.. There's nothing you can do about idiots who use the flag for their own agenda... If we taught all students in this country the true history about the civil war and the flag, then we wouldn't have these discussions.. Most come from people's uninformed bias based on perception and reluctance to accept the truth.

[OL FU]

Yeah, it is hard to verify. The "great deal" probably isn't a great deal in terms of overall budget. But the money I was mainly referring to is public scholarship monies awarded to qualified students attending private schools. Palmetto and Life scholarships to name just a few. My daughter is considering Furman as an option. She is a rising junior in high school. I am getting ready to start digging to see what kind of money I can find. I don't care if it is public or private.:eek:

I keep you informed what I find.

Thanks, I assumed it might be the scholarship money from the state.

Good luck with the Daughter and college. :nod:

[henfan]

The NCAA should worry less about the political climate of a state and worry more on things that matter, like cracking down on schools paying students and things of that nature

Oh, come on. I seriously doubt the NCAA, as a body, cares one iota about the political climate of SC or any other state, for that matter. They are responding to a concern they have with the symbolism and public display of the Confederate flag, as is their right. At the same time, they also have the responsibility to 'crack down' on schools breaking membership rules. It's not impossible for the NCAA to do both things at once. Pulling championships out of SC takes very little effort.

SC has the right to do whatever they want. If they want to fly over their statehouse a flag with a middle finger on it, well, that's their right. No one, least of all the NCAA, has the ability to force the state to do otherwise.

SC also cannot force the NCAA to conduct championship contests or playoffs in their state. It's the NCAA's right to have those contests held where they want them to be held for whatever reason they want.

The bottom line will continue to be the bottom line. If SC feels it can afford to do without the NCAA games, they won't bow to outside pressure, no matter how honorable or ridiculous their flag stance continues to look to the rest of the country.

[OL FU]

SC has the right to do whatever they want. If they want to fly over their statehouse a flag with a middle finger on it, well, that's their right. No one, least of all the NCAA, has the ability to force the state to do otherwise.

A small but somewhat important difference - the flag does not fly over the statehouse. The flag as part of a compromise was moved to a civil war memorial on the statehouse grounds.

[OL FU]

Link below to the offending monument ( Not a very good picture)

http://www.knowitall.org/letsgo/lgsh/welcome.html

[HIU 93]

The flag, no matter if it is the Battle Flag or the National Flag, is the flag of traitors, period. If a group of states vehemently opposed, say, the Iraq war today, and seceded from the nation to form their own country, I wonder how many of you flag proponents would support them or their mission. As a flag of traitors against the USA, it does not belong on display at any government legislative or judicial building. However, if "heritage" proponents want it to be remembered as a part of history- WHICH IT SHOULD- then it's display can, and should, be flown in museums and historical displays, even if state financed, but NOT on legislative or judicial grounds.

[walliver]

SC also cannot force the NCAA to conduct championship contests or playoffs in their state. It's the NCAA's right to have those contests held where they want them to be held for whatever reason they want.

Actually, the NCAA is not that powerful. It is not immune to antitrust laws. We can enjoy multiple TV games every weekend because the NCAA lost an antitrust suit. Some of us are old enough to remember when the NCAA only allowed ONE game to be broadcast weekly. The NCAA also recently lost an antitrust suit by the NIT (which is why the NCAA bought the NIT). Formal boycotts are not protected from antitrust actions. No school in SC has made an issue of the current boycott, probably to avoid offending the various selection committees. I doubt any of the I-AA or D-II schools will file a lawsuit, but if the NCAA denies the baseball series from USC or Clemson there will likely be a suit. It may drag on for years, but the NCAA will most likely lose.


If a group of states vehemently opposed, say, the Iraq war today, and seceded from the nation to form their own country, I wonder how many of you flag proponents would support them or their mission.

I'd be happy to see them go.


The flag, no matter if it is the Battle Flag or the National Flag, is the flag of traitors, period.

In the mid 19th century, most Americans felt more loyalty to their individual states than to the Union, quite different from today when people routinely move from one state to another. The Civil War led to a great growth in the power and influence of the federal government and a very different society than was present at that time. Most, probably all, states were financially independent and didn't need to rely on a powerful rich federal government to fund their activities. Most soldiers fighting for the Confederacy were fighting for their individual states, not their country. They would not consider their activities as traitorous against the US.


However, if "heritage" proponents want it to be remembered as a part of history- WHICH IT SHOULD- then it's display can, and should, be flown in museums and historical displays, even if state financed, but NOT on legislative or judicial grounds.

The National office of the NAACP opposes that idea. During the debate, the NAACP became increasing radical. Every compromise by flag supporters was seen as weakness and the NAACP increased its demands. By the time the flag was moved, the NAACP had decided that the flag could not be hung even inside a closed museum. I believe they would allow an engraving (but not a photograph) of the flag to be placed inside a museum. Local/state NAACP leaders were much more willing to compromise, but were told by the big-wigs in Baltimore that they did not speak for the NAACP. The eventual compromise, remove the Naval Jack from the statehouse dome and place the Battle flag at the Confederate Monument, was supported by moderates from both sides. The real flag supporters and flag opponents were both unhappy with the compromise. This was a very divisive issue for a number of years. Although the flag was most probably placed on the dome as an act of defiance against JFK, the Federal Government, and desegregation, an entire generation of South Carolinians were taught in school that the flag was placed there as a symbol of southern pride. Reopening the issue at this point would be pointless and is unlikely to change any ody's mind. Maybe one day the confederate monument can be moved somewhere else on the grounds where it can be part of a group of monuments, including the african-american monument, but the issue is still too emotional.


Now if NASCAR boycotted South Carolina, that's a whole different matter.:D

[Marcus Garvey]

In the mid 19th century, most Americans felt more loyalty to their individual states than to the Union, quite different from today when people routinely move from one state to another. The Civil War led to a great growth in the power and influence of the federal government and a very different society than was present at that time. Most, probably all, states were financially independent and didn't need to rely on a powerful rich federal government to fund their activities. Most soldiers fighting for the Confederacy were fighting for their individual states, not their country. They would not consider their activities as traitorous against the US.


Treason is treason, regardless of motives. The Oppenheimers didn't think they were behaving treasonously, but they got juiced all the same. And, BTW, no state in the 1860's was likely able to have sustained itself as a sovereign nation. Even Texas, with all of its resources, was deeply in debt when they were annexed by the U.S. Despite what some modern Texans believe, the majority of Texans in 1847 welcomed joining the Union, especially since the Federal Gov't agreed to assume their debt.

