Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: kanttori on December 26, 2002, 02:35:12 PM
-
I am making update and couple of new skins to FinRus CT-map and I have one question:
Can I use svastika on German plane's tails or is there some rules/laws you can not use them?
I really have NOT nazi sympathizes, but I think of them in historical meaning on skins!
-
I think it is best not too.
Some countries have laws regarding the display of the swastika.
Might want to email HT and ask him for yourself.
F.
-
Wow.
There was a few people that really went ape over the Finnish AF emblem on some of the skins you made. They were informed, that it was not the Nazi Swastika, and that calmed most of them down.
However you may get grief from some of the more politically correct people if you actually add the German swastika to the tails.
Personally I don't have a problem with it. You got to wiegh the fact that it's not really going to be visable being on the tails, but of those people who do actually see it, some are going to be offended.
Like I said your choice, but you would prob be better off leaving that one alone.
-
Originally posted by Löwe
Wow.
There was a few people that really went ape over the Finnish AF emblem on some of the skins you made. They were informed, that it was not the Nazi Swastika, and that calmed most of them down.
However you may get grief from some of the more politically correct people if you actually add the German swastika to the tails.
Personally I don't have a problem with it. You got to wiegh the fact that it's not really going to be visable being on the tails, but of those people who do actually see it, some are going to be offended.
Like I said your choice, but you would prob be better off leaving that one alone.
My sentiments exactly!
eskimo
-
Ya if you ask me they ought top just grow up and get over it, but a lot of people get get quiet bent about such things, better to leve that dog a naping.
To help get in the mood I have an aray of head bands. A big rising sun one I tie on, or a Nice Swastica one for German planes, I have one for when I fly spits thats says 'Puss" on it but I havent worn it in years, I could be preswaded to part with it if their any takers?
-
OK OK!!!:D
As I said, my aspect is only historical and those things just happened and the signs were what they were.
This is a great game and we don't need politics with it... it's not so necessary thing if it irritates some people!;)
-
kanttori,
No.
It is illegal to use that symbol for anthing, even simulators, in Germany. For this reason it is highly likely that HTC would not accept a map with such skins for CT use.
(France may also have laws about it, but I seem to recall their anti-Nazi laws didn't cover the swastica)
-
As Furious said. It is my understanding that display of the swastika is banned in Germany except in historical/educational settings. Use in a game is not considered to be one of those settings by the powers that be.
Since we do have some players in Germany, it could possibly present a problem for them from an legal standpoint. I'm not sure how their laws apply in cases of Internet traffic.
To illustrate the point, the international version of IL-2 Sturmovik(granted, it's a boxed sim, not purely online) defaults to the blue-dot-in-white roundel for Finns and an absence of the swastika on German planes. Those of us who aren't barred from it by law can enable the historic markings with a simple add-on utility. The Russian version defaults to the historic markings -- no such laws against its display there. (Ironic, huh?)
Anyway, I'd reluctantly weigh in with the prevailing view. Leave'em off the tails of the German planes. Keep using the proper markings for the Finnish planes -- there's already an AH precedent with the 109 G2
Splash1
-
The "Maltese Cross" is a fine replacement/compromise for the Swastika.
-
Thats not a Maltese cross.
nice looking plane though:D
-
The US version of Combat Misssion: Barbarossa to Berlin has SS units and the respective insignia.
The European version is distributed by the German company CDV, and it has all SS units replaced with Panzer Grenadiers or some such unit. This goes even for British versions of the game.
-
Originally posted by kanttori
I am making update and couple of new skins to FinRus CT-map and I have one question:
Can I use svastika on German plane's tails or is there some rules/laws you can not use them?
I really have NOT nazi sympathizes, but I think of them in historical meaning on skins!
Ya know, this reminds me of halloween in Germany, circa 1957... Here it was cool to fashion a "ghost" costume from an old pillow case and sheet. But on arriving in Virginia in 1964, it was like frowned upon, for some bizarre reason... :(
I agree it's just a symbol from an age long past. And IMHO, people SHOULD just get over it. Or, at least stick their heads in the sand like before and ignore it. Which is probably why it engenders such animosity.
Similar cases can be brought forth wherein one ethnicity is caught traveling in another ethnicity's turf.
Racial hatered is a "LEARNED" thing, taught to the truly ignorant that wish only to be led around by the nose by their supposedly great and honest example of leadership. Most of whom are taking bribes under the table anyway, and just want to stir the pot for their own gain, and deffenitely NOT the gain of their followers. Be these leaders parents, religious, governmental, they are all culpable in the spreading of myths to further their own ends.
I say leave it in, IF you are going for historical accuracy. If not, then follow your heart. Either way, the fear mongerers will have won their battle, so the point is rather mute, no?
-
I think the problem is not so much that it is illegal in some countries for very good reasons (there are even tards in the US that want to ban flag burning). It is that when people are flying axis in here, it is not because they agree with the political movement of the 30s and 40s of germany, it is because they like the planes guys like kurt designed. The swastika is nothing more than a political symbol. It would be like slapping a donkey on the tail of all the american planes cause a democrat was in the white house during the war.
AAANNNDDDD... you have to admit, what those bastards did is sooo fricking terrible, that telling people to 'get over it' is probably not the best thing to say.
-
I was refering to the placement of the swastica on the tails, I mean it is realy silly if you think about we all know they were they their, and when I think of these planes I always see the Swastica even if it is not their.
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
........AAANNNDDDD... you have to admit, what those bastards did is sooo fricking terrible, that telling people to 'get over it' is probably not the best thing to say.
Try reversing the symbol back to its original EGYPTIAN(?) design. Then no-one can say a thing about it because it isn't NAZI anymore. :eek:
Now to be totally honest... we (the USA) did some pretty horrible things in WW2 also. Thus if 'we' follow your reasoning, ALL planes in AH should not have U.S. nor Nazi markings. Oh yes, let us not forget the Japanese death marches, and that means another countries 'flag' gets removed.
Wonder what the Finns, and Russians did? Look it up.
So now we have a WW2 "fantasy/alternate universe world that needs NEW flags/symbols for all of its vehicles/planes/ships, yes? :rolleyes:
-
We all did some terrible things during the war, particularly russia, but most of these atrocities were in response to what the axis were up to. If the axis had won, well maybe the usa flag would be banned. Since we have a symbol for the luftwaffe, we simply dont need to put political symbols to make it clear which are axis and allied aircraft.
It is incredibly insensitive to believe that for your want of historical accuracy or some strange idea of precident that we should put something so offensive to so many people in a game like this. There is a reason why HTC does not have any 'blood and guts' in this game. Taste.
-
Hmm.. reversing the insignia might be tolerable.
In reverse, which is really the original symbol used in Indo-Aryan/Far Eastern cultures, it becomes the swastika of the sun. It stands for "sun" "brightness" "fullness" "life" "yang" and etc etc.
The insignia affiliated with the Nazi party is the swastika of the moon, standing for "moon" "darkness" "emptiness" "death" yin" and etc etc.
The blue swastika of the moon of the Finns, while same in shape, are of different color and recognized as von Rosen's cross, in a different context.
If people can concur that the "original" swastika(swastika of the sun) used on the tails of German planes are there for pure visual representation only, and is totally out of context from Nazi political agenda, I think it might be acceptable - it even looks different.
-
I was always under the impression that the Nazi swastika was picked by Hitler from Norse runes. This particular rune was meant by the Norse as a sign of a 'rising sun' or a 'new sun' which is would make it no different than the japanese symbol. I may be wrong but that's what I always thought was the origin of the nazi swastika.
Anyway, just my thoughts.
-
how retarted ...
the planes had the symbol - AH's planes should too
what if I said I was offended by the jap meatball cause they killed 10's thousands of POWS and had attacked Pearl Harbor - would I have a case to have daisies painted in place of their meatballs ??
:rolleyes:
maybe we should edit all the model boxes in the hobby stores, wouldn't want to offend anyone now would we ...........
-
If hitech had to go out there with a paint scrapper, then yeah leave em. But.... since its sooooooooo easy
-
Just plain silly, was long time ago, doesnt mean anything anymore, Im sick and tired of political correctness, cant say this, cant do that, bunch of bulls--t, what happened to free America?
-
your my co and all, but...
the game is international. And that symbol still makes people remember things that they would rather let alone.
I know for certain that if I were 15 and my mother saw i was playing a game with swastikas in it, she would take the computer away.
-
I think we can now finish this discussion: I don't use svastikas on Germans tails and that's it!
One big reason to my decision is ergRTC's mother: I don't want that she becomes angry to me and take my computer away! :D
-
Some of the best models I have ever seen come from Germany, and Japan. I'm not talking about the Daihu, or Hasagaw (sp deliberate) I mean the REALLY detailed 1:32 scale stuff.
