Designer of Georgia’s Confederate License Plate Doesn’t Understand Why People Are Upset

“If I offend anyone, I don’t understand why," says Sons of Confederate Veterans leader

  • Share
  • Read Later
Georgia Department of Revenue / AP

The new design of the Sons of Confederate Veterans license plate in Georgia now features a large Confederate battle flag.

A new Georgia license plate featuring a large Confederate battle flag has ignited a controversy in the state — but its designer thinks the whole thing’s overblown.

“What’s the big deal?” asks Jack Bridwell, the state commander of the Georgia division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the designer of the specialty plates that benefit his organization. “If I offend anyone, I don’t understand why because we had the emblem on there for years.”

Georgia has offered a Sons of Confederate Veterans-backed license plate with an image of the Confederate flag since 2003. But a recent change in the state’s manufacturing process from embossed images to digital stickers necessitated a redesign. With it came renewed attention — and a fresh round of criticism.

(MORE: A Union Divided: South Split on U.S. Civil War Legacy)

“To display this is reprehensible,” Southern Christian Leadership Conference spokesman Maynard Eaton told the Associated Press. “We don’t have license plates saying ‘Black Power.’”

The Confederate flag is an especially charged symbol in the South, representing a legacy of racism, injustice and oppression to many while held up as an important emblem of heritage by others.

Nine states – Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia – offer Sons of Confederate license plates featuring a version of the Confederate flag. Proposed plates in Florida, Kentucky and Texas have been rejected. In 2011, the board of the Texas DMV unanimously rejected a Confederate plate after hearing hours of testimony from opponents who believe the flag perpetuates racism. The Sons of Confederate veterans sued over the decision and the case remains in the courts.

According to officials at Georgia’s department of motor vehicles, the state has received 35 orders for the new plates since they became available Jan. 21. The plates sell for $80, with $10 of that going to the Sons of Confederate Veterans. State officials declined to comment on the decision to offer the group’s plates.
Bridwell says he initially wanted to include an image of Stone Mountain, a granite dome near Atlanta with carvings depicting Confederate icons Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. But Stone Mountain is a now a theme park owned by a private entity, which claims a trademark to the image, leading the DOT to reject the design.

(MORE: 150 Years After Fort Sumter: Why We’re Still Fighting the Civil War)

Georgia issues license plates benefitting dozens of other organizations and Bridwell feels the state is right not to treat his group differently than the Georgia Aquarium or the Atlanta Braves Foundation. But he’s not surprised at the reaction, even though Georgia has offered a version of the plate for years.

“The people that are up in arms about it again were up in arms the first time,” he says. “The design is just people trying to show who they are and trying to be proud of their heritage. And it’s not limited to the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Anybody in Georgia who wants one can get one. There are probably more on the road than there are members.”

On that count, at least, he’s right. There are currently 3,500 active Sons of Confederate Veterans members. More than 10,000 confederate plates have been sold in Georgia since 2003.

208 comments
mhmchef
mhmchef

Whaaaaa, Whaaaaa, sniff, sniff, waaaaaaaH!

PinetopJohnson
PinetopJohnson

As a Yankee I don't understand what all this argument is about. I have no problem with them having the confederate flag on their license plates. It's their heritage. I don't believe in this case it represents any racism. If I see a vanity plate I find offensive should I seek to have them all banned? How about bumper stickers? 

MayHemm
MayHemm

that is ONLY THE BATTLE FLAG of the LOSING SIDE..that is ALL THAT FLAG IS, there is ANOTHER FLAG that was for the Confederacy..and it's NOT AT ALL LIKE THIS VILE PIECE OF RAG!

agonist
agonist

You can only fight speech with more speech, so I think Black Power license plates would be an awesome solution.

