Cheney hunting trip under fire for Confederate flag

[chernmax]

<img src="http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b31/chernmax/Funny%20pictures/JesseandAl.jpg">

 

[This_person]

Cheney didn't hang it, who give a f%ck!!!

didn't hang it, didn't endorse it, didn't deny it, probably didn't see it, probably has nothing to do with the stance of anything to do with the club...... but, it's a Republican that can be smeared with a tint of racism, so the media loves it.

 

[JPC sr]

Mr. Ferrari

Do you remember reading this by Lincoln?

Abraham Lincoln, as cited in "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," Roy Basler, ed. 1953 New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press:

"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 -- that 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 from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An address by Abraham Lincoln at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857 [Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol II, pp 408-9, Basler, ed.]:

"A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. Such separation, if ever affected at all, must be effected by colonization The enterprise is a difficult one, but 'where there is a will there is a way:' and what colonization needs now is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time, favorable to, or at least not against our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be."

I love Abe Lincoln and I do know about his early writings and speaches that seem to support racial discriminations but I find those to be an incorrect perception because they do not show the force Lincoln was up against.

At that time there were millions of white brutes that openly said they would brutalize and or kill any of the slaves turned free, and these threats against the slaves were real to Lincoln and in the US Civil War those threats proved to be very true that the degenerate whites would in fact bring bloody massacre to war to keep the slaves and to keep the slaves down. Abe Lincoln saw that and knew that and so Lincoln tried to appease the brutes and tried to give a solution for the African Americans. The thing that changed Lincoln's perception of relocating the freed slaved was that most of the most violent and most ignorant of the whites were killed or humbled in the civil war.

 

[Vince]

Al and his cuckoo croonies can kiss my white ass. I'm sick of their chit.

Yep, that about sums it up for me as well. Al and Jesse both. Tired of them and their racist BS. And the media eats them up everytime they appear somewhere.

 

[vraiblonde]

Yep, that about sums it up for me as well. Al and Jesse both. Tired of them and their racist BS. And the media eats them up everytime they appear somewhere.

And THIS, my dear Qurious, is becoming quite a common opinion among whites.

AND IT'S YOUR FAULT.

 

[Dork]

And THIS, my dear Qurious, is becoming quite a common opinion among whites.

AND IT'S YOUR FAULT.

Not just whites. I know a few blacks who can't stand Al and Jesse either.

 

[beerlover]

Sumter was FEDERAL property as was the arsenal in North Carolina that was ransacked some weeks before and every other FEDERAL arsenal in the South.
Not to mention firing on a union re supply ship that tried to enter the harbor some weeks earlier. Never mind that had Beauregard waited one more week Anderson would have had to evacuate anyway for lack of food. I agree with that. I think they should have waited it out, as well. I guess it was just the fervor of patriotism and love of homeland that overcame good strategic sense.

Davis and Lincoln played chicken not wanting to be the first to commit the BIG act of aggression. South Carolina forced Davis's hand. Firing on Sumter was an act of state sanctioned violence on federal property which is rebellion and, if succession was legal and South Carolina acted as part of a nation, then it was also an act of war. Ownership of that "Federal property" was in dispute. The seceded states were no longer a part of the U.S., so it really couldn't have been rebellion. But it WAS an act of war....

You are also ignoring the years and years of aggressive talk in favor of war from numerous prominent Southern leaders. They asked for it. They got it. All in the name of keeping other men in chains. There were many voices in the North calling for military action, as well. It was both sides. And I don't believe the root cause of the war was keeping men in chains, as (northern, i.e. Victor) history has written. I think it really was more about rights of the individual states and unfair trade laws/tariffs that made the common man take up arms. As you know, the vast majority of the Confederate soldiers never owned a slave.

If the South wanted to go in peace it could have. Firing on the Star of the North, looting federal arsenals and attacking Sumter are not acts of peace. I can't believe that Lincoln and the North would ever have let the Confederacy go in peace. They needed the agricultural products and raw materials for northern industry way to badly. Many factories in the North would have shut down due to lack of raw materials and the loss of the unfair tariff and tax distribution to the Northern (Northeastern) states on the backs of Southern agrarian society would have caused economic disaster. I don't think Lincoln would have allowed that, and if he did he would have been removed in favor of someone else who would "reign in" the South. I agree with you that the rash decisions of the early Confederacy forced the Union's hand.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Davis and Lincoln played chicken not wanting to be the first to commit the BIG act of aggression. South Carolina forced Davis's hand. Firing on Sumter was an act of state sanctioned violence on federal property which is rebellion and, if succession was legal and South Carolina acted as part of a nation, then it was also an act of war. Ownership of that "Federal property" was in dispute. The seceded states were no longer a part of the U.S., so it really couldn't have been rebellion. But it WAS an act of war....

They fired on a Union ship before they fired on federal property. There is no disputing the ownership of a ship flying the federal flag. Ths South committed aggression and war first.
Secession was most likely illegal anyway, so their seceding did not make them another country, it made them rebels.

You are also ignoring the years and years of aggressive talk in favor of war from numerous prominent Southern leaders. They asked for it. They got it. All in the name of keeping other men in chains. There were many voices in the North calling for military action, as well. It was both sides. And I don't believe the root cause of the war was keeping men in chains, as (northern, i.e. Victor) history has written. I think it really was more about rights of the individual states and unfair trade laws/tariffs that made the common man take up arms. As you know, the vast majority of the Confederate soldiers never owned a slave.