And ALL markings are HISTORICALLY accurate, INCLUDING the Swatika....! So much for PC in the industry, eh?
-
Hey odee where you at in northern virginia? I just moved to Arlington again.
Say isnt there a law in virginia about cross burning? Wasnt all that hoopla about 50 years ago? Why dont they get over it?
erg
sorry couldnt help one last jab.
-
Originally posted by kanttori
I think we can now finish this discussion: I don't use svastikas on Germans tails and that's it!
One big reason to my decision is ergRTC's mother: I don't want that she becomes angry to me and take my computer away! :D
Just for fun, put a KKK on the tail...
See how folks react to that!
:)
eskimo
-
Oh no Eskimo, no they start a new discussion!:D :D :D
-
HTC policy is to not use the Swastika. You may use the Iron Cross instead.
-
I love to piss people off so here!!!
-
Hawk, please fuzz out the swastika. Im about to cry. If we all just pretend like it never existed, we'd all be happy little campers. I'd like to see a big smiley face in place of the Japanese meatball. Thank you.
-
Not using the swastika is not about people having mushy feeling and tearing up from being offended. Those here who are suggesting that are being disingenous at best.
It is illegal to use the swatika in games in Germany. Therefore, if the game is intended to be played in the German market it may not have swastikas. Aces High is intended to be played in the German market, thus it doesn't have swastikas.
Its that simple and there is nothing to discuss.
If you are really ticked off about it, write letters to the German government about it.
-
The inability of some americans to understand or feel any empathy for others affirms my belief in the general lack of intelligence or wisdom of our current american culture.
I think we need to start teaching civics in high school again. Oh, and make em pass it this time.
Have we read this thread somewhere else?
-
Hehe you kill me erg!
-
Hmmmmm
Seems it's against the law in Germany. Since HTC has many German customers, that makes it NO. That also means the main question for this whole thread has been answered. So maybe we could drop this and find out what the new setup for CT is going to be??
-
Hey yeah! isnt it friday? I thought that last one was a bit strange near the end.
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
Hey odee where you at in northern virginia? I just moved to Arlington again.
Say isnt there a law in virginia about cross burning? Wasnt all that hoopla about 50 years ago? Why dont they get over it?
erg
sorry couldnt help one last jab.
FOCLMBO Erg...! I just moved from Woodbridge to Frednecksburg last September. Still working in DC tho. :D
-
I do not really see a difference, other than German law, between any of the WWII era German symbols. The Iron Cross does not invoke these same feelings in people. Initially I remember being quite suprised to see any German symbols in the game. I understand the legal position that Hitech may have taken but........... in for a penny..............
-
There seems to be quite a few of us in the DC area. CIU and aknimitz are here, there was somebody in the RTC year or so back that was in Fairfax county.
-
Originally posted by Johnny Bud
I do not really see a difference, other than German law, between any of the WWII era German symbols. The Iron Cross does not invoke these same feelings in people. Initially I remember being quite suprised to see any German symbols in the game. I understand the legal position that Hitech may have taken but........... in for a penny..............
The Iron Cross that the Luftwaffe uses now, and the Balken Cruz, I think thats what it's called, like they used in WWII, are national symbols. The swastika was the emblem of the Nazi party, and was applied only to the tail of Luftwaffe aircraft. The regular crosses on the wings, and fuselage, had nothing to do with nazism. In fact the last year of WWI the German Air force switched from the Iron Cross, ( the one with the falired ends) to the Balken Cruz,( The one with the squared endss). Niether of these evoke the spirit of nazism. However everyone gets a mental picture when they see the swastika.
Personally if theres people that are offended , thats good enough reason for me not to put it in the game. I'm no political correctness thug, and the emblem doesn't bother me one way or the other. However it does bring out strong emotions to some, and since we're here to have fun, I can certainly live without it in the game.
In for a pound JohnnyB. ;)
-
I agree with Lowejg. The issue is very similar to the Confederate Flag. Some see it as a hate flag others see it as a representation of a country that fought for Independence.
My Great Great Grandfather was captured at Gettysburg. He was not fighting for slavery but for independence. He was a poor farm boy from south Alabama whom could not even read nor write.
Over time thugs like the KKK and other parties as well as rednecks adopted the flag as a hate flag against minority races.
However, the issue at hand is The swastika was the emblem of the Nazi party
, a party that begain and ended with hate unlike the Confederate States of America.
-
Two of my all time favorites. Sorry in advance, but i just cant help myself.....
two things from the 'confederate states' that I wish they would keep to themselves.... or is that three things?
-
OOPs a double post
-
LOL Erg.
For a guy who's supposed to be Mr. Liberal, who wouldn't dream of offending people. You just nuked about half of your own country.
Yes I live in the south , but I'm no Johnny Reb. I also listen to Classic Rock, and Jazz. I'm not a C&W music fan. I got some friends that are though. Man would I love to introduce you to them...............:D
I guess it is alright to insult a group of people. As long as you supposedly inlightened types get to pick who they are huh?:rolleyes:
I'm not sure , but I think country music is big all over the United States. Not just those easy targets in the south.
-
Thats erg for you Lowe. He really thinks there is no problem insulting people from the south because they are a lower form of life then he and his "kind". And if you get offended your just too sensitive because its all tounge and cheek. Bow to the liberal:rolleyes:
Now wares ma sister/cousin and my tabaki, ima ready to make sum yunguns.
-
LOL, good ones RTC
I hate Country Music :)
-
hahahahaa.. Nice slash.
I think what I did was demonstrate how something a long long long time ago can still upset people.
And yeah 'my wife left me the other day,
she shot my horse,
took my dog,
pissed on the carpet,
and things have gone from better to bad to worse....'
is popular all over the country. Yet another sad comentary on american pop culuture.
What pisses me off more about country is the good stuff (old old stuff) isnt the popular crap anymore. Its this over produced hollywood, fake, shania twain/dixie chick crap. Fricking n'sync of country music. Its like michael jackson sucked the soul out of it, and then had Garth Brooks turn it into the Wal-Mart of music.
It is funny how almost everything we start argueing about ends up north vs south.
Thank god my family was busy homesteading during the civil war. No time to go down there and teach the southerners about state rights/civil rights.
-
Now now boys, gonna have to put you two in a TBM together hehe.
-
RTC...ROTFL
HoweverThank god my family was busy homesteading during the civil war. No time to go down there and teach the southerners about state rights/civil rights.
My family was also busy homesteading uneducated. Americans need to learn what it was all about and why the political issue of slavery was brought in to play. Nevertheless, I say again IT WAS WRONG!
Even you need to study about the "States Rights" as agreed with by the Government at that time.
-
Its ends up north and south because of you erg. You never miss a chance to insult people from the south. Only thing i can figure is some good ol' boy whipped your bellybutton once and you can't get over it. BTW where do your run into all these people that can't get over the civil war? How many times has this happened to you? Also, country music isnt my thing. I just dont listnen to alot of it. ( i think you're wrong about the Dixie Chicks though.) I have a pretty broad range in my CD collection, from heavy metal, classic rock, oldies, rap,pop, classical, and southern rock, (oops i said south quik erg roll your eyes and whine) Keep the insults and ASSumptions coming erg, sooner or later you'll have me convinced you're better then "us".
"The inability of some americans to understand or feel any empathy for others affirms my belief in the general lack of intelligence or wisdom of our current american culture."
is this directed at me erg?
p.s. does anyone else find it annoying that the stuff you listened to in high school is now on the calssic rock station? Im only 29!:D
-
does anyone else find it annoying that the stuff you listened to in high school is now on the calssic rock station? Im only 29
Yeah, "Moving Sidewalks" was my intro to Rock Music.
I remember when biting off bats heads was satanic, now they look at "him" on "his" TV show and laugh at the old fart..lol
-
Originally posted by CurtissP-6EHawk
Yeah, "Moving Sidewalks" was my intro to Rock Music.
I remember when biting off bats heads was satanic, now they look at "him" on "his" TV show and laugh at the old fart..lol
yeah Ozzie is a blast...
as far as erg, you can kiss my ass.
-
lol was watching the Osbournes tonight. Great tv:D
Hey Conch, you ignorant,redneck,beer swilling, wife beating, cross burning, trailer trash dumb son of a squeak. Hows it going?:D
-
I have to agree with you on that classic rock bit, but dont blame me for the south! I just brought up the law against cross buring in virginia (which was just in the supreme court across the river). Somebody else (lowe?) brought up the flag.
And no that remark about american culture was not directed at you, it was directed at prevailing attitutudes of your avervage american, as represented by Odee, Eagler, and Brady with their 'get over it' remarks. I dont think you ever said this slash.