SamSmith5
SamSmith5

Well slavery was also practiced in Union states as it was legal under FEDERAL law! So why don't we go ahead and ban the damn Stars n Stripes while we're at it? Actually slavery was practiced in Union states AFTER THE CIVIL WAR HAD ENDED! Amazing. The Stars and Bars is not the flag of slavery. Its just been demonized as such by radical Jewish extremist groups such as the SPLC and the ADL time and time again. They have been very successful in spreading their anti-southern and anti-white hatred. They tell the blacks all these lies and many blacks actually buy into their propaganda. Wake up people. Why is it perfectly okay to fly a 6-point star of David flag, when Israel has tortured and ethnically cleansed the Palestinians? Well its very simple. THERE IS A JEWISH MAFIA RUNNING THE UNITED STATES!!!

gibson121
gibson121

You can state that the War of Northern Aggression was only about states rights and other ridiculous statements but there is not one person who owns these despicable confederate flag plates or tags that truly believes that we are not talking about hatred of blacks.

And quoting Lincoln from 1858 is beyond ridiculous.  He became clearer minded as the War progressed.  Anyone who has a confederate flag is a racist..period.  No matter how you dress it up.

You are the same people who call MY commander-in-chief a Kenyan, white racist, Muslim.  You still live in the 18th century and have IQs far less than 65.  Please.  Just secede from the Union.  You  get back more in federal dollars that you will ever give in income taxes.  

milothefierce
milothefierce

It amazes me that so many people can be led by the nose to believe that 1) the Civil War was about slavery, and 2) the Confederate flag represents a bunch a slave-lovin' cousin-marryin' hillbillies. Here's historical fact that, if you're willing to read a little, may change your mind (probably not, but it's worth a shot):


1) Pres. Lincoln thought that slavery was morally wrong, but did not necessarily disagree with it. 

   a) “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.” - Lincoln, 1858

     b ) “I view the matter 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.” - Lincoln on the Emancipation Proclamation

2) The Emancipation Proclamation that Lincoln, which famously freed all of the slaves, technically only freed the slaves in Southern states. The Northern states and western territories still held the power to decided whether or not slavery would remain.

3) Lincoln never believed that all men are created equal. “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.” - Lincoln in a debate speech, 1858

4) In the 1850's, 90% of federal revenue came from tariffs... And Southern states paid over 75% of those tariffs. If the Southern states were to succeed in their secession, the Northern states and their government would have been crippled. He had no choice but fight. 

5) President Davis and the Confederate States had already put into place policies to promote the gradual abolishment of slavery. The Confederacy knew the end of slavery was coming, and they were ok with it, but they wanted to make it gradual to keep the economy strong.


The easiest way to determine why the Civil War was fought is to just follow the money (like every other war). 


Sources:

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

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-truth-about-abraham-lincoln-slavery/

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

A quick reminder to the people claiming the creation of the Confederacy was about State Rights

http://www.livescience.com/18863-civil-war-myths.html

In fact, Loewen said, the original documents of the Confederacy show quite clearly that the war was based on one thing: slavery. For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.

In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

The myth that the war was not about slavery seems to be a self-protective one for many people, said Stan Deaton, the senior historian at the Georgia Historical Society.

"People think that somehow it demonizes their ancestors," to have fought for slavery, Deaton told LiveScience. But the people fighting at the time were very much aware of what was at stake, Deaton said.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@SamSmith5 Yep the Confederate Flag doesn't represent White Supremacy says the guy raving about the Jewish Mafia running the country. Hitler would have agreed with your thought process.

absurdbuttrue
absurdbuttrue

@gibson121 , how much in reparations do you angry blacks and guilty white liberals consider enough to be made "whole?"  Reasonable people think the $2-3 trillion spent on every form of  payback spent since the 1960s would be more than sufficient.


Do those who share your mindset really want another conflict to resolve this problem?  It would be the biggest mistake you ever made, son!

milothefierce
milothefierce

@gibson121  Well ain't you a grumpy old coot? Let me ask you this: is Kanye West a racist that hates blacks and calls YOUR commander-in-chief a Kenyan, white racist Muslim? What about H.K. Edgerton? 


You make so many ignorant assumptions. Even though don't believe the civil war was about slavery, I voted for MY commander-in-chief... twice. 