And, to end all "logical" debate on "states rights," one right they surely do not have is the ability to secede from the union unilateraly. The Supreme Court ruled that in Texas v. White. In fact, they also ruled that no state ever legally seceded from the Union, so the good ole CSA was not, despite some claims to the contrary, a legitimate nation. The number of foreign countries who "officiall" recognized them: zero.

[Mr. Taggart]

I assume you are referring to the Rosenbergs being juiced.

I have lived in South Carolina all but four years of my life. I have ancestors that fought for the CSA and had land burned by Sherman. But, believe it or not, after 141 years, I am over it. I don't care for the flag, but the compromise was a huge step for South Carolina. The flag is no longer in the chambers, and now sits at the memorial on the grounds. Main and Gervais is a heavy traffic area, but a compromise is a compromise.

Sd to the boycott, it is ridiculous. The vast majority of people working in tourism in South Carolina are African-American, and they are the primary victim of the boycott.

Many of the athletes that would suffer if the boycott were extended are African-American.

Perhaps the NCAA should focus on compliance and graduation rates. There are many member institutions overtly exploiting minorities, but the NCAA doesn't address that. Its not good for the bottom line.

[MarkCCU]

if any slave wants to come forward and talk about life under the stars and bars then we'll consider something so we can understand the true "pain" of living with the stars and bars... but til that former slave comes around we should worry more about importnat things, not a flag that has a misconstrued meaning b/c it's use by the klan and other bigots

[MarkCCU]

I assume you are referring to the Rosenbergs being juiced.

I have lived in South Carolina all but four years of my life. I have ancestors that fought for the CSA and had land burned by Sherman. But, believe it or not, after 141 years, I am over it. I don't care for the flag, but the compromise was a huge step for South Carolina. The flag is no longer in the chambers, and now sits at the memorial on the grounds. Main and Gervais is a heavy traffic area, but a compromise is a compromise.

Sd to the boycott, it is ridiculous. The vast majority of people working in tourism in South Carolina are African-American, and they are the primary victim of the boycott.

Many of the athletes that would suffer if the boycott were extended are African-American.

Perhaps the NCAA should focus on compliance and graduation rates. There are many member institutions overtly exploiting minorities, but the NCAA doesn't address that. Its not good for the bottom line.


:hurray: :hurray: :hurray: Way to go Mongo...i mean Taggert:smiley_wi

[BULLDOG8180]

If a group of states vehemently opposed, say, the Iraq war today, and seceded from the nation to form their own country, I wonder how many of you flag proponents would support them or their mission.

A little off the wall don't ya think?:rotateh:

[henfan]

A small but somewhat important difference - the flag does not fly over the statehouse. The flag as part of a compromise was moved to a civil war memorial on the statehouse grounds.

I understand that. I didn't imply that it did. Just illustrating a point about the rights of the state... not very well, apparently.;)

[henfan]

Frankly, as an outsider, I think the whole flap is incredibly silly both on the part of the NCAA and the State of SC. They both should be ashamed of themselves for being so ridiculously stubborn about such a comparatively petty issue. Still, I maintain that both sides are well within their rights to act foolishly.:bang:

[Kill'em]

The flag, no matter if it is the Battle Flag or the National Flag, is the flag of traitors, period. If a group of states vehemently opposed, say, the Iraq war today, and seceded from the nation to form their own country, I wonder how many of you flag proponents would support them or their mission. As a flag of traitors against the USA, it does not belong on display at any government legislative or judicial building. However, if "heritage" proponents want it to be remembered as a part of history- WHICH IT SHOULD- then it's display can, and should, be flown in museums and historical displays, even if state financed, but NOT on legislative or judicial grounds.
If you think about it, so is the American flag.

[OL FU]

if any slave wants to come forward and talk about life under the stars and bars then we'll consider something so we can understand the true "pain" of living with the stars and bars... but til that former slave comes around we should worry more about importnat things, not a flag that has a misconstrued meaning b/c it's use by the klan and other bigots

I think many a slave has spoken as to what it was like to live under the stars and bars. Through songs, and writings and narratives and, in some cases today, by the beautiful mocha caramel colored skin that was not put there by choice:o

[OL FU]

1. We should admit that slavery was the main reason for the war while understanding that there were other related but less important issues. :read:
2. Move the flag from the State House Grounds to a museum. :nod:
3. Since one and two ain't happening, we should recognize the hard work and compromises made by our black and white legislators, say thank you, and leave it they hell alone until we all grow up a little more:rotateh:

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :twocents:
.

[RadMann]

I think the intention of the person who flies that flag is the key. Some don't remember that the Dukes of Hazard had the flag on the roof of the General Lee. My granpa was from Alabama and although he did not fly that flag (only the American flag) he explained to me that many of his fellow southerners took it to represent southerners' pride and not specifically related to race. Granpa talked about the "War between the states" as if it was still ongoing sometimes... lol...

That being said when I see people up here (I live in PA) fly that flag or put it on their vehicle and they are not from the south, I generally see them as making a statement related to race, and a statement that I find distasteful. A southerner flying that flag has a very different meaning to me compared to a northerner flying it. I make no judgement on the southerner but I see a bigot if the person is a northerner. Just my opinion on the matter....

[Jafus (Thinker)]

Retro,


Sorry, but as a person well versed in american history and civil war history and lifelong southerner and member of the SCV, you're wrong!

The flag is there (on the grounds) as a memorial PERIOD! Why can't people just show let it be and do something productive with their lives instead of trying to divide the country again into races, like al sharpton, jesse jackson and the NAACP do!

It's the NAACP's agenda to remove any piece of history relating to the civil war as they seem to think it's going to make like the issue of slavery never existed... There may be a few bad apples who misuse the flag for their own bigotry, but don't disrespect the men who were just fighting for their own country, land and way of life.

If i were any school in south carolina, i would threaten the NCAA with a lawsuit if they denied them a post-season event based on the NCAA's political opinion.. They have no right forcing their OPINION of a state ban called on by a few idiots!

Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how one views the stars and bars as the battle cry against northern aggression and views racism/slavery, historically it is impossible to separate the two ideologies based on the totality of the Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow Laws, and Civil Rights Movements eras regarding such landmark cases as Plessy vs. Ferguson, Brown vs. Board of Education, Alexander vs. Holmes County, and Rodriguez vs. San Antonio.

