Confederate flag: Washington and Lee University removing display (Lee's Chapel)

[JMS]

2) I think Frederick Douglas was right to interpret it the way he did, although I don't think his interpretation was consistent with that of southerners in his day.

There is no doubt that pro slave owners tried to declaire victories in such things as the 3/5th's clause and even the fugitive slave clause. But that doesn't change reality. 3/5th clause for slaves was put in place by the abolitionists of the continental congress to hurt slave states. It cost them votes in the house of representatives and turned their pro slavery arguments on their head. The fugitive slave clause likewise was a defeat by the south... It doesn't even deal with slavery; all refferences to slavery were stripped from the language of the clause and in the debates the southern deligates were told point blank that the ownership of men would not be put into this document... So said Fredrick Douglas.. So said James Madison.

 

Article I, Section. 2  

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].

Ignore it... I just destroyed it... this is the 3/5th clause.. it hurts slave states by costing them seats in the house and incentives freedom.

 

Article I, Section. 9, clause 1.  

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

So the US Constitution which was written by a slave holder says for 20 years until 1808, the slave trade will be taxed, but not prohibited... For twenty years?... You point to that as saying the Constitution is racist? Given slavery existed in the Union for sixty years beyond that. I think the founding fathers did pretty well to limit the moratorium only for 20 years considering this issue ultimately rose up to be the foundation of the civil war which nearly tore the country in two.

 

I come to the next, that which it is said guaranteed the continuance of the African slave trade for twenty years. I will also take that for just what my opponent alleges it to have been, although the Constitution does not warrant any such conclusion. But, to be liberal, let us suppose it did, and what follows? Why, this — that this part of the Constitution, so far as the slave trade is concerned, became a dead letter more than 50 years ago, and now binds no man’s conscience for the continuance of any slave trade whatsoever.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-constitution-of-the-united-states-is-it-pro-slavery-or-anti-slavery/

Article IV, Section. 2. 

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Discussed.. fugitive slave act, so called by southerners didn't even deal with slavery. It was stripped of all language which inferred it refereed to slaves. I dealt with indentured servitude.. bondage servants.

Again see Fredrick Douglas. and James Madison.

[JMS]

Others answered that already, but the problem with that question is that it uses failed desperation bargaining tactics circa 1865 as a means to supposedly question motivations for launching elective warfare circa 1861.  The same leaders, yes, but with a completely different mindset upon staring at a suddenly nearly-empty set of options.  The groveling decrepitude of the late stage does not invalidate the sincere and despicable aims of the early stage.

Well it does show that when push came to shove they cared more about independence from the north than they did about slavery. If they were willing to give up one too help secure the other, it's a fair conclusion.

Likewise, to secure slavery and prolong slavery all the south had to do initially from the start of the war... was to come back to the union. Lincoln said as much. For Lincoln and the Northern leaders the civil war initially was just about preserving the union, not ending slavery.

 

While your suggestions keep shifting around in the specifics of their alternate hypotheses, they consistently assert generally that the south wanted something from the war that was even bigger than slavery.  There is no well grounded evidence for that whatsoever.

Sure their is Mjah. They say it over and over and over again... they screamed it in battle, they debated it for 80 years prior to succession. We are still debating it, and even still debating it from the same geographical regions. The issue ( slavery ) has changed.. but the chant from the south in favor of states rights has not.

And if I shift, it's only because you are asking different questions.. I think I'm being very consistent.. And I don't think you disagree with my general theme...

Yes ultimately the civil war was fought over slavery, but that is not the reason which moved all the states, even most of the states to succeed, nor is it the reason the average southerner supported the war. It was however underneath all the thinly veneered alternative reasons given for the conflict..

The average Southerner didn't own slaves and couldn't be convinced to lay down his life in favor of perserving wealthy men's property.. which is why the wealthy men didn't sell the war to the south on the grounds of slavery.