And as for the statement "He became clearer minded as the War progressed," is it really so hard to believe that a politician would suddenly change his politics and values for nothing more than money and more votes? Please. 


Sean_C2
Sean_C2

@milothefierce (1)  That first quote does not show that Lincoln "does not necessarily disagree with it".  He was not an abolitionist at the start of the war, he was a moderate, meaning he believed in containing slavery where it existed.  The Southern states could not allow that, as they believed it would eventually kill slavery.


(2)  I'm not sure what you think this proves either.  The Emancipation Proclamation freed only slaves in slave states because it was an executive action employing Lincoln's war powers, which could not be used to confiscate the property of people in the border states who were not in rebellion.


(3)  Much as with the quote mentioned in (1)(b), the public statements of politicians are not the most reliable source on which to base history, particularly when they are asked about what would be a minority position.  But, again, this has nothing to do with the South's motivations.  No serious student of Lincoln would assert that his views entered the Civil War pre-formed.


(4)  True or false, that has nothing to do with the South's decision to leave, which was motivated by their desire to preserve slavery.


(5).  That's complete nonsense.  The Confederates were in no way accepting of the abolition of slavery.

slowrider
slowrider

@mantisdragon91 Exactly what the title claims "civil-war-myths.html" the definition says it all, a widely held but false belief or idea.

I live in the south and have a lot of friends that know the true meaning of the flag and support it and yes they are African Americans..so unless you are from the south why bother   

milothefierce
milothefierce

@mantisdragon91  That's all well and good, but you do realize that less than 20% (a lot closer to 10%) of Southerners at the time actually owned slaves, right? So if the war was all about slavery and nothing else, then why would non-slaveholders fight and die to defend their right to keep slaves that they didn't have? There has been so much government propaganda over the years that demonizes the southern states and makes Lincoln and the union look good... Go back to basic economics. It's all about money. If you read through newspaper headlines when the war started, read through Lincoln's early speeches, and study historical fact instead of blindly following the propaganda, you may actually see that the Southern states leaving the Union would have literally ruined the northerners' economy. The US Government would have lost most of its income and they couldn't allow that to happen, so slavery became an issue to gain public support both here in the states and overseas. Most european countries actually supported the southern states' secession for the first few years of the war. Go figure that...

milothefierce
milothefierce

@Sean_C2 @milothefierce  "As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union."

    --- Major General John B. Gordon, from his book, Causes of the Civil War.

milothefierce
milothefierce

@Sean_C2 @milothefierce  You call this nonsense, but you haven't taken the time to study your history. Just because it wasn't included in your middle school history book doesn't make it nonsense. The confederate constitution banned overseas slave trade and gave each state the right to abolish slavery if its people chose (this would be called "state's rights"). To further support the fact that the secession wasn't about owning people, how would explain the fact (and I'm sure you'll have some closed-minded explanation) that there were many Freedmen who volunteered to fight for the confederacy... And if the the war was fought because the north wanted freedom and equality for all men while the evil south wanted to keep its slaves, how do you explain the fact that the black soldiers of the confederacy were paid the same amount as white soldiers, while black soldiers fighting for the union were paid much less than their white counterparts? 


The sad thing is, it has been so drilled into your head that the war was about slavery that you refuse to be open minded to any other idea. My point in all of this is that it's not necessarily the words of the politicians that we should base our opinions on, but instead the actions of the people. If you look at the actions of the people, southerners weren't as terrible as history makes them out to be, northerners weren't as noble, and Lincoln - the Great Emancipator - was nothing more than a spineless slimy politician led by money, just like the ones we have today.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@milothefierce @mantisdragon91Don't change the simple fact that the language of the states secession documents specifically spoke about keeping slavery. I'm tired of all the revisionist historians trying to sugar coat the fact that if it was not for the South's fear of losing their slaves the war would never have happened.

milothefierce
milothefierce

@mantisdragon91 @milothefierce @Sean_C2  OK, it's understandable that you don't want to take the word of a Confederate General. How about a headline from the New York Evening Post (a pro-Lincoln news source obviously from New York - just adding that so it can't be spun that it was a confederate conspiracy to rewrite the news) from March 2, 1861: "What Shall Be Done for a Revenue?" 