To suggest that it is just a MEMORIAL is simplistic and revisionist history at its best and only serves the interests of individuals that would like to only assert their views and interest. That is the crux of the debate between the those that support the flag and those that do not.

Trust me!! I also studied the history of the South. It was required intensive and comprehensive reading by my professors who have invested their educational and political lives on this particular subject which directly and indirectly affect educational policies of today, as will I.

By true definition the Civil War was a sectional combat having its roots in political, economic, social, and psychological elements that were very complex (going back to the Colonial period and the days of the American Revolution that the differences between North and South were dwarfed by their common interest in establishing a new nation and eventual adoption of the Constitution).

The South remained almost completely agricultural, with an economy and a social order largely founded on slavery and the plantation system. While the North had its own great agricultural resources, with the Age of Enlightenment, was always more advanced educationally, commercially, and was also expanding industrially.

The South became more anxious about maintaining its position as an equal in the Union. Southerners thus strongly supported the annexation of Texas (certain to be a slave state) and the Mexican War and even agitated for the annexation of Cuba if you can believe it or not. Again, bringing things to a head was the Missouri Compromise which began the first of a series of crises concerning the extension of slavery in the federal territories of the West.

By 1818, Missouri Territory had gained sufficient population to warrant its admission into the Union as a state. Its settlers came largely from the South, and it was expected that Missouri would be a slave state.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0833427.html

I understand that the Civil War was based on several Southern State arrogant extremists and blundering political leaders of both the Union and the Confederacy. Hostility between the two sections grew perceptibly after 1820, the year of the Missouri Compromise as stated earlier. In the North moral indignation increased with the rise of the abolitionist in the 1830s (Theodore D. Weld, William Lloyd Garrison, and Elizur Wright, Jr.), since slavery was unadaptable too much of the territorial lands, which eventually would be admitted as free states.

Eventually the Southern states seceded from the Union and formed the Confederacy because they were concerned with federal regulations regarding the tariffs originally initiated in 1824 and continually lowered over next 30 years, 1857. The tariffs were associated with high duties on imported agricultural goods such as hemp, wheat, wool, fur, and liquor; imported textiles; and iron forging industries.

The tariff also threatened to reduce the flow of British goods, making it difficult for the British to pay for the cotton they imported from the south. In 1857, an economic panic hit soon thereafter, precipitating a fall-off in imports in the wake of the recession that followed. Government revenues plummeted and in response, the politicians called for higher tariffs. During Andrew Jackson presidency, South Carolina and John C. Calhoun’s attempts to singularly (as a lone state) deciding the tariff was unconstitutional and issuing a singular act to nullify it was unconstitutional.

Finally the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, the passion over the fugitive slave laws and over slavery in general was finally coming to boiling point. The crucial point was reached in the presidential election of 1860. Abraham Lincoln's victory was the signal for the secession of South Carolina in 1860 and that state was followed out of the Union by six other states—Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

It is even further illustrated the thought of the time about African-Americans being held as slaves. Many of us understand historically that Abraham Lincoln did not free African-Americans held has slave in Northern states (the Union) during the Civil War. President Lincoln’s main concern was to preserve the Union at all cost. As a tactician, President Lincoln could not have introduced such an Emancipation Proclamation before the War such that it would have further divided borderline states.

But, we know that the cargo of cotton being sent to the Northern states’ cotton mills and textiles factories and to Europe were literally of the backs of individuals held as slaves “Slavery as an Institution” in the Southern states which the wealthy and power landowners and politicians were willing to go to War to keep away of life.

[Jafus (Thinker)]

Retro,


Sorry, but as a person well versed in american history and civil war history and lifelong southerner and member of the SCV, you're wrong!

The flag is there (on the grounds) as a memorial PERIOD! Why can't people just show let it be and do something productive with their lives instead of trying to divide the country again into races, like al sharpton, jesse jackson and the NAACP do!

It's the NAACP's agenda to remove any piece of history relating to the civil war as they seem to think it's going to make like the issue of slavery never existed... There may be a few bad apples who misuse the flag for their own bigotry, but don't disrespect the men who were just fighting for their own country, land and way of life.

If i were any school in south carolina, i would threaten the NCAA with a lawsuit if they denied them a post-season event based on the NCAA's political opinion.. They have no right forcing their OPINION of a state ban called on by a few idiots!

Since you mention it, I agree southerners (including racists and those that held people as slaves, etc.) feel they lost a ton. I also agree it was the wealthy plantation owners that lost the most. As you have alluded to, a small group of southern families (thousand) were at the top of the social structure and received an income of over $50 million annually.

But, one must further illustrate that two-thirds of the Anglo Saxons in the South were in a middle socioeconomic group between wealthy planters at the top of the economic scale and the poor whites at the bottom. The middle class was a yeoman who own small farms that were highly economically dependent on the large plantations they were next too. Finally, I would be remised if I did not mention that the middle class also included overseers, artisans, and traders of individuals that were held as slaves.

Fortunately (or unfortunately depending your viewpoints) for individuals of color and particularly of African descent, based on Constitutional Amendments (13th, 1965; 14th, 1968; and 15th, 1970), were finally recognized as American citizens “freed slaves”, legally granting natural human rights with equal protection under constitutional law, and finally the ability to exercise their right to vote.

Furthermore, these three amendments are the post-Civil War, Reconstruction amendments. Although no state elected an African-American governor during Reconstruction, a number of state legislatures were effectively under the control of a substantial African-American caucus. After the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment, southern blacks voted in numbers that on a per capita basis would probably exceed black political participation today.

On both a per capita and absolute basis, more blacks were elected to political office during the period of Reconstruction, because of the empowerment felt, than at any other time in American history. During the Reconstruction period [1865-1900] there were 2 African-American senators and 20 representatives elected. These legislatures brought in programs that are considered part of government’s duty now, but at the time were radical, such as universal public education.

Although only for a short period of time, because of the Jim Crow Laws espoused by most Southerners that governed, the South under the bureaucratic willingness of national governmental officials that did not want to further upset the southern state congressional representatives. Historically this has been attributed to the close election of Rutherford B. Hayes.

Hayes, in order to mollify the South, agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South. This allowed a wealthy and power aristocratic political group in the South that supported the Jim Crow Period where the violations of African-Americans’ citizenship rights were legal, oppressive and overt.