-
I personally don't think the average American is really heard from very often. This is a shame in a way considering alot of people in alot of places are probably watching Jerry Springer or reading these boards and building their "picture" of America. We're not all that bad, really!
:)
-
I dont know vor, I am beginning to think we are. Between jerry falwell, the last couple of elections, and the polls we read in the newspapers everyday my faith is shaken.
I always wonder who answers those polls or 'little quizes'. They never ask me to locate iraq or sweden on a map. I do quite a bit of statistics in my research, and unless they are really screwing the pooch on their randomizations, those terrible polls are probably rather accurate.
from nat. geo. ----
One in 10 young Americans could not locate his own country on a blank map of the world, a survey of geographic literacy shows. Only 13 percent could find Iraq.
"Someone once said that war is God's way of teaching geography, but apparently today neither war nor the threat of war can adequately teach geography," John Fahey, president of the National Geographic Society, said Wednesday.
The organization's survey found that about one in seven of Americans between age 18 and 24, the prime age for military service, could place Iraq.
The majority of young people surveyed knew that the Taliban and al-Qaida were based in Afghanistan, but only 17 percent could find that country on a world map, though American-led forces have waged war there.
-- 34 percent of the young Americans knew that the island used on last season's "Survivor" show was located in the South Pacific, but only 30 percent could locate the state of New Jersey on a map. The "Survivor" show's location was the Marquesas Islands in the eastern South Pacific.
Rankings:
Sweden, 40; Germany, 38; Italy, 38; France, 34; Japan, 31; Great Britain, 28; Canada, 27; United States, 23; Mexico, 21.
-
we beat the Mexico!:D
Do the history books in school still have 2 pages on WW2.nothing on Korea, and a paragraph on Vietnam just before you get to the index?
-
HEHE! I hope not, they probably got rid of that section all together to make more room for pictures of desert storm and monica lewinsky.
I remember my history teacher in high school would not teach korea or vietnam since he had 'lived' through the times in question. You were not supposed to teach something you were a part of. That may be the reason you remember your history book having very slim pickings for more modern history. That was fine though, just left more time for the french revolution, the roman empire and greece!
My civics teacher was an x navy seal. We used to laugh cause he would blink so much. I never thought about what he might have done or seen to get a little nervous tick like that. Thinking back now....
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
I have to agree with you on that classic rock bit, but dont blame me for the south! I just brought up the law against cross buring in virginia (which was just in the supreme court across the river). Somebody else (lowe?) brought up the flag.
Uhh No Erg, I didnt bring up the flag at all, so aim your Sterotyping somewhere else. Nice try though.
-
This is what mislead me on that sorry lowe. Wish I could get as quickly and easily pissed off as you guys seem too. Whats the secret? Is it that stag beer? Too much red meat?
"I agree with Lowejg. The issue is very similar to the Confederate Flag. Some see it as a hate flag others see it as a representation of a country that fought for Independence."
Sorry it is actually hawk. But hes a nice guy.
-
Its no secret erg. We just cant match wits with a scholar of your caliber.Our gentics barely allow us to do more then feed and breed. We are from the south, all the smart ones are in the north remember? You told us that.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Slash27
lol was watching the Osbournes tonight. Great tv:D
Hey Conch, you ignorant,redneck,beer swilling, wife beating, cross burning, trailer trash dumb son of a squeak. Hows it going?:D
I totally resent that statement and I demand that it be retracted!!
I haven't lived in a trailer for over 4 years, there aint no way i could be trailer trash!! :)
btw how the the hell did you know my moms a squeak?!
-
RTC is was me that brought up the flag...which leads to Slashes remark:
"Do the history books in school still have 2 pages on WW2.nothing on Korea, and a paragraph on Vietnam just before you get to the index?"
History books in schools are a huge joke! This enhances my point on the ignorance on both modern southerners and northerners by the lack of interests, government and factual resorces.
If you wish to proceed with this issue, I have a fifty five gallon drum of whip-ass (redneck term for "you dont stand a chance") to go along with it :eek:
-
"Juinor, when we get home. I'm gonna punch your mama right in the mouth"- Bufford T. Justice
Sorry Conch, they changed the rules in '98. Its 3.5 years now and it still counts even if you take the wheels off. Thats about as bad as when they started counting the double wides. Damn you liberals, its a manufactured home!!! Still interested in that tornado shelter Conch?:D
btw it was Dink that told me about your mom. He saw her at the Sack n' Save with no shoes on buying a can of snuff.
-
OH boy!!!
I am really enjoing this US autobashing thread!! :D
This is the prove of the beduin syndrome!! ;)
"me against my brother,
me and my brother against my cousin,
me, my brother and my cousin against our tribe,
our tribe against other tribes,
all tribes against the foreigners."
-
Nice one naso.
Whats worse is that we are all in the same squad, even lowe is an old founder of the vf27.
This is why bush needs to keep us at war with the rest of the world. If we go into recession without distraction, we will just beat each other up. ;)
erg
-
How true, how true!
;)
-
LOL Slash, that's one of my favorite lines from that movie......no body better than Jackie Gleason!
Now you boys save some of this energy for OPs tonight:)
-
no duke, your supposed to say
"Get back in the car jr." -b.t.j.
-
Lets dont forget the all time favorite; One of these days Alice, ONE OF THESE DAYS, BAM right in the kisser! Jackie Gleason
-
LOL my favorite jackie Gleason line is also from Smokey and the Bandit.
" Give me a Diablo sandwich , and a Dr Pepper, and make it fast cause I'm in a Got Damn hurry!"
-
Originally posted by CurtissP-6EHawk
Lets dont forget the all time favorite; One of these days Alice, ONE OF THESE DAYS, BAM right in the kisser! Jackie Gleason
You huckleberry score potato, It is... "One of these days Alice, BAM, to the MOON!" Not "...right in the kisser" That's what he told Norton. :D
-
ah, that one too!!
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
Thank god my family was busy homesteading during the civil war. No time to go down there and teach the southerners about state rights/civil rights.
The Civil war was NOT about slavery, it was 100% about the economy, the northerners were actuelly the ones that were not treating the south right, they kept them so poor they had no choice but to use slaves, and many southern slave owners were infact very nice to their slaves, and actuelly worked for their owners after they were released since they had no other jobs better. Of course there were just as many people who did misstreat the slaves unfortunitly, but slavery would have been outlawed in the south had it won or not.
The real descrimination came after the war, when the north came in and raised all the blacks up to higher positions and not the whites(though they had good intentions), the friend of my enemy is my enemy is the way the whites looked at it, and the north was still seen as the enemy.
thats what lead to the real descrimination of blacks in the south! and I've been up north too, and heard many people talking much worse about them than that!
The north were the ones that brought the whole Idea of the war being about slavery, that was not the case!
The french canadians (cajuns) have a looong history of being descriminated against, noone wanted them, they were perhaps just as bad off if not worse than the slaves of that time, french was even banned from schools when my grandfather was growing up, if you even spoke french in school you would be very badly punished! so the blacks and cajuns in louisianna got allong pretty well, they were both descriminated against.
The north never recognized the south, they never attempted to rebuild it after the war, they just let it starve in poverty.
Don't get me wrong, I think its good our country stayed as one and the north won, but for the north to just let the south die in poverty and do every thing possible they could to erase the history of the confederate states of america, is not right!
"History is written by the winners"
Symbols/flags do not offend me, I don't really see why they should offend anyone.
But if its illigal in germany to have a swatsica in a game (wich imo is kinda stupid..) I guess its best left out.
-
For a good treatise on why the war happened I would suggest Tocquevilles 1832 'Democracy in America". Obviously this predates the war, but it becomes obvious rapidly why it was brewing.
The war started when the south saw that they were not going to maintain a 'half slave nation' by the introduction of new slave free states, the growing population and economy of the north, and the threat of dropping tarriffs on foreign cotton.
If you dont want to suffer through the book mentioned above (which I would suggest anyone attempt, because it is incredible), there is a very well written peice on Calhoun found here
http://militaryhistory.about.com/library/prm/blhestartedthecivilwar1.htm
Which really does a nice job. Here is a snipit from page 2.
By Ethan S. Rafuse for Civil War Times Illustrated Magazine
Calhoun hoped to use his accomplishments as war secretary as a springboard to the presidency. When that dream fell through, however, Calhoun had no problem accepting the vice presidency under staunch federalist John Quincy Adams in 1824. Adams was glad to have Calhoun in his administration, having held him in high esteem since their days together in Monroe’s cabinet. Adams was particularly impressed by Calhoun’s "ardent patriotism," believing Calhoun was "above all sectional and factious prejudices more than any other statesman of the Union with whom I have ever acted." This was an image Calhoun cultivated during the 1824 election campaign.
