Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Battle flag uproar

[bleep]'n Irish...always looking for a fight.

Nor will Wikipedia hold up as source material in any university History Department that is worth a damn but I have seen lots of HS teachers that swear by wiki's.


I have failed more than one student who wrote a paper and cited Wikipedia.

Have you ever really wondered what them tiny little numbers are in Wiki articles?

Turns out they are called "citations", us teachers insist the kids include them all the time, especially when they didn't compose anything but instead just copied a body of pre-existing text entire.

The people who provided the original info are called the "Virginia Historical Society" (http://www.vahistorical.org/), they claim to be a credible source.

Might be infiltrated by Yankees by now though, who knows?

Birdwatcher

Ibid.

thank you for your answer

so then after the genocide on the american indian, old glory might offend current indians because their ancestors were butchered at wounded knee, or marched on the trail of tears eradicated from their land with genocide coming for the next 55 years after...should old glory fly since it is offensive as well??

Some of those citations you see on wiki are highly suspect too and why nobody who is in search of real source material puts much stock in them.

Injuns? You HAD to go there.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/178454/truth-about-abraham-lincoln-slavery-walter-williams

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." But that was Lincoln's 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.


In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Ill., speech, he explained, "My declarations upon this subject of negro slavery may be misrepresented, but can not be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of ... making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

You say, "His Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves! That proves he was against slavery." Lincoln's words: "I view the matter (Emancipation Proclamation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." At the time Lincoln wrote the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.

London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and considering assisting it in its war effort.


Why didn't Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?

http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

not exactly a glowing endoresement for civil rights here...it wouldve been interesting to see his resolution for the mess reconstruction was since he didnt want or think blacks should have equal rights

1. Lincoln wasn’t an abolitionist.
Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong, but there was one big problem: It was sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution. The nation’s founding fathers, who also struggled with how to address slavery, did not explicitly write the word “slavery” in the Constitution, but they did include key clauses protecting the institution, including a fugitive slave clause and the three-fifths clause, which allowed Southern states to count slaves for the purposes of representation in the federal government. In a three-hour speech in Peoria, Illinois, in the fall of 1854, Lincoln presented more clearly than ever his moral, legal and economic opposition to slavery—and then admitted he didn’t know exactly what should be done about it within the current political system.

Abolitionists, by contrast, knew exactly what should be done about it: Slavery should be immediately abolished, and freed slaves should be incorporated as equal members of society. They didn’t care about working within the existing political system, or under the Constitution, which they saw as unjustly protecting slavery and slave owners. Leading abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison called the Constitution “a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell,” and went so far as to burn a copy at a Massachusetts rally in 1854. Though Lincoln saw himself as working alongside the abolitionists on behalf of a common anti-slavery cause, he did not count himself among them. Only with emancipation, and with his support of the eventual 13th Amendment, would Lincoln finally win over the most committed abolitionists.

2. Lincoln didn’t believe blacks should have the same rights as whites.
Though Lincoln argued that the founding fathers’ phrase “All men are created equal” applied to blacks and whites alike, this did not mean he thought they should have the same social and political rights. His views became clear during an 1858 series of debates with his opponent in the Illinois race for U.S. Senate, Stephen Douglas, who had accused him of supporting “negro equality.” In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “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,” he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. What he did believe was that, like all men, blacks had the right to improve their condition in society and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. In this way they were equal to white men, and for this reason slavery was inherently unjust.

Like his views on emancipation, Lincoln’s position on social and political equality for African-Americans would evolve over the course of his presidency. In the last speech of his life, delivered on April 11, 1865, he argued for limited black suffrage, saying that any black man who had served the Union during the Civil War should have the right to vote.

3. Lincoln thought colonization could resolve the issue of slavery.
For much of his career, Lincoln believed that colonization—or the idea that a majority of the African-American population should leave the United States and settle in Africa or Central America—was the best way to confront the problem of slavery. His two great political heroes, Henry Clay and Thomas Jefferson, had both favored colonization; both were slave owners who took issue with aspects of slavery but saw no way that blacks and whites could live together peaceably. Lincoln first publicly advocated for colonization in 1852, and in 1854 said that his first instinct would be “to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia” (the African state founded by the American Colonization Society in 1821).

Nearly a decade later, even as he edited the draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in August of 1862, Lincoln hosted a delegation of freed slaves at the White House in the hopes of getting their support on a plan for colonization in Central America. Given the “differences” between the two races and the hostile attitudes of whites towards blacks, Lincoln argued, it would be “better for us both, therefore, to be separated.” Lincoln’s support of colonization provoked great anger among black leaders and abolitionists, who argued that African-Americans were as much natives of the country as whites, and thus deserved the same rights. After he issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln never again publicly mentioned colonization, and a mention of it in an earlier draft was deleted by the time the final proclamation was issued in January 1863.