More than not, often times this was under the confederate flag (“the stars and bars as the battle cry” against the empowerment of African-Americans to keep ultimate control of that wealth and power) that was emblazed in many state flags, financially supported public state universities and high schools’ colors and mascots. I would be less of a man, if I smiled in your face and left your comments stand without providing a glimpse of atrocities that I am sure you and other are aware of. These atrocities without question took place under the confederate flag (“the stars and bars as the battle cry”) and those that espoused the lifestyle and commitment to the “separate but equal” doctrines that later followed and even worse the degradation of African-Americans under the confederate flag (“the stars and bars as the battle cry”).

[Marcus Garvey]

1. We should admit that slavery was the main reason for the war while understanding that there were other related but less important issues. :read:

My good man, you summed it up right there. Without slavery, the other issues would not have driven the states to open warfare.

[BULLDOG8180]

Retro,



Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how one views the stars and bars as the battle cry against northern aggression and views racism/slavery, historically it is impossible to separate the two ideologies based on the totality of the Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow Laws, and Civil Rights Movements eras regarding such landmark cases as Plessy vs. Ferguson, Brown vs. Board of Education, Alexander vs. Holmes County, and Rodriguez vs. San Antonio.

To suggest that it is just a MEMORIAL is simplistic and revisionist history at its best and only serves the interests of individuals that would like to only assert their views and interest. That is the crux of the debate between the those that support the flag and those that do not.

Trust me!! I also studied the history of the South. It was required intensive and comprehensive reading by my professors who have invested their educational and political lives on this particular subject which directly and indirectly affect educational policies of today, as will I.

By true definition the Civil War was a sectional combat having its roots in political, economic, social, and psychological elements that were very complex (going back to the Colonial period and the days of the American Revolution that the differences between North and South were dwarfed by their common interest in establishing a new nation and eventual adoption of the Constitution).

The South remained almost completely agricultural, with an economy and a social order largely founded on slavery and the plantation system. While the North had its own great agricultural resources, with the Age of Enlightenment, was always more advanced educationally, commercially, and was also expanding industrially.

The South became more anxious about maintaining its position as an equal in the Union. Southerners thus strongly supported the annexation of Texas (certain to be a slave state) and the Mexican War and even agitated for the annexation of Cuba if you can believe it or not. Again, bringing things to a head was the Missouri Compromise which began the first of a series of crises concerning the extension of slavery in the federal territories of the West.

By 1818, Missouri Territory had gained sufficient population to warrant its admission into the Union as a state. Its settlers came largely from the South, and it was expected that Missouri would be a slave state.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0833427.html

I understand that the Civil War was based on several Southern State arrogant extremists and blundering political leaders of both the Union and the Confederacy. Hostility between the two sections grew perceptibly after 1820, the year of the Missouri Compromise as stated earlier. In the North moral indignation increased with the rise of the abolitionist in the 1830s (Theodore D. Weld, William Lloyd Garrison, and Elizur Wright, Jr.), since slavery was unadaptable too much of the territorial lands, which eventually would be admitted as free states.

Eventually the Southern states seceded from the Union and formed the Confederacy because they were concerned with federal regulations regarding the tariffs originally initiated in 1824 and continually lowered over next 30 years, 1857. The tariffs were associated with high duties on imported agricultural goods such as hemp, wheat, wool, fur, and liquor; imported textiles; and iron forging industries.

The tariff also threatened to reduce the flow of British goods, making it difficult for the British to pay for the cotton they imported from the south. In 1857, an economic panic hit soon thereafter, precipitating a fall-off in imports in the wake of the recession that followed. Government revenues plummeted and in response, the politicians called for higher tariffs. During Andrew Jackson presidency, South Carolina and John C. Calhoun’s attempts to singularly (as a lone state) deciding the tariff was unconstitutional and issuing a singular act to nullify it was unconstitutional.

Finally the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, the passion over the fugitive slave laws and over slavery in general was finally coming to boiling point. The crucial point was reached in the presidential election of 1860. Abraham Lincoln's victory was the signal for the secession of South Carolina in 1860 and that state was followed out of the Union by six other states—Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

It is even further illustrated the thought of the time about African-Americans being held as slaves. Many of us understand historically that Abraham Lincoln did not free African-Americans held has slave in Northern states (the Union) during the Civil War. President Lincoln’s main concern was to preserve the Union at all cost. As a tactician, President Lincoln could not have introduced such an Emancipation Proclamation before the War such that it would have further divided borderline states.

But, we know that the cargo of cotton being sent to the Northern states’ cotton mills and textiles factories and to Europe were literally of the backs of individuals held as slaves “Slavery as an Institution” in the Southern states which the wealthy and power landowners and politicians were willing to go to War to keep away of life.

Dang, Can we lose the history speeches and talk football.:nod:

[HIU 93]

If you think about it, so is the American flag.

If you read my statement again, I said traitors against the USA. The American flag is not a flag of traitors against the USA. It is a flag of traitors against Great Britain. To use the flag proponents' logic, the US flag should be flown in the British Parliament to recognize "heritage". Does that make sense?

[BULLDOG8180]

If you read my statement again, I said traitors against the USA. The American flag is not a flag of traitors against the USA. It is a flag of traitors against Great Britain. To use the flag proponents' logic, the US flag should be flown in the British Parliament to recognize "heritage". Does that make sense?

You continue to use examples that don't make any sense. The relationship of the US flag to British Parliament is NOT the same relationship as the confederate flag to State of SC:nonono2: .

[The Gadfly]

If you read my statement again, I said traitors against the USA. The American flag is not a flag of traitors against the USA. It is a flag of traitors against Great Britain. To use the flag proponents' logic, the US flag should be flown in the British Parliament to recognize "heritage". Does that make sense?

Maybe we should take down the US flag as well since it was the one flown on thousands of slave ships from Africa to the US .... oooooh, but who cares about that. Well how about the American flag that was flown by hate groups during their rallies? Ohhh, that doesn't matter either. But at least you're not a traitor of THAT flag :eyebrow: .

Ol' FU - I agree with your idea of having the CSA's National Flag up as a substitute.

[The Gadfly]

If you read my statement again, I said traitors against the USA. The American flag is not a flag of traitors against the USA. It is a flag of traitors against Great Britain. To use the flag proponents' logic, the US flag should be flown in the British Parliament to recognize "heritage". Does that make sense?