It turned out that Calhoun was late in publicly promoting his commitment to federalism. By this time, Southerners were increasingly taking an anti-federal-government stance. In the North, industry and the economy it created grew in influence and power every day. Meanwhile, the rapidly expanding cultivation of cotton and other cash crops was committing the South to an agrarian economy and culture, which depended on slavery. The country was dividing into two increasingly self-conscious sections with different priorities. And as the issue of slavery came to the fore in American politics, the South found itself on the defensive. Because of the South’s investment in large-scale agriculture, any attack on slavery was an attack on the Southern economy itself.
The issue came to a head in 1819 with the debate over whether to allow the Missouri Territory to become a state. The result was the historic Missouri Compromise of 1820, which permitted the territory to enter the Union as a slave state while Maine entered as a free state, maintaining the balance between free and slave states at 12 each. The compromise also prohibited slavery in the remainder of the Louisiana Purchase north of Missouri’s southern border.
On the surface, the Missouri Compromise seemed to heal the sectional breach that slavery had created. But the fact that the debate had divided along sectional lines awakened the South to the reality that it was a distinct section—a section that was apparently inevitably destined to be a minority in the Union, while the Northern states enjoyed increasing political representation and power born of rapid population growth.
In the 1820s, Southerners grew increasingly anxious about the North controlling the federal government and about how that situation threatened the South and its distinctive institutions. They looked to leaders who would limit federal power. Cal-houn unexpectedly found himself the target of sharp criticism from leading South Carolina figures, including Thomas Cooper, the president of the state college. In 1824, Cooper published a widely circulated pamphlet attacking Calhoun. "He spends the money of the South to buy up influence in the North," Cooper grumbled.
If Calhoun wanted to maintain his status as a Southern leader and reach his political goals, he could not ignore the changing political landscape. He recognized it would be a mistake to maintain his association with Adams, whose ideas to expand the use of federal power to promote national economic, intellectual, and cultural development drew a cold reception in South Carolina. So when Andrew Jackson began preparing to challenge Adams in the 1828 presidential election, Calhoun switched sides. The Democrats rewarded Calhoun by making him their candidate for vice president, and the ticket won.
That same year, Congress passed a highly protective tariff that Southerners bitterly opposed, viewing the measure as sacrificing Southern agrarian interests to benefit Northern industry. The protest against the so-called Tariff of Abominations grew particularly strong in South Carolina, and in response to a request from the state legislature, Calhoun secretly wrote an essay titled "South Carolina Exposition and Protest." In it, he asserted that states had a constitutional right to nullify any federal government actions they considered unconstitutional. Calhoun had become the chosen mouthpiece for Southern rights. Confirmation of his new status came when Congress adopted another high tariff in 1832 and South Carolina legislators used the principles Calhoun had voiced in his "Exposition and Protest" to declare the tariff "null and void."
-
and from page 5...
During the 1830s and 1840s, the growth of the Northern abolition movement and attempts by Northern politicians to push the federal government to act against slavery confirmed for Calhoun that the North intended to exercise its power as a majority to the detriment of Southern interests. He responded to these attacks with the argument that the Constitution gave Congress no regula-tory power over slavery. To Northern politicians who dismissed this argument and continued to push antislavery measures through Congress, he warned that the South "cannot remain here in an endless struggle in defense of our character, our property, and institutions." He said that if abolitionist agitation did not end, "we must become, finally, two peoples.... Abolition and the Union cannot co-exist." Even compromise was not possible, in his opinion.
As the antislavery movement continued to build up steam, Calhoun continually found himself having to defend slavery on moral, ethical, and political grounds. By the 1830s it had already become unsatisfactory for Southern politicians to apologize for slavery and excuse it as a necessary evil; to do so would have been to admit that slavery was morally wrong. So a major shift in the Southern defense of slavery occurred, one that Calhoun had a large role in bringing about.
Calhoun endorsed slavery as "a good—a great good," based on his belief in the inequality inherent in the human race. Calhoun believed that people were motivated primarily by self-interest and that competition among them was a positive expression of human nature. The results of this competition were displayed for all to see in the social order: those with the greatest talent and ability rose to the top, and the rest fell into place beneath them.
The concepts of liberty and equality, idealized during the Revolutionary period, were potentially destructive to this social order, Calhoun believed. With the stratification of society, those at the top were recognized as authority figures and respected for their proven wisdom and ability. If the revolutionary ideal of equality were taken too far, the authority of the elite would not be accepted. Without this authority, Calhoun argued, society would break down and the liberty of all men would be threatened. In his manifesto A Disquisition on Government, he asserted that liberty was not a universal right but should be "reserved for the intelligent, the patriotic, the virtuous and deserving."
Calhoun believed the liberty Southerners enjoyed depended on slavery. Contrary to the writings of those who unabashedly celebrated the North’s free labor system, antebellum Southern society, though definitely stratified, was highly fluid. Fortunes could be and were made in a single generation. Agriculture, specifically cotton, was what made that society so mobile. Cotton was a labor-intensive crop, and as a farmer acquired greater cotton wealth, he required a greater number of field hands to work his expanding fields. So the ownership of slaves became a measure of status and upward mobility. To destroy slavery, according to Calhoun, would be to destroy a powerful symbol of what motivated the Southern man to improve himself.
In the end, Calhoun supported the institution of slavery for many reasons, but at the bottom of all his argument was this: he believed the African race was inferior. He shared the prevailing prejudices of the day—held in both the North and South—that black people were mentally, physically, and morally inferior to whites. This inferiority necessitated that they be slaves.
"There is no instance of any civilized colored race of any shade being found equal to the establishment and maintenance of free government," Calhoun argued. He pointed to the impoverished living conditions of Northern free blacks as proof that black people lacked the ability to exercise their freedom positively.
In Calhoun’s view, slavery benefited black people. "Never before has the black race...from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually," he asserted in Congress. "It came to us in a low, degraded, and savage condition, and in the course of a few generations it has grown up under the fostering care of our institutions."
-
and we might as well just finish it....
Slavery provided black people with a quality of existence Calhoun believed they were incapable of obtaining for themselves. To his mind, despite all the progress the race had supposedly made in America, to free the slaves and place them in situations where they would have to compete with white people on an equal basis would only result in catastrophe. The freed slave’s inherent inferiority would place him at such a disadvantage that he would not be able to achieve the quality of life he enjoyed as a slave, Calhoun insisted.
Calhoun noted that slave-owners provided for their slaves from birth to infirmity. He urged critics of slavery to "look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poor house" in Europe and the North. In support of his argument, he cited census figures indicating that free blacks were much more likely to suffer mental or physical disabilities than were slaves.
In the long run, Calhoun believed, regardless of what happened with slavery, the progress of civilization would in time doom the inferior African race to extinction. Until that time, he asserted, slavery at least gave black people security and made them useful.
When confronted with the argument that slavery was an exploitative labor system, Calhoun replied that in every civilization a propertied class emerged and exploited the labor of the others. This enabled the master class to pursue intellectual and cultural endeavors that advanced the progress of civilization. "Slavery is indispensable to a republican government," he proclaimed.
In the South it was inevitable, Calhoun argued, that the African race would be the exploited class. The South merely institutionalized this into a system that benefited both master and servant. The master got his labor and the slave received a standard of living far above what he could achieve on his own.
While Calhoun was defending slavery, he extended his argument to indict the North and industrial capitalism. He asserted that the slave system was actually superior to the "wage slavery" of the North. He believed that slavery, by intertwining the economic interests of master and slave, eliminated the unavoidable conflict that existed between labor and capital under the wage system. The amount of money a master invested in his slaves made it economically unfeasible to mistreat them or ignore their working and living conditions. In the North, the free laborer was as much a slave to his employer as was the black man in the South, Calhoun argued, but he lacked the protection the black slave enjoyed from a paternalistic master.
With or without Calhoun, the Southern institution of slavery would have disappeared, but it will always remain a black mark on the history of the United States and on Calhoun’s reputation. Still, Calhoun deserves a prominent place in the history of American political thought—if only for this irony: while he fought to protect the Southern minority’s rights and interests from the Northern majority, he felt free to subordinate the rights of the African American minority to the interests of the South’s white majority.
After Calhoun’s death on March 31, 1850, one of his greatest foes, U.S. Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri, sternly rebuked an associate who suggested that he honor Calhoun with a eulogy in Congress. "He is not dead, sir—he is not dead," remarked Benton, a staunch Unionist. "There may be no vitality in his body, but there is in his doctrines." A decade later, a bloody civil war would prove Benton was right.