 

In fact, for the region's future as seen from within, nothing was considered bigger at the time than slavery.  Had the south gotten their way in Congress -- had they secured not only the presence but also the expansion of slavery within the growing US -- it is incredibly unlikely and in fact practically impossible that any real notions of secession ever would have taken root.  There would have been absolutely no point to it.

The south lost the ability to dictate new states entering the Union would keep the equilibrium which had kept slavery secure since revolutionary days. The new states would vote and decide for themselves free or slave.. and that meant they would be free; because the immigrants settling the new states out west were from free territories, and the labor who went west for jobs didn't want to compete with slaves.. This destroyed the south's ability to remain in the union and keep their slaves.. It was only a matter of time before congress outlawed slavery and everybody knew it.. Which is why the South tried to succeed.

[twa]

This probably won't be well-received, but I'm not sure Lee is somebody we should "honor."

 

Perhaps ya don't understand honor nor Lee

[s0crates]

Perhaps ya don't understand honor nor Lee

 

First of all, notice my claim was "I'm not sure." 

 

Now as to my understanding of honor and Lee:

 

1) I'm under the impression that honor is great esteem and respect.

2) I understand that Lee was a general who:

-Refused an offer to command the army fighting to preserve the union (and abolish slavery). 

-Led the fight to preserve the institution of slavery (and abolish the union). 

-Failed to free his father's slaves as was called for in his will. 

-Opposed giving freed slaves the vote.

3) I don't think fighting for slavery and opposing the rights of men is worthy of great esteem and respect.

4) Therefore, I'm not sure Lee is somebody we should honor.

 

Please tell me where I've gone wrong in this chain of reasoning.

 

And to anticipate your likely response: I understand he was a gentleman who loved Virginia and people say that was the only reason he fought against the Union, and I know there is a mythology about him opposing slavery, but these claims do not seem enough to absolve him of the blame I lay on him above. I see why Virginians in particular sympathize with him, but I tend to think "honor" is too much.

 

I remember seeing signs on Martin Luther King Jr. Day calling it "Lee, Jackson, King Day." That type of thing is disgusting to me.

[s0crates]

There is no doubt that pro slave owners tried to declaire victories in such things as the 3/5th's clause and even the fugitive slave clause. But that doesn't change reality. 3/5th clause for slaves was put in place by the abolitionists of the continental congress to hurt slave states. It cost them votes in the house of representatives and turned their pro slavery arguments on their head. The fugitive slave clause likewise was a defeat by the south... It doesn't even deal with slavery; all refferences to slavery were stripped from the language of the clause and in the debates the southern deligates were told point blank that the ownership of men would not be put into this document... So said Fredrick Douglas.. So said James Madison.

 

Ignore it... I just destroyed it... this is the 3/5th clause.. it hurts slave states by costing them seats in the house and incentives freedom.

 

So the US Constitution which was written by a slave holder says for 20 years until 1808, the slave trade will be taxed, but not prohibited... For twenty years?... You point to that as saying the Constitution is racist? Given slavery existed in the Union for sixty years beyond that. I think the founding fathers did pretty well to limit the moratorium only for 20 years considering this issue ultimately rose up to be the foundation of the civil war which nearly tore the country in two.

 

Discussed.. fugitive slave act, so called by southerners didn't even deal with slavery. It was stripped of all language which inferred it refereed to slaves. I dealt with indentured servitude.. bondage servants.

Again see Fredrick Douglas. and James Madison.

 

What is it you are trying to persuade me to believe exactly? I cannot escape the feeling your goal is to prove you could not possibly have gotten something wrong. I agree the founders were wise in their framing of the Constitution. I have the greatest admiration for Frederick Douglass, and I think his interpretation of the Constitution as it stood in his day is nothing short of brilliant.  I just think it is silly to suggest that the original draft of the Constitution did not make concessions to slavery (which is implicitly, if not explicitly, racist).

 

Now as to your post:

 

1) The three-fifths clause was a compromise between both slavers and abolitionists. If it was totally innocuous, then why was it repealed?

 

2) The original version of the Constitution did allow for slavery until the year 1808.  Is this in dispute?