Maybe we should take down the US flag as well since it was the one flown on thousands of slave ships from Africa to the US .... oooooh, but who cares about that. Well how about the American flag that was flown by hate groups during their rallies? Ohhh, that doesn't matter either. But at least you're not a traitor of THAT flag :eyebrow: .

Ol' FU - I agree with your idea of having the CSA's National Flag up as a substitute.

You also have to remember that the state was apart of another country called the CSA. It's just a fact of history whether you like it or not.

[HIU 93]

Maybe we should take down the US flag as well since it was the one flown on thousands of slave ships from Africa to the US .... oooooh, but who cares about that. Well how about the American flag that was flown by hate groups during their rallies? Ohhh, that doesn't matter either. But at least you're not a traitor of THAT flag :eyebrow: .

Ol' FU - I agree with your idea of having the CSA's National Flag up as a substitute.

You also have to remember that the state was apart of another country called the CSA. It's just a fact of history whether you like it or not.

The states that formed the CSA were never recognized as members of an independent nation by the USA. Hence, the CSA wasw a band of traitors, not a sovereign nation. Does the racist nature of the flag (as well as that of the US Flag) bother me? Yes. That is not th matter at hand. The matter at hand is that the flag of the CSA is a flag of traitors, deserters. As a combat veteran of the USA, I do not accept a flag of traitors as a symbol of any US government agency, federal or state.

[Tod]

The states that formed the CSA were never recognized as members of an independent nation by the USA. Hence, the CSA wasw a band of traitors, not a sovereign nation. Does the racist nature of the flag (as well as that of the US Flag) bother me? Yes. That is not th matter at hand. The matter at hand is that the flag of the CSA is a flag of traitors, deserters. As a combat veteran of the USA, I do not accept a flag of traitors as a symbol of any US government agency, federal or state.

Gonna pop in here to agree with you HIU.

While the USA has made mistakes and not been perfect (conservatives can't accept this fact), we have made amends, apologized, and changed. How can anybody claim that the confederacy has changed?

[youwouldno]

The states that formed the CSA were never recognized as members of an independent nation by the USA. Hence, the CSA wasw a band of traitors, not a sovereign nation. Does the racist nature of the flag (as well as that of the US Flag) bother me? Yes. That is not th matter at hand. The matter at hand is that the flag of the CSA is a flag of traitors, deserters. As a combat veteran of the USA, I do not accept a flag of traitors as a symbol of any US government agency, federal or state.

If the CSA was not a nation, then the war was without legal basis, as were actions taken during "Reconstruction" that denied voting rights to whites.

But again, it doesn't matter. Not in the slightest, tiniest, most insignificant little bit does it matter. The NCAA has no right to punish student-athletes for the actions of the state government of SC.

Period. Period. Period.

[mikebigg]

The flag, no matter if it is the Battle Flag or the National Flag, is the flag of traitors, period. If a group of states vehemently opposed, say, the Iraq war today, and seceded from the nation to form their own country, I wonder how many of you flag proponents would support them or their mission. As a flag of traitors against the USA, it does not belong on display at any government legislative or judicial building. However, if "heritage" proponents want it to be remembered as a part of history- WHICH IT SHOULD- then it's display can, and should, be flown in museums and historical displays, even if state financed, but NOT on legislative or judicial grounds.

Thanks!

[JohnStOnge]

This is ridiculous. It really is.

[JohnStOnge]

Originally Posted by HIU 93
The states that formed the CSA were never recognized as members of an independent nation by the USA. Hence, the CSA wasw a band of traitors, not a sovereign nation. Does the racist nature of the flag (as well as that of the US Flag) bother me? Yes. That is not th matter at hand. The matter at hand is that the flag of the CSA is a flag of traitors, deserters. As a combat veteran of the USA, I do not accept a flag of traitors as a symbol of any US government agency, federal or state.

The Constitution refers to the States as "sovereign." The term "soverign" connots autonomy and self-determination. The Confederate States held that they had the right to disassociate themselves with the Union. The fact that the other states were able to force them back into the Union by virtue of having a superior numbers, a superior industrial base, and a Navy does not mean the the Union was right in terms of the merits of the debate over States Rights. It just means they had the might to win the war.

The Americans who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 were traitors as far as England was concerned. But they won, so now we don't look at them as that. If the Confederates had managed to hold off the North and establish their independence, the same situation would prevail.

As a practical matter, they were no more traitors than any other group of people who've fought for their independence. It's just that they lost.

Remember, this country is founded on the principle that people have a right to disassociate with their former nation and strike out on their own. It was actually pretty hypocritical for the United States, having the origin it had, to force the Confederate States back into the union by arms.

[Tod]

The Constitution refers to the States as "sovereign." The term "soverign" connots autonomy and self-determination. The Confederate States held that they had the right to disassociate themselves with the Union. The fact that the other states were able to force them back into the Union by virtue of having a superior numbers, a superior industrial base, and a Navy does not mean the the Union was right in terms of the merits of the debate over States Rights. It just means they had the might to win the war.

The Americans who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 were traitors as far as England was concerned. But they won, so now we don't look at them as that. If the Confederates had managed to hold off the North and establish their independence, the same situation would prevail.

As a practical matter, they were no more traitors than any other group of people who've fought for their independence. It's just that they lost.

Remember, this country is founded on the principle that people have a right to disassociate with their former nation and strike out on their own. It was actually pretty hypocritical for the United States, having the origin it had, to force the Confederate States back into the union by arms.

Let's see... Taxation without representation... and... Slavery... I see the good old USA fighting for democracy and freedom in both cases. No problem with that.

[JohnStOnge]

If a group of states vehemently opposed, say, the Iraq war today, and seceded from the nation to form their own country, I wonder how many of you flag proponents would support them or their mission.

At least one of us, because I would. I don't know if "support" is quite the right word, but my position would be that it would be their right to do so. If even one state legislature were to vote, with the concurrence of the governor, to secede from the United States I would say that state should be allowed to do so.

This nation started off as a voluntary association of states. The idea of it was a group of sovereign states with a minimal national government. I do not believe any of them should be forced to remain in the Union against their wishes; and I don't think the Constitution indicates that the Federal government really gives the Federal government the power to make them stay.

Now, I think it would be fair for some states to have to pay compensation because they originated as lands purchased by the United States. But the United States did not purchase the people living in those states. And if they, through their legislatures and governors, express the wish to leave they should be allowed to leave.