With the rare exception of a few radical abolitionists like John Brown, the people in the North were not calling for a war or even military action until the Southern states started seceding and firing on US sailors. The entire rhetoric for calling for war and/or secession was the aristocracy of slected Southern states. The call they used is well documented. It is known they used the preservation of slaver as their rallying call in their own states, and in other Southern states trying to get them to follow. The root cause of the start of the war was the South's attempt to preserve the institution of slavery.
After the war started it was mostly fought over state's rights until the Emancipation Proclamation at which point it had a lot to do with slavery again because Davis responded by stating after the war even freed slaves would once again be slaves, and now the North was fighitng under the principle of freeing slaves (as a punishment to the rebels still fighting at that time).

WHile it is very true that the vast majority of Southern soldiers and officers never owned a slave (only 20% of Southerners were involved in the slave industry in some form), it is false to claim tarrifs were a root cause at the time the war started. Historically and going back decades it was a root cause of strife between Southern and Northern states, but in the years before the war tarrifs were greatly reduced.

 

[Larry Gude]

beerlover...

...passions on both sides were inflamed over one and only one issue. Yes, the legal issue was states rights and Lincoln said, clearly, before a single shot had been fired, that he would not and could interfere with slavery. But separating states rights from the wrong of slavery is impossible.

Slavery was THE source of Southern economic weakness.

Slavery was THE source of Southern fears of a future without it.

Slavery was THE source of higher purpose that caused the North to absorb the losses of the war and see it through.

No slavery. No American Civil War.

 

[Larry Gude]

Disagree...

With the rare exception of a few radical abolitionists like John Brown, the people in the North were not calling for a war or even military action

...read Charles Sumner's speech that incited Preston Brooks to beat him half to death on the floor of the Senate.

There were plenty of prominent Northerners calling for the forcible end of slavery. The South had it's 'Fire eaters'. The North had it's radical abolitionists.

 

[beerlover]

They fired on a Union ship before they fired on federal property. There is no disputing the ownership of a ship flying the federal flag. Ths South committed aggression and war first. The Union ship was in the South's harbor, trying to re-supply foreign troops occupying a position they believed was theirs.

Secession was most likely illegal anyway, so their seceding did not make them another country, it made them rebels. Secession was not illegal. All the states seceded from the original articles of confederation previously as a legal act. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the central government the right to force a state to remain in the Union. States rights to their own self-governance was gauranteed. Secession was a right afforded to the voluntary members of the Union.

The root cause of the start of the war was the South's attempt to preserve the institution of slavery. Not to the average southerner.
After the war started it was mostly fought over state's rights until the Emancipation Proclamation at which point it had a lot to do with slavery again because Davis responded by stating after the war even freed slaves would once again be slaves, and now the North was fighitng under the principle of freeing slaves (as a punishment to the rebels still fighting at that time). The average Northern footsoldier believed he was fighting to preserve the Union, not for the freedom of slaves. It angered a great deal of them when Lincoln released the Emancipation Proclamation as an attempt to shift the objective of the war, and desertions skyrocketed.

 

[Larry Gude]

beerlover...

...just because South Carolinians were screaming for blood at Sumter as they saw it as their property does not make them right. They didn't want the fort, they wanted a fight and they damn well got it.

Yes, Northern troops were originally fighting for restoration of the Union, not for the end of slavery. By your own definition you have just shown that they did not believe secession was OK. They were willing to put their lives on the line for Union.

And yes, Southern boys were not fighting for the rich mans slaves. They were fighting because they felt put upon and invaded.

It still is not possible to get around slavery as the central issue of the war.

 

[Novus Collectus]

They fired on a Union ship before they fired on federal property. There is no disputing the ownership of a ship flying the federal flag. Ths South committed aggression and war first. The Union ship was in the South's harbor, trying to re-supply foreign troops occupying a position they believed was theirs.

It didn't make it to harbor before being fired upon. They fired on US sailors on ship that is undisputable about who's flag it was under and who owned it.

Secession was most likely illegal anyway, so their seceding did not make them another country, it made them rebels. Secession was not illegal. All the states seceded from the original articles of confederation previously as a legal act. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the central government the right to force a state to remain in the Union. States rights to their own self-governance was gauranteed. Secession was a right afforded to the voluntary members of the Union.

The root cause of the start of the war was the South's attempt to preserve the institution of slavery. Not to the average southerner.

True. But the average Southerner weren't members of the aristocracy and the ones in charge of government and the leadership.

After the war started it was mostly fought over state's rights until the Emancipation Proclamation at which point it had a lot to do with slavery again because Davis responded by stating after the war even freed slaves would once again be slaves, and now the North was fighitng under the principle of freeing slaves (as a punishment to the rebels still fighting at that time). The average Northern footsoldier believed he was fighting to preserve the Union, not for the freedom of slaves. It angered a great deal of them when Lincoln released the Emancipation Proclamation as an attempt to shift the objective of the war, and desertions skyrocketed.

The war was started because in some states the South's aristocracy wanted to preserve the institution of slavery. The vast majority of Southerners who took up arms to fight the Union after the start of the war were not fighting to preserve slavery.
True, many Southerners despised the institution of slavery because the cheap labour usualy suppressed their wages, especially in the cities where semi-killed worker slaves were "leased" out for contract work.
The average Southern farmer also did not like slavery because it was harder to compete and most farmers could not afford lease any labor.
I forget the exact estimate, but I think it was something like only 2-5% of Southerners owned slaves and I do remember that an estimate of only 20% of Southerners were involved in the institution of slavery (breeders, traders/brokers, smugglers, and those who contracted for work from the owners are examples).

 

[Larry Gude]

That's accurate...

but I think it was something like only 2-5% of Southerners owned slaves and I do remember that an estimate of only 20% of Southerners were involved in the institution of slavery (breeders, traders/brokers, smugglers, and those who contracted for work from the owners are examples).

...but we're quibbling here. Both sides wanted a fight. Both sides considered whites naturally superior to blacks. There are exceptions on both sides. There are villians on both sides.