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@milothefierce @Sean_C2Sure lets take the word of a Confederate General attempting to rewrite the history of his actions. Should we believe the Nazi generals as well who claimed they were merely protecting Germany by liquidating Jews and plunging all of Europe into war?

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@milothefierce @Sean_C2For the North it wasn't about ending slavery. For the South it was very much about preserving slavery. Spare us your rewrite of history.

milothefierce
milothefierce

@Sean_C2 @milothefierce  So in reference to your last paragraph, as someone with a graduate degree in American history, even you're saying that the civil war wasn't about abolishing slavery, but instead about preserving the union because of god's special destiny? Thank you.

Sean_C2
Sean_C2

@milothefierce Nice try.  First, I'm a Canadian.  Second, I have undergraduate and graduate degrees in American history, with my undergraduate honours being a comparison of Lincoln and FDR as war leaders.  So "middle school history book[s]" have nothing to do with it.


To call Lincoln a "spineless slimy politician" is to completely ignore the historical record.  His political career was quite consistent in its opposition to slavery as an institution -- the extent of his countenanced remedy varied over time.  He was not a one-dimensional saint, but to acknowledge his complexity is not to go completely the other way and make him a simple opportunist, which he was not.


The war began as a battle to "preserve the Union", because the one unifying belief in the North was the idea that God's special destiny for the United States meant it could never separate (a strange notion that continues to this day, albeit in secularized form).  Within that group there were those (like George B. McClellan) who prized keeping the union together and had no real position on slavery, and those (led like Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens in the legislature, and the Massachusetts abolitionists outside of it) who viewed it as a crusade to end slavery once and for all, rather than simply contain it within its existing bounds (Lincoln's position).  As the war dragged on, and there was less and less incentive to conciliate the South, the abolitionist faction gained sufficient strength to make its aims the clear war aims of the Union.

TomJohnson
TomJohnson

@milothefierce @mantisdragon91  LOVE how you guys play with Confederacy like it was something to be proud of. Know who Alexander Stevens was? 


The 'Cornerstone'[edit]

Stephens' March 1861 speech declared that African slavery was the "immediate cause" of secession, and that the Confederate Constitution had put to rest the "agitating questions" as to the "proper status of the negro in our form of civilization".

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.

milothefierce
milothefierce

@mantisdragon91 @milothefierce  If you don't mind, could you also post the sources of these copy and paste statements (editorials and opinion articles don't count)? 


The problem with this whole "low income people dreaming of a better life" theory is that, once again, the southern states accounted for a solid majority of the fed's income. Many Southerners weren't exactly slumming back then. Their farms supplied cotton, tobacco, and other goods (such as dyes) to the world. They may not have been wealthy enough to own slaves, but they had families to work the farms, which provided a decently comfortable life. Believe it or not, non-slave owners were still considered middle/upper-middle class. In today's terms, think of it as corporations ("slave owners") vs. small business owners ("non-slave owners"). 

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@milothefierce @mantisdragon91Read and learn


Most white Southerners didn’t own slaves, so they wouldn’t secede for slavery.

Indeed, most white Southern families had no slaves. Less than half of white Mississippi households owned one or more slaves, for example, and that proportion was smaller still in whiter states such as Virginia and Tennessee. It is also true that, in areas with few slaves, most white Southerners did not support secession. West Virginia seceded from Virginia to stay with the Union, and Confederate troops had to occupy parts of eastern Tennessee and northern Alabama to hold them in line.

However, two ideological factors caused most Southern whites, including those who were not slave-owners, to defend slavery. First, Americans are wondrous optimists, looking to the upper class and expecting to join it someday. In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy now.