[JohnStOnge]

Let's see... Taxation without representation... and... Slavery... I see the good old USA fighting for democracy and freedom in both cases. No problem with that.

The United States was not fighting for democracy and freedom in that war. It was fighting to maintain the agricultural capacity of the South as well as the market for Northern goods the South represented.

The Confederate States of America was a representative government (the United States isn't a democracy either...it's a representative republic) and Lincoln, as he clearly indicated in his own words, did not go to war to free the slaves.

In any case, as noted, it was pretty hypocritical for the United States to use force of arms to compell the people of the South to remain part of the nation.

Don't get me wrong. I do not regret the past. I'm better off today than I would be if things hadn't happened just as they did. In fact, I'd probably never have been born otherwise. But this idea of the South as traitor and the North as the gleaming champion of Liberty is nonsense.

[JohnStOnge]

You know...while we're on the subject...do you think there's a way we could convince California and New York to secede?

[Tod]

The United States was not fighting for democracy and freedom in that war. It was fighting to maintain the agricultural capacity of the South as well as the market for Northern goods the South represented.

The Confederate States of America was a representative government (the United States isn't a democracy either...it's a representative republic) and Lincoln, as he clearly indicated in his own words, did not go to war to free the slaves.

In any case, as noted, it was pretty hypocritical for the United States to use force of arms to compell the people of the South to remain part of the nation.

Don't get me wrong. I do not regret the past. I'm better off today than I would be if things hadn't happened just as they did. In fact, I'd probably never have been born otherwise. But this idea of the South as traitor and the North as the gleaming champion of Liberty is nonsense.

Not nonsense, reality. :nod: :nod: :nod:

btw, I don't need a lesson in the difference between a democracy and a republic, but thanks. : smh :

[Tod]

You know...while we're on the subject...do you think there's a way we could convince California and New York to secede?

I have been thinking about the same thing for the red states.

I would only ask that we wait until December of 2008 to make the move. Blue will be so much larger. :nod: :nod: :nod:

http://www.meateatingleftist.com/mt/archives/jesusland.gif

[Marcus Garvey]

I have been thinking about the same thing for the red states.

I would only ask that we wait until December of 2008 to make the move. Blue will be so much larger. :nod: :nod: :nod:

http://www.meateatingleftist.com/mt/archives/jesusland.gif

Tod:

You do yourself a disservice by dismissing all conservative people whose opions with which you disagree as "Jesus Freaks."

That's Ann Coulter B.S., only on the other end of the political spectrum.

[MarkCCU]

The states that formed the CSA were never recognized as members of an independent nation by the USA. Hence, the CSA wasw a band of traitors, not a sovereign nation. Does the racist nature of the flag (as well as that of the US Flag) bother me? Yes. That is not th matter at hand. The matter at hand is that the flag of the CSA is a flag of traitors, deserters. As a combat veteran of the USA, I do not accept a flag of traitors as a symbol of any US government agency, federal or state.

Well the American Flag is a flag of traitors as well and being that the CSA wasn't recognized, Lincoln sent troops to provoke and attack its own population? The men that formed the CSA were not traitors, they were trying to create a government that the leaders of the American Revolution fought for. The flag is not racists, you can't give it that human quality. The pieces of **** like the Klan and every other bigot that misuse the Stars and Bars are the racists, it's just a good symbol used by a bad group(like the Swatsika and Hitler and when people use Old Glory with placards that say "God Loves Dead Soilders)

[MarkCCU]

I have been thinking about the same thing for the red states.

I would only ask that we wait until December of 2008 to make the move. Blue will be so much larger. :nod: :nod: :nod:

http://www.meateatingleftist.com/mt/archives/jesusland.gif

Have fun with your cold weather, baren frontier and California

[MarkCCU]

It's already been brought up( at least I hope) but the Confederates were practicing the same right of leaving an unfair, oppressive country just like the colonies did in 1776. The only difference is that the Union was able to force the south back so that it's economy wouldn't be crippled (b/c the South was for Free Trade and don't forget had the bulk of Agriculture) so the Union has the presence that it can do what it wants and force people to follow...just like the USA today that people bitch and moan about today. You can thank Lincoln for starting this, don't believe me, take an objective look and really study American Political History.

[Tod]

Tod:

You do yourself a disservice by dismissing all conservative people whose opions with which you disagree as "Jesus Freaks."

That's Ann Coulter B.S., only on the other end of the political spectrum.

I guess providing a picture is over the line, but asking that California and New York be excluded from the union is OK?

Just providing a picture for JSO, MG. Sorry if you didn't like it. :rolleyes:

[MarkCCU]

I guess providing a picture is over the line, but asking that California and New York be excluded from the union is OK?

Just providing a picture for JSO, MG. Sorry if you didn't like it. :rolleyes:

lol, that Picture, albiet funny, lumps the states into that group where you know it's not the majority. I like New York, the one time i've been there, but California, those people worry me. Any city(San Diego i believe) that bans, BANS THE AMERICAN FLAG is a traitor in the making in my eyes.

[Tod]

Have fun with your cold weather, baren frontier and California

Don't want it, JSO suggests we get rid of California and New York. I'm assuming he has something against blue states, but I could be wrong. Maybe he has something against the states with the largest cities? Maybe he has something against "From California to the New York islands"?

I don't know, what do you thing, Mark?

[Tod]

lol, that Picture, albiet funny, lumps the states into that group where you know it's not the majority. I like New York, the one time i've been there, but California, those people worry me. Any city(San Diego i believe) that bans, BANS THE AMERICAN FLAG is a traitor in the making in my eyes.

There's a minority in those states? A minority of what?

[MarkCCU]

Don't want it, JSO suggests we get rid of California and New York. I'm assuming he has something against blue states, but I could be wrong. Maybe he has something against the states with the largest cities? Maybe he has something against "From California to the New York islands"?

I don't know, what do you thing, Mark?

I'll my cards out. I love America. I think we have a great country that is in dire need of improvement as well as a correction in it's current track. I am proud of my country and it's history can't be changed but that is what makes us. California is a weird crazy state, but they are like the crazy uncle or aunt that are good to have around. I have been out of the south ONCE IN MY 23 YEARS, only once, and i went to NYC. i loved it, that city is, amazing, i'm speechless I can't describe that town. Do I dislike democrats? Hell no, they only people I dislike are those that impose thier beliefs and have no respect for differences of opinion.