-
Thats interesting,
However not all of the southerners were like Calhoun, and not all northerners were as they say.
I have'nt studied that much on civil war, I'm much more into anceint history stuff and medieval, but I've seen/heard from other historians enough that I believe the war was about the econemy, how much the north misstreated the south, of course you will not hear that in the history books as I stated above "History is written by the winners." Which sometimes makes the truth on things like this hard to find..
My father spoke with an old lady a while who actuelly knew someone from the civil war, I think it was my (I forget how many greats) grandfather who was in the civil war or his wife I can't remember which one!
I doubt I worded all that right and prolly have 20 typos I'm kinda half asleep right now :)
-
You are right about who writes history, but that is why I choose the references I did. Cal was dead 12 years before the war started, and Tocqueville published his massive volume (really a good read, and I do suggest anyone grab it) 30 years before. If you read tocqueville, or some of the other lit from that time you get a better idea of the attitudes that may have led to the war.
Separating slaves and the economy of pre-war, or even after-war, south is not realistic. This was not a matter of moonshiners in the appalacia refusing to pay a tax, this is government at the state level (national level at this time in american history) deciding to leave the union. Now, the reasons they may use to convince the poor ignorant masses to follow them (remember, the south is very very about aristocracy and land ownership at this time in history) are a different story. If I wanted you to attack canada, or mexico, I am sure I could find something that you would find threatening. Look at the irish in new york, the latinos in america now, or the jews in germany. It is not difficult to convince large numbers of people that it is in there best interest to keep somebody down.
-
Was the war of the sixties fought over the issue of slavery?
In a letter to Mr. Stephens from Abraham Lincoln dated December 22, 1860, just two days after South Carolina left the Union:
"Do the people of the south really entertain fears that the Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears."
One year later, the following March, Lincoln became president.
Quote from his inaugural address:
"I declare that I have no intention, directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in the states where it exists."
In 1862 when the war had been active for more than a year, Republican senators urged him to take action to free the slaves. He answered:
"Gentleman, I cant do it...but I'll tell you what I can do; I can resign in favor of Mr. Hamlin. Perhaps Mr. Hamlin could do it."
Was Mr. Lincoln, then, in favor of slavery? No, he was not. He believed it to be wrong, as did many Southerners, however, Mr.Lincoln was opposed to allowing it to expand to the new states; but had no right to interfere where it already existed.
Can you be a Racist but be against slavery?
Mr. Lincoln's, "Words of Wisdom", in a meeting (Aug 14, 1862) with a group of free Negroes.
".....but even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race....not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours"
This meeting was held five months before the Emancipation Proclamation (Jan 1, 1863).
....also Mr.Lincoln's Father-in-law was a slave holder. Mrs. Lincoln's share of her father's estate was partly derived from the proceeds of the sale of slaves!
Why did it seem Mr. Lincoln was changing his mind about the slavery issue?
Dates to Remember;
Dec. 22, 1860
In 1862 when the war had been active for more than a year.
Aug 14, 1862
Jan 1, 1863
July 1, 2, 3 and 4, 1863
Now lets talk about the controversy itself.
Who started it and why! (not a question)
1. Rise of Industrialism
2. Tariffs
3. Slavery
4. Independence/Power
5. Secession
Rise of Industrialism
Slavery was not band in the north. It was basically phased out. Industry was on the rise and the north had the population to work the factories. Many of the slaves no longer needed were SOLD to the south, not just freed!!
In the south, agriculture was on the rise and rose to 80% while the north's declined from 70% to 40%. The south's biggest buyer was England itself!!!!! The south did not have the population it needed to meet the demands so slavery was an alternative, so to speak.
Tariffs
The north needed additional help to become independent from the industries of England. These tariffs were passed to discourage buying from overseas. America could not produce products as cheep as England and other countries. (seems still true today huh?) However, these tariffs would help the north, but it hindered the south. This was not a punishment from the north but a bittersweet need to continue to grow as a nation for the north as well as the western states.
Slavery
As already stated above, slavery was a must for the south to survive in its state of not being very populated. Slaves at one point made up nearly 50% of the South's population. The plantations were the biggest use for the slaves but other demanded agriculture's as well as tobacco were needed to supply the northern and western states, as well as their own states and overseas.
Independence/Power
The northern states needed the south's resources. The south however, was independent and did not really need any of the industries from the north. This led to the disputes of economics(don't forget Lincoln's letters in the beginning of this post) between the north and the south.
The north, or Union, simply wanted, or decided it wanted, to control all the states by its government basically for its own interests at the expense of the south. You know, they wanted the cake but they wanted to eat it too!
Secession
Smothered with many problems including the issues here, the south decided to exercise it's States' Right to secede.
Lets go back to some more of Mr.Lincoln's Quotes:
On the floor of Congress in 1847, Lincoln said;
"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. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world"
This was just thirteen years before the south was to secede! Did they forget their words? I guess we can relate these words with the treaties with the American Indians huh? The government does not lie, it just changes its' mind a lot?
I tell ya, if that ain't ballsy enough for ya, how about this quote from Senator Pickering from Massachusetts:
"I rather anticipate a new Confederacy exempt from the south......There will be separation.....The British provinces (of Canada), even with the consent of Great Britain, will become members of the Northern Confederacy." There ya have it...a " Northern Confederacy"
Did you know that New England threatened to secede three times? First in 1803, again in 1814, and still again in 1845!
*********************continued***********************
-
The South simply just followed and example of the right to secede, but actually acted out that right.
Can anyone see the resemblance to George Washington and the War of Independence of 1776? The heavy burden of the Stamp Act Tax and the harsh unfairness of a sectional tariff, the original Thirteen States seceded from Great Britain.
In Washington's time, talk of American Independence was treason, In Lee's time, talk of the South's Independence was considered sedition!
INTERMISSION YOU DWEEB TARDS!! :-) forgot you were reading an Aces High UBB post didn't ya?
Lets move on to the War itself and what started it.
Who started it?
This gets tricky but here we go! Got your joystick calibrated?
Who Fired The First Shot?
After South Carolina exercised it's right to secede, Fort Sumter at Charleston was manned by a Union garrison. The state demanded possession of the fort and offered to pay for it. The Secretary of State of the United States solemnly promised that the garrison would be removed, however, his government failed to give the order...hmmm wonder why! The Carolinians could have taken the fort by force but resisted the temptation and gave warning that no reinforcements would be tolerated.
So why did the government fail to give the order to abandon the fort? Could it be because..............Under the pretext that he (Lincoln) was sending "provisions" to the garrison, which at that very moment was being supplied by South Carolina with fresh meat, groceries, and vegetables, Lincoln assembled a fleet of war vessels carrying supplies, guns and ammunition, and ordered it to Charleston.
So who started the war? Lincoln did by ordering...well here it is........On April 4, 1861, when his reinforcement squadron was ready to sail, Lincoln drafted a "confidential letter" for Simon Carmeron to send to Anderson (Union Commander of Fort Sumter). It notified the Commander that "the expedition will go forward." This referred to the reinforcing fleet of war vessels. On April 7th, Anderson replied in disbelief stating ".....,though I frankly say that my heart is not in the war which I see is thus to be commenced"
Mr. Lincoln was not stupid, he knew the Carolinians would fire the first shot to prevent the resupply (WAR) ships from reaching their destination. With Mr.Lincoln now having the support of the Northerns for the South so called, Firing the First shots on the Flag, Lincoln had his war!
The War
I must elect to cut this really short so I will do my best.
The South ruled the war for two years pushing the Union solders back to Gettysburg.
Here is were you need to reread my opening quotes from Lincoln.
The war has been going on for two years and Lincoln's Army has been pushed, so to speak, all the way to Gettysburg Pennsylvania. Lincoln during this time, he can see that the south is strong. He needs a new, or an additional war plan so he comes up with the Emancipation Proclamation, after meeting with freed Negroes five months before the passing of the Proclamation, Lincoln is getting his plan together. This is were he starts using slavery as a "war plan" against the south. He still has not changed his mind on how he feels about the black race. Now the blacks will be used as a moral weapon to fuel a war spirit fire in the north.
The Emancipation Proclamation
Please study it for yourself!