I would guess that depends on the source.

I've been looking through them searching for the citation on the most controversial aspect; that the votes in this case were not cast anonymously.

Ain't found that yet, but as always such searches lead to more info. Check out this site...

https://sites.google.com/site/wvotherhistory/may-23-1861-vote-on-secession-from-u-s-

At this point I'm hoping I can get access into THIS particular book (from the Wiki references)....

[39]A House Divided, Statehood Politics & the Copperhead Movement in West Virginia, (1964)

..without actually buying the durned thing, I got way too many books laying around as it is.

Birdwatcher

hbb, Bristoe, et al,

You can only have an honest intellectual discourse with an individual that is intellectually honest. Birdwatcher has proven himself otherwise.

Birdwatcher,

None of the Wikipedia links cite the Virginia Historical Society, and if you want to start quoting them as a source, it'd be best if you tried it when folks opposed to your BS don't have immediate family relatives that work there. However, whilst search (or citing) Richmond VA museums, perhaps you should take a look at the one in town there devoted to War of Northern Aggression history. Just a suggestion.

Oh, and since you haven't the intellectual fortitude to answer hillbillybear's question about Constitutional authority, I'll do it for you. Lincoln had not Constitutional authority to invade any state, nor press any state citizens into service, nor conscript new immigrants into service, not take/free lawfully owned private property without compensation, nor turn the guns of Fort McHenry against a peaceful civilian populace, nor arrest and replace the governance of Maryland, nor blockade Southern seaports in order to enforce any tariff.

My dear friend EvilTwin thinks highly of you. It appears even he can be mistaken as to the worth of an individual.

just like watching 'Swamp People'...

You go first this time. what do you think?


Anyways, have you EVER been to Lakota Country? Or any powwow anywhere for that matter?

The FIRST thing they do is parade Old Glory, accompanied by an honor guard of Military veterans to the tune of an honoring song, drums, singers, the works

..and I'm still recalling the words of Sammy White Eyes, the late and much lamented and very popular Kiowa Master of Ceremonies, who was also a proud ex-Marine.

Shorty after 9/11 he spoke words at the United San Antonio Powwow to the effect that... many people say that we should not go to war, but the truth is these people have already declared war on us.

By "us" he meant his fellow Americans of course.

Birdwatcher

Ya, tell that to the South in December of 1860.

and i can find articles where blacks support the battle flag sooooo now what

Oh, how touching...

If he was black, he'd be called an Uncle Tom.

So, cozy right on up to a nation that eradicated up to 100 MILLION Native Americans, obliterated entire tribes, wiped from the face of the earth tens of thousands of years of history, and passed legislation relegating an entire race to subjugation (after breach of hundreds of treaties)...and all that's fine with the HS history "expert" because one Injun says "us" means Americans.

Yippee f'kin' skippee.

You know, I would bet the Brits had similar statements all lined up by Irishmen, too. Or, Indians...or Zulu...or Boers...

I'm pretty sure the American Civil War wouldn't be controversial if it wasn't.


(I hate it when I channel Steelhead.)

?? Where do you think I got the URL?

[34] Virginia Historical Society



You have access to THEM, egad man! get them to provide the relevant links, for and against.



Where exactly?



Others already did.

Lincoln never acted alone, about a half million folks, not all in the North, supported what he did and were willing to die to preserve the Union. I woulda willingly fought on their side.



It means a lot to me to have the high regard of such men



You resorted early on in this thread to personal slander, in that case of my origins, as if that affected historical fact No worries, getting insulted is part of what I do for a living.

Best I can put it is this way....

If you were on fire I'd rush across all six lanes of a busy interstate AND vault the concrete wall in the middle to pee on you to put out the flames, because it would be the right thing to do.

Whether you would do the same for me, even across a narrow footpath, is totally irrelevant.

Birdwatcher

You acknowledged that a free people have the right to peacefully separate from a government, yet you state that you would fight against those free people if they attempted to separate from a government.

What do you have against freedom?

Mike, aka Birdwatcher,is definitely NOT intellectually dishonest.

He does his own research and often winds up on the opposite side in arguments with me, but he is no B.S. artist.

He's an interesting guy and a good friend.

And you, Sean, have been shooting from the hip for over a dozen years here.

Two things....

1) Plainly ya ain't ever spent much time in Indian Country to post such gibberish and....

2) Mr. White Eyes was an individual held in high esteem by myself and very many others

Birdwatcher