[MarkCCU]

There's a minority in those states? A minority of what?

i don't think everyone is a Jesus freak

[Tod]

I'll my cards out. I love America. I think we have a great country that is in dire need of improvement as well as a correction in it's current track. I am proud of my country and it's history can't be changed but that is what makes us. California is a weird crazy state, but they are like the crazy uncle or aunt that are good to have around. I have been out of the south ONCE IN MY 23 YEARS, only once, and i went to NYC. i loved it, that city is, amazing, i'm speechless I can't describe that town. Do I dislike democrats? Hell no, they only people I dislike are those that impose thier beliefs and have no respect for differences of opinion.

Agreed 100%. Folks are different all over America. I'd be disappointed if that wasn't true. Differences are what makes us individuals. It would be damn boring if we were all the same.

I don't like people who impose their ideals on others, either.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Tod]

i don't think everyone is a Jesus freak

Well, no, they're not. It's just a joke. Besides, there are more "Jusus freaks" in California than there are in Mississippi, just based on population alone.

[MarkCCU]

Agreed 100%. Folks are different all over America. I'd be disappointed if that wasn't true. Differences are what makes us individuals. It would be damn boring if we were all the same.

I don't like people who impose their ideals on others, either.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

See, you and I prove that different people can have thier differences, and still be friendly. :rotateh: :rotateh: :rotateh:

[Tod]

See, you and I prove that different people can have thier differences, and still be friendly. :rotateh: :rotateh: :rotateh:
:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[JohnStOnge]

Not nonsense, reality. :nod: :nod: :nod:



Not reality at all, Tod. If some President today was doing what Lincoln did leading up to and during the Civil war you'd be screaming from the rooftop about trampling on people's rights except that if you did that you'd be arrested by the military. And he openly said he wasn't doing what he was doing to free the slaves.

Here is an article on how Lincoln operated:

http://www.crf-usa.org/terror/Lincoln.htm

If somebody like Lincoln were President right now Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and John Murtha would be imprisoned by the military.

[MarkCCU]

Not reality at all, Tod. If some President today was doing what Lincoln did leading up to and during the Civil war you'd be screaming from the rooftop about trampling on people's rights except that if you did that you'd be arrested by the military. And he openly said he wasn't doing what he was doing to free the slaves.

Here is an article on how Lincoln operated:

http://www.crf-usa.org/terror/Lincoln.htm

If somebody like Lincoln were President right now Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and John Murtha would be imprisoned by the military.

very true

[JohnStOnge]

I guess providing a picture is over the line, but asking that California and New York be excluded from the union is OK?

Just providing a picture for JSO, MG. Sorry if you didn't like it. :rolleyes:

Hey, I'm fine with your suggestion. I'm not kidding when I say I wouldn't mind at all seeing the red portion of Moore's map be one nation and the blue portion be another.

Sure, we could stay friendly and even fix it so that we'd have an international college football association. But, as far as politics and me living in a country that I'd be more in line with philosophically, I'd give it a shot in a heartbeat.

And what's wrong with that? I don't like having the government I live under impacted by the majority philosophies of people in California and New York and I'm sure they don't like having the government they live under impacted by the majority philosphies of the South.

[Tod]

Not reality at all, Tod. If some President today was doing what Lincoln did leading up to and during the Civil war you'd be screaming from the rooftop about trampling on people's rights except that if you did that you'd be arrested by the military. And he openly said he wasn't doing what he was doing to free the slaves.

Here is an article on how Lincoln operated:

http://www.crf-usa.org/terror/Lincoln.htm

If somebody like Lincoln were President right now Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and John Murtha would be imprisoned by the military.

Maybe. But the constitution gives the president the right to do certain things. I don't think Lincoln went outside those laws.

[MarkCCU]

Maybe. But the constitution gives the president the right to do certain things. I don't think Lincoln went outside those laws.

Lincoln shut down newspapers for voicing a difference of opinion. New York jails were full of prisioners that had committed no crimes but voice their sympathy with the South. This wasn't against the law, but against the suggestions from his war council he sent a boat to Fort Sumter knowing it would probably be attacked. He turned down peace offerings from Jeff Davis.. Just like Bush, Lincoln overstepped his boundaries and honestly committed an unjust war

[Tod]

Lincoln shut down newspapers for voicing a difference of opinion. New York jails were full of prisioners that had committed no crimes but voice their sympathy with the South. This wasn't against the law, but against the suggestions from his war council he sent a boat to Fort Sumter knowing it would probably be attacked. He turned down peace offerings from Jeff Davis.. Just like Bush, Lincoln overstepped his boundaries and honestly committed an unjust war

Were these decisions within his constitutional rights?

The circumstances were very, very extreme.

[MarkCCU]

Were these decisions within his constitutional rights?

The circumstances were very, very extreme.

I don't think they were that extreme. There was a great deal of Sympathy up North. Abolishinist were a small group and hell NYC tried to secede but ultimately stopped once the army surrounded city hall and threaten to attack if they tried. Lincoln went beyond the suspension of Habeas Corpus. If this were 1861, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, members of Congress, Cap'n Cat and Murtha would be imprisoned b/c they don't approve.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races~ Abraham Lincoln, 1858

[MarkCCU]

And if these Confederates were such traitors, then why were they not brought up for treason and killed? B/c it wasn't treason

[MarkCCU]

And why would Lincoln and the North want to free the slaves...so they could be treated like **** everywhere inthe country, including the South? Grant had slaves before, during, and after the war..until the 13th Amendment was passed of course

[MarkCCU]

But lets not hijack this thread. The NCAA should stop worrying about South Carolina. THe purpose of the NCAA is to:

to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.

Not sanction a state.

[MarkCCU]

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/legacysiteviewer?CONTENT_URL=http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/about_ncaa/overview/mission.html

[Tod]

I don't think they were that extreme. There was a great deal of Sympathy up North. Abolishinist were a small group and hell NYC tried to secede but ultimately stopped once the army surrounded city hall and threaten to attack if they tried. Lincoln went beyond the suspension of Habeas Corpus. If this were 1861, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, members of Congress, Cap'n Cat and Murtha would be imprisoned b/c they don't approve.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races~ Abraham Lincoln, 1858

If the Civil War wasn't extreme, then nothing is. :confused:

[JohnStOnge]

Were these decisions within his constitutional rights?

.

No. The power to suspend habeus corpus belongs to Congress.