Second and more important, belief in white supremacy provided a rationale for slavery. As the French political theorist Montesquieu observed wryly in 1748: “It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures [enslaved Africans] to be men; because allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we ourselves are not Christians.” Given this belief, most white Southerners — and many Northerners, too — could not envision life in black-majority states such as South Carolina and Mississippi unless blacks were in chains. Georgia Supreme Court Justice Henry Benning, trying to persuade the Virginia Legislature to leave the Union, predicted race war if slavery was not protected. “The consequence will be that our men will be all exterminated or expelled to wander as vagabonds over a hostile earth, and as for our women, their fate will be too horrible to contemplate even in fancy.” Thus, secession would maintain not only slavery but the prevailing ideology of white supremacy as well.

milothefierce
milothefierce

@mantisdragon91 @milothefierce  First of all, let me say Thank God I'm not from Mississippi. lol


Second, as stated below, I come from a long line of southerners that never owned slaves yet fought in the war. Why would someone fight and die for something that had no real effect on them?

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@milothefierce @mantisdragon91As a quick last point, in case you still have any doubts what the Secession was about, here are the exact words from the Mississippi state Secession document



Other seceding states echoed South Carolina. “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world,” proclaimed Mississippi in its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861. “Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@milothefierce @mantisdragon91And that comes down to systematic white washing of the history surrounding the Confederacy and what it stood for. In essence the nation was created for the right to continue owning other human beings. If that is what you choose to wrap your identity around perhaps it really is time to look in the mirror.

milothefierce
milothefierce

@mantisdragon91 @milothefierce  I think the biggest problem here is that most southerners don't really see the stars and bars as a symbol of hate / slavery, whereas most northerners do. For a majority of southerners, it's more of a symbol of our heritage and passion. What can I say? We're proud of who we are and where we came from... 

milothefierce
milothefierce

@mantisdragon91 @milothefierce  The funny thing about it is that the confederate flag that is causing so much uproar was not even the actual confederate flag. It's the battle flag used by virginian troops... So it's kind of silly for Georgia to even put it on a plate.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@milothefierce @mantisdragon91There are always multiple cause to any conflict, however one can't deny that the confederate flag represented a nation created to continue the institution of slavery. Thus how is this license plate any different than a German one honoring the "Sons of the Veterans of the Third Reich"?

milothefierce
milothefierce

@mantisdragon91 @milothefierce  That's not changing the subject. The big issue was that the southern states were paying most of the government's bills and the government wanted them to pay more. In addition to that, the federal government wanted to intrude on the states' ability to make its own decisions, and this is what brought on the secession. With Lincoln as President, he was very much a part of this process.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@milothefierce @mantisdragon91Stop changing the subject. It isn't about Lincoln. The question is why did the South rebel, and the reason for that can be clearly seen by reading the States Secession documents. The desire to continue owning slaves.

JoeRenier
JoeRenier

@milothefierce @mantisdragon91  Yes it was fought for state's rights... The right to own slaves. The one right that meant the world to the way by which they lived. You are technically correct. 

publicnightmare
publicnightmare

@mantisdragon91 @milothefierce  Actually they DID.  Vermont, not a border state, held slaves until 1777. Other Northern states held slaves long past the War between the States. Look it up. It is fully documented.  

California had slaves, Asian slaves digging canals at the same time. THEY were not freed.  


Read the Emancipation document, it clearly states it only frees slaves in Southern states....a place at the time Lincoln was not President over.

DomenickDoran
DomenickDoran

@mantisdragon91 @milothefierce  While I agree with you that slavery was the most important element in the strife between the north and south, it's also important to remember that the war wasn't started to free slaves.  


The war was started to preserve the union.  If the south hadn't seceded, there would have been no war, nor any immediate push to abolish.  If after secession, the United States had recognized the right of self-determination of the southern states (a right we supposedly hold dear), there would have been no war.  If the south had seceded and simultaneously abolished slavery (a combination of events which is obviously absurd, but illustrative of my point), there STILL would have been a civil war.