It says in so many words that it is a "fit and necessary war measure for surppressing said rebellion." Meaning that Lincoln designed it to make it easier to subjugate the South. It undertook to free the slaves only in States and "parts of States" which were then in possession of the Confederate Government. Now you have to ask yourself, why would Lincoln try to pass some sort of law to free slaves that are now governed by the Confederate Government, not the Union Government? How can he/they free something that they no longer/ever did have control over? That is the beauty of the scam. Lincoln along with the already abuse from the "abolitionist with such items as "Uncle Tom's Cabin, hopefully fueled the slaves as well as it fired a war spirit in the north. So why didn't Lincoln include the lands that the Union Armies regained control? Their slaves were not effected, why? Thirteen parishes in Louisiana, West Virginia, and seven named counties in Virginia. Why did he exclude the Slave issue in these areas? He already regained Power and Control. Slaves were still slaves in these areas and he did not care. Lincoln had hoped that the proclamation would fuel the slaves, in the Confederate Controlled Sates only, into rebelling against their owners.
The facts are that Lincoln didn't end slavery, as so stated by the modern day news papers, with the Emancipation Proclamation. It was a war measure to create a servile insurrection through the South to force the Confederate soldiers to return home to protect their families.
So what happened?
These insurrections never came, so Lincoln had to continue the war for about another two years after his January 1, 1863 scam failed by being forced to raise another 1,000,000 foreign northern soldiers from Nevada's State ship efforts.
The official end to slavery didn't come until the "Reconstruction States" were forced to accept the 13th Amendment.
Thus along with the Union controlled Thirteen parishes in Louisiana, West Virginia, and seven named counties in Virginia were slavery was controlled by Lincoln himself...........;
The London (England) Spectator reported on Lincoln's "Emancipation" the Union government liberates the enemy's slaves as it would the enemy's cattle, simply to weaken them in conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.
Thus we conclude that slavery was not the reason for the war, power was the reason, but only a cheep weapon by Lincoln, to try and end the war sooner than it did.
-
As long as we are tossing propaganda, most people know that republicans were not about to nominate someone that was anti slavery. Lincoln came very very late to the slavery issue. That does not mean anything relating to how the war started. Lincoln did not start the war, the south did. The reason the south 'fought' the war was over issues that stirred the soul.
Few of the issues you mention stir the soul. Do you really think people would still be so heated about it otherwise? I am tired, but I will read your post more closely tomorrow morning and get back to you with more elitist northern propaganda.
-
ergRTC do what you want.
nothing has changed but Lincolns plan in 1863. The black race finally arose in the 1950s-60s nearly 100 years after after his plan initialy failed.
The black race is an "equal human" in my book. I am not aginst slavery (from a religiuos aspect) but I do not agree with it, there is a difference.
Lets face it bud propaganda is propaganda, and Lincoln used it well then just as we can spit it uselessly back and forth at each other now.
Also the United States can be a big lier as I stated in my post. The government will lie to make you believe what they want you to believe. When they want something, as they did the Indians' land, they will stoop low to get it. They did this with the Black race (slaves) and they did it to the Nevadaians just to get 1,000,000 more troops.
I am not mad because the south lost the war, frankly I think we are all better off the South lost, however, this doenst make what they, the Northern Government, did right. They lied to the American Indians, they lied to the Conferderate States of America, they lied to the Black Race (used them then left them "out in the rain" after the war), and even lied to the Northerner's. They lied about WWII and the other wars, and they are liing now about the Gulf Region.
I am proud to be an American and a part of the Northern conection with these United States. I am proud of the Black race fighting for equal rights and I sure as hell am proud of my forefathers for fighting for their Independance.
In Memory of My Great Great Grandfather;
Albert Holman Auston
Pvt. Co. E 15th Regt. Ala Inf.
Conferderate States Army
Captured: Gettysburg, July 1, 1863
Released: June 14, 1865
Died: June 18, 1916
Buried: Daleville, Ala
Sons of Confederate Veterans
"Haritage of Honor"
-
Salute Hawk, my mother has found that we had in lour family the famous brother against brother, cousin against cousin during the civil war, 3 of them for the south 4 for the north, 2 died 1 north and 1 south and 1 captured, a northerner held at Andersonville till the end of the war. They were in different armies and in different areas but just the thought of meeting a relative on the battlfield is unamaginable, it was a terrible time for all and shows the fortitude and will of Americans North and South, and in my opinion the best fighting men in the world!
-
The black race is an "equal human" in my book. I am not aginst slavery (from a religiuos aspect) but I do not agree with it, there is a difference.
what on earth does that mean?
-
Hawk, I have read through your well written post, but I am afraid you are ignoring one important thing that most people trying to defend the south fail to address.
Lincoln as I stated earlier could have cared less about slavery in the south, until he realized what a help it would be in the fight. His attitudes are irrelevant, as the 'war' started long before his election.
The 'govmnt' the south was fighting was their own. The way the founding fathers decided to set up our form of a republic basically means we are at the mercy of the majority. This power of the majority is bounded by the constitution and the bill of rights. The judicial branch is in charge of helping people defend those constitutional rights from an overzealous majority.
What the south did was to say, just as shane and lasz love to say "I want to play my way, fly the plane I want, and when I want, and you can go diddly yourself". This is fine for children on a playground, but as for a young nation, that is not the way to resolve issues. The fact that they did not use the appropriate channels (their own legit gov.) only weakens their cause.
For a modern example. Minnesota was the only state in the union to not vote for reagen in the 84 election. We all hated his politics, his brainless approach to economics, and his pandering to the rich. The rest of the nation thought reagan was best thing since freeze dried sanka. Should we have left the union? When the federal government started drafting people for vietnam, why didnt good liberal states like minnesota or new york secede? When the government stopped helping farmers in the midwest under the republicans 'sink or swim' farm bill, why didnt we secede? Cause that 'govment' is ours. We elected it.
They elected it too, and the attitude that they represent is abhorrent. If you had friends that behaved like that, they wouldnt be your friends for long. Its called playing by the rules until you dont want to. Particularly interesting considering virginians wrote most of those rules.
-
"The 'govmnt' the south was fighting was their own. The way the founding fathers decided to set up our form of a republic basically means we are at the mercy of the majority. This power of the majority is bounded by the constitution and the bill of rights. The judicial branch is in charge of helping people defend those constitutional rights from an overzealous majority.
What the south did was to say, just as shane and lasz love to say "I want to play my way, fly the plane I want, and when I want, and you can go diddly yourself". This is fine for children on a playground, but as for a young nation, that is not the way to resolve issues. The fact that they did not use the appropriate channels (their own legit gov.) only weakens their cause.
"
"Can anyone see the resemblance to George Washington and the War of Independence of 1776? The heavy burden of the Stamp Act Tax and the harsh unfairness of a sectional tariff, the original Thirteen States seceded from Great Britain. "
Hmmmm... Quit a coincidence no? :D
The south was as Hawk stated, only doing as the union had done before them, and it was the union, not playing by the rules.
So if the majority says "Sorry you must suffer so I can prosper" then it is only understandable to obey?
PS. My I forget how many greats grandfather was in the war, He snuck in at I think about 15-16, was in Artillery (a seargent I think) Cavalery and Infantry, I he survived the war but was captured I think.
-
Yes but the difference is the king was not elected by the states, and the governers of the states were assigned by the king. Throwing off a dictatorship is not anywhere near throwing off a demcratically elected government just because you dont agree with 3/4 of your fellow americans believe.
-
ergRTC
The 'govmnt' the south was fighting was their own. The way the founding fathers decided to set up our form of a republic basically means we are at the mercy of the majority. This power of the majority is bounded by the constitution and the bill of rights. The judicial branch is in charge of helping people defend those constitutional rights from an overzealous majority.
(ALL of the "Independent" States reserved the right to leave the Union (UNLIKE TODAY!!). Many of the states had it clearly written in their state concessions. For example:
New York voted to accept the constitution giving certain powers to Congress, but it added: "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness."
Also, Virginia in its acceptance said: "The powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
Feeling injured and oppressed, Virginia and the other seceding States "resumed" those powers in 1861.
In fact New England, was the first State to seriously consider seceding (twice because they did not want certain states to be added to the Union). They were planning to form a Northern Confederacy with the British Provinces of Canada.
So! When at last the South acted, it followed an example suggested by New England in 1803, 1814 and 1845.
Was Secession Treason?
On the floor of Congress in 1847, Lincoln said;
"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. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world"
Food for Thought?
The American Revolution was a secession of the Thirteen States from Great Britain. At the end of the American Revolution England made peace with thirteen "Independent" States, not with the "Confederation" (Union Government).
If the Southern States had succeded in forming their own Southern Confederate government, would it have been called the Civil War, OR would the history books of today have noted any difference between the War of Independence of 1776 and the "War of Independence of 1861"?
-
I still see a very large difference. The gov. in washington was elected by these people. If they had issues, they should have followed the laws they said they would follow, not give up. A few northern states refused to send troops to battle the british in the war of 1812 in a fit of 'states rights', but they did not secede. If I remember correctly, the supreme court upheld their decision not to send troops at the presidents asking.