[Tod]

And if these Confederates were such traitors, then why were they not brought up for treason and killed? B/c it wasn't treason

No, because circumstances change when it's 10,000,000 people vs 10 people. How do you try, convict, and execute the southern United States?

[Tod]

And why would Lincoln and the North want to free the slaves...so they could be treated like **** everywhere inthe country, including the South? Grant had slaves before, during, and after the war..until the 13th Amendment was passed of course

And prohibitionists drank before, during, and after prohibition was over. I don't mean to compare the two as far as human suffering and dignity come into it, but the point is that Grant didn't break the law.

[Tod]

No. The power to suspend habeus corpus belongs to Congress.

True, but the power to do so is in the constitution. When in civil war, do you suppose the legislative branch is functioning very well?

[JohnStOnge]

True, but the power to do so is in the constitution. When in civil war, do you suppose the legislative branch is functioning very well?

Not if the President having members of Congress who disagree with him on the war arrested by the military.

Actually what happened then is kind of intereting to me. I do support the idea of the President having the option of refusing to enforce Judicial decisions if necessary because I view that as a needed check on Judicial power. And Lincoln did that. But my understanding is that he openly indicated that he thought preserving the Union was more important than following the Constitution and pretty much decided he was going to violate the Constitution as necessary to do what he thought he needed to do.

I guess, no matter what, there's a risk that one Branch is going to grab power and get itself into a position where it can't be entirely checked by the other branches.

But the People of what was then the United States did re-elected him; so they did have their chance to put a check on him if they wanted and declined to do so.

That's why I'm not as bothered by a President stepping out of bounds as I am by the Judiciary doing it. The President then was accountable to the People through the election process. That's true of the President today after the first term; then after that he or she is term limited and the People get a chance to vote or not vote for somebody who's going to continue his general course. The Judiciary is unelected, unaccountable, and life term. If the other branches aren't going to be willing to disagree with and ignore their edicts the only way to check it is to pass a Constitutional Amendment. That's very difficult and I don't consider it a real check as a practical matter. In any case, after the Amendment is passed, they can "interpret" their way around it and we're back to square one.

Former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughs once said, "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."

And that, to me, accurately describes the current situation. I think that anybody who thinks the Constitution is the supreme law of the land right now is mistaken. The Judiciary is the supreme law of the land. It controls the Constitution rather than visa versa. The term "Constitutional" has become just a word used to foster perception of credibility with respect to Judicial edicts.

And for the life of me I don't understand how anybody who believes in government by, for, and of The People finds that acceptable.

[JohnStOnge]

Amazing that this thread hasn't been moved to the AGS Lounge political section yet.

[HIU 93]

Maybe we should take down the US flag as well since it was the one flown on thousands of slave ships from Africa to the US .... oooooh, but who cares about that. Well how about the American flag that was flown by hate groups during their rallies? Ohhh, that doesn't matter either. But at least you're not a traitor of THAT flag :eyebrow: .

Ol' FU - I agree with your idea of having the CSA's National Flag up as a substitute.

You also have to remember that the state was apart of another country called the CSA. It's just a fact of history whether you like it or not.

Either you refuse to understand what I am saying, or you are unable to comprehend what I am saying. I have said, and I will continue to say, this issue is not about slavery or racism. Slavery in the USA began and continued under the US flag. The argument I have about the diffferent versions of the Confederate flag has nothing to do with racism, slavery, or various "groups" of INDIVIDUALS flying the flag on their person or personal property. I NEVER said we should ban the various versions of the Confederate flag. I said that the flag is a flag of traitors, and should not be flown at ANY government installation, unless it is part of a historical display at a museum or similar building. If an individual wants to fly, display, or wear the flag, REGARDLESS OF MOTIVATION, that is their business. I served THIS country, the USA. I do not have any love for ANY traitors to this nation, period. I am a citizen of THIS country. Regardless of its problems, I love THIS country, and I will do everything I can to fix the problems HERE. This is my home, and I ain't leaving. I do not now, nor will I ever support anyone who attempts to SECEDE from this country. Hopefully you can understand that. Whether you can or not, that is how I feel, and that is how I will continue to live my life.

[MarkCCU]

Either you refuse to understand what I am saying, or you are unable to comprehend what I am saying. I have said, and I will continue to say, this issue is not about slavery or racism. Slavery in the USA began and continued under the US flag. The argument I have about the diffferent versions of the Confederate flag has nothing to do with racism, slavery, or various "groups" of INDIVIDUALS flying the flag on their person or personal property. I NEVER said we should ban the various versions of the Confederate flag. I said that the flag is a flag of traitors, and should not be flown at ANY government installation, unless it is part of a historical display at a museum or similar building. If an individual wants to fly, display, or wear the flag, REGARDLESS OF MOTIVATION, that is their business. I served THIS country, the USA. I do not have any love for ANY traitors to this nation, period. I am a citizen of THIS country. Regardless of its problems, I love THIS country, and I will do everything I can to fix the problems HERE. This is my home, and I ain't leaving. I do not now, nor will I ever support anyone who attempts to SECEDE from this country. Hopefully you can understand that. Whether you can or not, that is how I feel, and that is how I will continue to live my life.

Well thanks for the P.S.A. Sometimes people have to stand up to their country and do what they think is right. In our history that has happened twice and has worked once. So are the traitors of the 1860's worse than the traitors in the 1770's? Is the only difference between traitors we honor and those we don't is if they were victorious?

[Mr. C]

:hurray:

Either you refuse to understand what I am saying, or you are unable to comprehend what I am saying. I have said, and I will continue to say, this issue is not about slavery or racism. Slavery in the USA began and continued under the US flag. The argument I have about the diffferent versions of the Confederate flag has nothing to do with racism, slavery, or various "groups" of INDIVIDUALS flying the flag on their person or personal property. I NEVER said we should ban the various versions of the Confederate flag. I said that the flag is a flag of traitors, and should not be flown at ANY government installation, unless it is part of a historical display at a museum or similar building. If an individual wants to fly, display, or wear the flag, REGARDLESS OF MOTIVATION, that is their business. I served THIS country, the USA. I do not have any love for ANY traitors to this nation, period. I am a citizen of THIS country. Regardless of its problems, I love THIS country, and I will do everything I can to fix the problems HERE. This is my home, and I ain't leaving. I do not now, nor will I ever support anyone who attempts to SECEDE from this country. Hopefully you can understand that. Whether you can or not, that is how I feel, and that is how I will continue to live my life.