Saying that the war was about slavery is not correct.  It's a bit like saying the Treaty of Versailles was the cause of WW2.  Simply stated, the proximate cause of the civil war was the USA's reaction to secession.  


Of course, with issues such as this, there are subtleties on either side which both sides will ignore.  Sort of like politics in general, I suppose.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@milothefierce @mantisdragon91It wasn't about state rights. Better lies please.



1. The South seceded over states’ rights.

Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states’ rights — that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.

On Dec. 24, 1860, delegates at South Carolina’s secession convention adopted a “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” It noted “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” and protested that Northern states had failed to “fulfill their constitutional obligations” by interfering with the return of fugitive slaves to bondage. Slavery, not states’ rights, birthed the Civil War.

South Carolina was further upset that New York no longer allowed “slavery transit.” In the past, if Charleston gentry wanted to spend August in the Hamptons, they could bring their cook along. No longer — and South Carolina’s delegates were outraged. In addition, they objected that New England states let black men vote and tolerated abolitionist societies. According to South Carolina, states should not have the right to let their citizens assemble and speak freely when what they said threatened slavery.

Other seceding states echoed South Carolina. “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world,” proclaimed Mississippi in its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861. “Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”

The South’s opposition to states’ rights is not surprising. Until the Civil War, Southern presidents and lawmakers had dominated the federal government. The people in power in Washington always oppose states’ rights. Doing so preserves their own.

milothefierce
milothefierce

@mantisdragon91 @milothefierce  Never said it was ok. In fact, the idea of slavery is sickening. However, no one is trying to make the secession effort look all pretty and rosy by saying it was about state's rights. Fact is, it was about state's rights... It was about the right to govern themselves without the feds stepping in and confiscating everything that they worked for. Seriously, there would be no real reason for so many southerners to fight to secede because of slavery when they didn't even own slaves. If you haven't already guessed, I'm southern (8th generation, and the ancestors came here and never went anywhere else). I've done extensive research into my family tree and I can tell you that I have more than a few ancestors that fought (and some died) in the civil war. None of them, though, owned slaves. That simply was not the issue for them. That became an issue to make the war more agreeable to the public. Sorry, but that's just how it is.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@milothefierce @mantisdragon91Just because something was common practice does not make it okay. And what is offensive is the systematic attempts since to paint a nation fighting to continue owning other human beings as some kind of brave and noble endeavor.

milothefierce
milothefierce

@mantisdragon91 @milothefierce  There were several northern states that had abolished slavery before the war started, but it was not a "USA" thing... It all comes down to state's rights. Each state made its own decisions in regard to that subject as well as others. 

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@milothefierce @mantisdragon91Actually they didn't with the exception of a couple of border states. Border states which would have declared independence as well except for the fact that slaves were not as big a part of their economy and culture. To say that the rebellion wasn't about slavery is offensive and disingenuous.

milothefierce
milothefierce

@mantisdragon91 @milothefierce  I'm not saying that "slave holding" is not mentioned in those documents. All I'm asking is that you acknowledge the fact that northern states and western territories held slaves, too, and it wasn't an issue there. 

milothefierce
milothefierce

@mantisdragon91 @milothefierce  You just refuse to admit that maybe, just maybe, there was another reason. Slavery wasn't even an issue as far as the war was concerned until well after the war was being fought. Money is king.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@milothefierce @mantisdragon91Lincoln may have went to war with the rebels to preserve the economy, however that doesn't change the fact that the reason for rebelling was to preserve the institution of slavery.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@milothefierce @mantisdragon91The Confederacy seceded in order to continue keeping slaves. So please spare us the lies. The secession documents of the various states clearly spell out the purpose of what they did.

milothefierce
milothefierce

@mantisdragon91 @milothefierce  Don't change the simple fact that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in Southern States, not the northern states or western territories. I'm tired of all of the people that have been spoon fed their history screaming about how southerners are so bad because southern states allowed slaves. Every state had slaves... Slavery was abolished in the south to win the war. Nothing more, nothing less.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,104 other followers