I believe the problem lies in foresight. Many of the southerners pushing for seccesion were deathly afraid of losing reps. in the fed gov. because of the suspected loss of the 3/4 a man (or whatever the percentage was) they were getting for the slaves. They could not see a future for themselves without maintaining the status quo. Just as the north saw that losing bits and pieces of the union at some passing fancy is not going to strengthen the USA either (at that time, in hind sight.....).
Seccession was instigated by a group of people in a position that could not be maintained by the direction the country was taking. Their only choice was to leave or dissappear. They left, and I guess that gave them a few more decades of abusing share croppers to maintain their positions in society. After they kicked out the carpet bagger governments of course (one governer of mississipi came from my home town, hehe).
-
ergRTC
....they should have followed the laws they said they would follow.....
What are you refering to when you use the term "Law"?
What "Laws" did the Southern government break?
Dont forget the "America" of the 1700s and 1800s was far different from the "America" of today.
Henry Cabot Lodge, a New Englander held the view that as of the date of the adoption of the Constitution, it was universally regarded as an experiment, entered upon by the States, from which any State "had the right peaceably to withdraw".
The Union government was a loose frame work, the "beginnings" of what would become over a couple hundred years what we know as our modern democracy. You can't use the more rigid and established democracy of today to judge the dynamics of that time period.
-
You are absolutely right. The union was a much different place then. But.... Everyone, by 1850 understood the ramifications of 'leaving' the union. Nationalism was rising, the state was still a very powerful part of the government, but the USA as a group was becoming a part of peoples lives. Just as the 'sawth' was instantly brotherly after seccesion.
States had fought hard against other states leaving the union. Even when it was the north doing it. I dont think this agreement of the union was as lose as you imagine at this point in america. The north and the republicans were bending over backwards to appease the south at the federal level directly before the war, just to keep the congress happy.
Was the south represented poorly in congress? Did they not have a say in the laws being passed? Were not the states evenly divided at that point between slave and no slave? Yes, but the rich politicians saw that this situation would not continue, no matter what they did. Even the vice president of the confederacy thought it was a bad idea to secede when the democrats controlled congress. They could have done it legally.
Here is a bit about the confederate vp from fordham
Alexander H. Stephens (1812-1883), although originally opposed to secession, was elected vice-president of the Confederacy. After the war he returned to political service in Georgia and in the House of Representatives. He was elected governor of Georgia in 1882 and died in office.
We are in the midst of one of the greatest epochs in our history. The last ninety days will mark one of the most memorable eras in the history of modern civilization.
... we are passing through one of the greatest revolutions in the annals of the world-seven States have, within the last three months, thrown off an old Government and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood. [Applause.] This new Constitution, or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited.
In reference to it, I make this first general remark: It amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and privileges. All the great principles of Magna Chartal are retained in it. No citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers, under the laws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old Constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old Constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated.... So, taking the whole new Constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment, that it is decidedly better than the old. [Applause.] Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged in ....
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: 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. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. 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. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind; from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is, forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics: their conclusions are right if their premises are. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man.... I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the Northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery; that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle-a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of man. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds we should succeed, and that he and his associates in their crusade against our institutions would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as well as in physics and mechanics, I admitted, but told him it was he and those acting with him who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.
As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are, and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo-it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged.
-
May we not therefore look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first Government ever instituted upon principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many Governments have been founded upon the principles of certain classes; but the classes thus enslaved, were of the same race, and in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. The negro by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, [note: A reference to Genesis, 9:20-27, which was used as a justification for slavery] is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite-then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is the best, not only for the superior but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances or to question them. For His own purposes He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another in glory."
The great objects of humanity are best attained, when conformed to his laws and degrees [sic], in the formation of Governments as well as in all things else. Our Confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief stone of the corner" in our new edifice.
--------------------------
Now, if that doesnt smack you of how the south got riled up into this war I dont know what would.
1/20 fiscal policy (which he should have been able to control with control of congress).
19/20 beat the black guy.
Who do you think he was speaking to? Why do you think the southerners fought?
When did this attitude change? Has it for many? Does race bating like this still work? Strom made some great remarks back in 1948 along the lines of "They will make you go to church with them". I seriously dont think the south fought the civil war over tariffs. I seriously dont think 'southerners' in general would have left the union over fiscal policy. Do you?
-
Oy Vey! This thread still going? :D
-
I'll bet erg goes to Civil War battle re-enactments and heckels the Confederates.
Intresting posts Hawk and erg, good stuff. I have one question for you erg. Where and when did you run into these "sawtherners" that are still mad about the war and are plotting the remtach? I've been in the south 23 of my 29 years and have never been involved in, or heard a conversation about getting some payback on the damn yankees. Never. So please describe the instance(s) in which you have been violated by these rouge rebels.
-
Man, This is getting really old having to read this over and over again, North vs South bollocks. I don't really give a damn about who won the war whatever but, I agree with slash about always trying your damndest to turn everthing into a north vs south thing. Please don't you think its time to burry the hatchet My 2 cents.
Estes
-
if only you guys spent as much time reading Shaw and/or learning how to use ACM as you do in posting all this junk.
:D
-
Yeah I could annoy people in completely new ways shane!
I dont understand hangmans and slashes comment about sawtherners though. I have not met a full blooded white southerner that did feel that an affront to the confederacy was worse than beating up on the US. I guess you two can widen my perspective.
Here is a test for you....
1. Who is strom thrumond?
2. Who is Jesse Helms?
3. Why do they keep getting elected?
4. Which would get you killed faster:
Standing near the capitol of Alabama and burning the us flag?
Standing near the capitol of Alabama and burning the confederate flag?
I have spent some time in richmond (thats what I call 'the deep sawth' up north), and I hang out with a reasonable number of regular joe virginians here, as well as deal with them on a regular bases. I am not daft, and do not wear blinders to these things. Perhaps since I was raised in a liberal mixed race 'northern' community I see these things more easily, as they stand out to me.
My last great encounter was at the liqour store across from Fort Myer.
50 yr old guy behind the counter I will refer to as 'jeb'
jeb: So I see your from DC (looking at my liscense)
Dan: Yep.
jeb: Great city, used to live there years and years ago. Loved the trolley cars. Course I moved out in the 70s.
Dan: Really? I wish they still had the trolley. Why did you move?
jeb: Golly-geened colored folk moved in and ruined the place. No way in hell I was gonna raise my kids next to them!
Dan: Thanks... Thats too bad... bye now.
-
ergRTC these guys may be right about letting this go, however, I have enjoyed reading your replys. I will reread you last few post again and I may reply to them in closing.
Untill then
-
Yeah, we have beaten this dusty skeleton of a horse for a few days now. We should be looking for a new thread to hijack...
Course, you guys think this is bad, dude you gotta read the toejam that has been going on in the general discussion. Talk about lame. That discussion is only a hair better than reading channel 1 in the ma during prime time. Even HTC himself came in and opened a can of woop bellybutton on those losers. :D
-
Erg & Hawk, Damn! You two need to run for Congress! You would fit right in! You guys just need to meet on the Courthouse lawn at high noon and leg wrestle to the death. Hijacker, call me and we will arrange it. Got details to arrange like seconds, weapons and who will bring the Beer and BBQ. :D
Naso- about "American Bashing" - at least our chicks shave their pitts! :D
Shane - Get knotted! ;)
Man! This thread sure took some wild turns didn't it! Went from Swastikas on German planes, to the Osbournes, to trailer trash, Geography lesson, Jackie Gleason, to a refight of the Civil War! Damn I am tired from reading this post! LOL!
-
been through the desert on a horse with no name....
-
lol what a thread this is...
Were this any other forum I visit then AH BB it'd have been locked or moved to offtopic board at least a loooonnngggg time ago.
I place $0.10 on hawk!
;)
-
FYI from now on keep your posts light hearted. I was "red flagged" by HT on another post for mildly joking with Hang.
-
Yeah, wow I just saw that. I guess shane wont be posting anymore!
-
me either:D
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
Yeah, wow I just saw that. I guess shane wont be posting anymore!
dream on! :)
my posts very rarely delve into the tawdry side - and none lately.
oh yeah....
:D
-
Finally you send us a self portrait shane. ;P Did you see the thread we are referring to? Here is the link.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=723413#post723413
Hitechs repsonse to slash up above.
and yes, lately your posts have been relatively civil. .... pretty much.
-
ergRTC I told ya I would read your later posts and I might reply in closing. Well, I decided to reply in closing just to sum up this/my topic...I hope.
The original topic was about the German svastika. This was a symble of hate which offends many people, including myself if displayed as such. This lead to my reply about the Confederate battle flag and why it also offends people. The flag did not represent slavery/hate. The reason it is viewed as hate now is stated below in relation to the hate groups that adopted it. This relates to the German svastika only that it involves hate groups.
"It is necessary to disclaim any connection of the Confederate flags to neo-nazis, red-necks, skin-heads, "White Supremacists" and the like. These groups have adopted these flags and desecrated them by their acts. They have no right to use these flags - they are flags of honor, designed by the Confederacy as a banner representing state's rights and still revered by the South. The "South" denies any relation to these hate groups and denies them the right to use the flags of the Confederacy for any purpose. The crimes committed by these groups under the stolen banner of the Confederacy only exacerbate the lies which link the seccesion to slavery interests when, from a Southerner's view, the cause was state's rights".
Misused Symbols and Scapegoats: Why I Stand Up for the Confederate Flag
Am I, a white Southerner, offended by public displays of the Confederate battle flag?
The answer, not surprisingly, is no. My ancestors – dirt-poor Alabama farmers who did not own slaves – threw themselves against an enemy that outnumbered them three to one and outgunned them a thousand to one, and fought until they were too spent to draw back the hammer of a rifle.
They fought to preserve their homes, families and the sanctity of states' rights, and did so under a slashed, red banner designed to reduce confusion in the heat and smoke of battle. It was, and still is, a symbol of courage, fidelity and sacrifice on a grand scale.
Not everyone, of course, sees it that way. Black Americans in particular claim to be offended by the flag's public display because, for them, it represents the institution of slavery. Yet in any discussion about this particular symbol, we must remember a couple of historical notes:
The Confederacy supported slavery, but so did the United States. In fact, it was the U.S. flag that flew the longest over slavery, and it was the U.S. Constitution that condoned and protected it as an institution. It was the United States that allowed slavery to flourish so that Northern businessmen could get rich.
Further, Abraham Lincoln – the Great Emancipator himself – wasn't terribly worked up over the welfare of slaves and said so a number of times. His concern was that he shouldn't preside over a divided country, and went to war to keep the South in the fold, not to eradicate slavery.
So, if we're going to start censoring symbols, there's a lot of candy-striped flags to remove from statehouses, post offices, American Legion halls, cemeteries, school houses, and office buildings.
My point is that no cultural group celebrates its lowest common denominator. Blacks in this country don't hold African heritage festivals to honor the fact that their own people gleefully sold them into slavery, or to support the genocide, sexual mutilation of women and absence of human rights that characterize Africa to this day. No, they celebrate tribal family values that helped see them through the terrible days of enslavement on a foreign shore.
Those of Japanese descent in America don't celebrate the Bataan Death March, the Rape of Nanking or the murder of tens of thousands of innocent Allied prisoners during World War II. Rather, they point to centuries of beauty and art, and hold them up as ideals of their culture.
Likewise, Oktoberfests don't exist to celebrate the slaughter of millions of Jews and an insane attempt at world domination. Instead, Germans rightly point to the influence their culture has had in music, architecture and philosophy.
And American Southerners who honor their Confederate heritage do not celebrate the institution of slavery. We pay homage to superhuman courage and heroism in the face of overwhelming odds. We list dedication, sacrifice and a willingness to die for home and hearth as the height of what is good in the human spirit.
The day we say, "You may no longer revere your cultural heritage because of your culture's sins or the misuse of its symbols," is the day we must eliminate every culture known to man.
But when you strip the issue to its core, the problem isn't the Confederate battle flag at all. The problem is that its most vitriolic opponents – specifically the NAACP, which attacks Confederate heritage at every opportunity – aren't doing anything to address real problems among blacks.
By attacking Confederate occasions and symbols, the NAACP succeeds in drawing attention to things most people normally wouldn't notice – which, I submit, is precisely what the group wants. Its aim is to deflect attention from the real dilemmas facing blacks and from the fact that the NAACP is doing nothing to solve them.
For example, 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock, which studies show puts them at a much greater risk of living in poverty. Black 17-year-olds read at the same level as white 13-year-olds. On average, black students score 200 points below whites on the SAT.
Further, 52 percent of prison inmates are black and another third are on probation or parole. Fifty-two percent of blacks say they are afraid to walk alone at night in their neighborhoods.
Where's the NAACP's outrage over these deplorable social conditions? Where are the marches and demonstrations and editorials and community programs designed to draw attention to and solve these problems? Does the NAACP really think that the elimination of Confederate events and symbols will suddenly make life a bed of buttercups for blacks in this country?
I've got a news flash for them. If all Confederate proclamations, commemorative events and emblems disappeared overnight, the material interests of blacks wouldn't improve one iota. Nor would racial stereotypes, bigotry and hatred miraculously vanish.
The enemy here isn't a historical symbol or the long-dead soldiers who fought under it, but rather the NAACP's unwillingness to come to grips with real dilemmas that need real solutions. The flag is simply a convenient scapegoat.
I must also add that the "White Supremacists" of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s severally crippled the "healing" process of our cultures and permanently scared the all but forgotten truth and honor of the Confederate Soldier.
Hawk Out!
-
man, I leave for a couple of days and miss a full blown political debate.
Glad to see ya'll off of Texas any way :D
btw slash my momma don't dip, she chaws
-
DAMN SHANE! BAD HAIR DAY! Go easy on the "Dippidy Do" there bud - little goes along way! :D
-
Hawk you are right in many ways, but just as you complain the naacp ignoring one truth for another, I think ignoring the real propaganda used by the south to get people to fight is just as wrong. To the average joe or jeb, the war was about preserving a lifestyle. The Nationalism of the south had a pretty nasty back bone.
The US had to support slavery, I think you need to remember that the sawth was part of the US, and for the south to have slaves, it had to be supported by the US. Otherwise this would really make no sense at all.
As for your numbers, I do an incredible amount of statistical work, and you should remember one thing. Assuming those terrible numbers are correct (ouch, are they just for texas or alabama or something?) you have to remember confounding variables. One major one is the reason we have affirmative action. Black people, because of historical socio economic reasons are disproptionately poor and undereductated. Compare some po whites to some po blacks, then give me those numbers again.
Also, your blast on the NAACP may be justified in your mind because you are not a racist, segragationist, or just plain bad guy, but many many many white southerners are, hell many white midwesterners are (just visit the Dakotas or rural Minnesota). The flag is the calling card. When I travel up into the Blue Ridge and west virginia (i dont even think west virginia seceded did it?), there are three kinds of houses. Houses without the con. flag., houses with the con flag, and houses with the con flag and a yard full of those horrendous little lawn jockeys. The later is the more common.
Well, I think this will be my last post, we need to wrap this up. Was fun though.
(moderator): Hawk you have 20 seconds for a final reply.... ;)
-
Originally posted by Andijg
Naso- about "American Bashing" - at least our chicks shave their pitts! :D
Chicks???
Chickens???
your chickens shave themselves?? :eek:
-
Originally posted by kanttori
I am making update and couple of new skins to FinRus CT-map and I have one question:
Can I use svastika on German plane's tails or is there some rules/laws you can not use them?
I really have NOT nazi sympathizes, but I think of them in historical meaning on skins!
You could try and use substitutes. A capital letter X or N should be close enough.
"Air Warrior" used to put the country letters in place of the swastika - A, B, or C - in black with white outline.
-
Dont change the subject Gofaster:D
-
Did hitech make you cry? :p
Dont worry about it man he has gotten alot stricter because of all the crap on the bbs..Cant say I blame him at all.
-
hehe good one slash.
You guys ever hear of the novel called Cold Mountain? Just heard a bit about it on the radio. Bout a confederate soldier, kind of a civil war take on the odyssey I think. They say its hard to digest but very good.
-
Thats what I get for hanging out with you Hang.:)
Does it have alot of pictures erg?:D
-
That would be nice, but I dont think so.
I think it is supposed to be the non-romantic gone with the wind or something.
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
You guys ever hear of the novel called Cold Mountain? Just heard a bit about it on the radio. Bout a confederate soldier, kind of a civil war take on the odyssey I think. They say its hard to digest but very good.
It's excellent. Author tries to write like Annie Proulx ("The Shipping News"), isn't quite up to that standard, but is very good, anyway.
- oldman
-
Can't Change history just because someone doesn,t like it....if its historically correct use it. Ive seen fuzzed-out models on Ebay...Ridiculous ...whats next...no mention of Hitler or Nazis in history books? or on History Channel?? after all its one of the oldest symbols used by man (Hitler picked it up from a stained glass in a church" anyway thats my .02
PropNut:) http://www.manwoman.net/swastika/swastika.html (http://www.manwoman.net/swastika/swastika.html)