 

3) The fugitive slave act may have been "stripped of all language which inferred it refereed to slaves," but its intent and legal implications are clear. Do you disagree that it was intended to allow slavers to get runaway slaves back, and it was in fact used as the legal basis for doing so?

[Bang]

I think you dehumanize the opposition more than anybody here at ES. People have a natural tendency to do that with their enemies. 

 

Within your lifetime Bang, a vast majority of the country didn't care about that flag; and the people who did care were passionately in favor of it. The small minority of people opposed to the flag didn't matter. They were dehumanized and faceless, living in the shadows of traditions, heritage, and pride of the majority. A majority who was going to honor and celebrate and they pleased. 

 

I'll bet most people flying the flag would tell you didn't mean harm by it. Who didn't love the Dukes of Hazard? The Confederate Flag on the roof of the General Lee (in the 1980s) is akin to Bob Hope's blackface routine in the 1950s, It was on tv. Borderline acceptable at the time, unacceptable a decade later. The intention of harm is debatable, but the actions are certainly regrettable.

 

Fortunately, things have evolved for the better through education.

 

 

So I say "ask them" and I am dehumanizing my "enemies" .. I guess because i keep pointing out your continued ignorance of what they actually say.

You say "I will tell you what is offensive" and you are "evolving through education".

 

Maybe I'm dehumanizing you by suggesting you could provide ANY..    small word with big meaning... ANY data showing that black people ever supported or were simply not offended by that flag and thus to prove your comparison.

You can't. 

 

Gotta love the mind of the crusader. Educate those savages. How else will they ever know what is good for them?

 

How do you dehumanize a steamroller that could not care less about the opinion of those who they crusade for?

How is ignoring them when they themselves disagree with you "evolving"?

 

Your comparison of these two situations is asinine, although the fact you made it is hardly surprising. 

As i said in my initial answer to that silliness, the similarities are VASTLY different.

Why is it you continually ignore reality? is that how one "evolves"?

 

You say 'vast majority of the country" felt this flag was not a symbol of hate.

given it was the battle flag of half the country, I'd argue you were wrong, considering they flew it while fighting with the other half.

 

A good large portion of this country STILL thinks there's nothing wrong with that flag,, you will note that any time it comes up, this debate rages.

 

the DIFFERENCE here is that the people who that flag DOES represent racial hatred towards do not have ANY disagreement as to how THEY feel about that flag and what it has stood for.

And they did not need to be "evolved through education". they knew, and they still know, and it's damn near unanimous.

This is why I will never defend flying this flag, but i do defend the name.  We know beyond doubt that it makes the entire African American segment of our population uncomfortable to say the least... regardless of what someone may argue as pride or heritage.

 

In the other debate, THIS particular fact does NOT EXIST. There IS NO CONSENSUS. And THIS particular fact is my entire argument.

Stop TELLING THEM why they must be offended.

ASK THEM if they are or not.

 

~Bang

[Larry]

I think the similarity has to do with people trying to rationalize their support of racially charged symbolism.

Similar doesn't mean identical.

Similar also doesn't mean "I'm trying desperately to pretend that they're similar, to push my agenda".

[pjfootballer]

What is baffling is, why would a company manufacture or make rebel flags anymore. How is it that you can still purchase one? I guess money talks.

[grhqofb5]

Everyone else. You were the last one to go. 

 

I remember my first soirre with him about 7 years ago.  Swore off ES for about a month.  Felt like the Doctor at the end of Bridge on the River Kwai:  "Madness..... Madness..."

What is baffling is, why would a company manufacture or make rebel flags anymore. How is it that you can still purchase one? I guess money talks.

 

There's a market for everything in this world.

[JMS]

2) I understand that Lee was a general who:

-Refused an offer to command the army fighting to preserve the union (and abolish slavery).

The South was not under imminent threat to end slavery when they succeeded. The Union Army Lee was offered was to crush rebellion, not to end slavery.

The Objective of the Union army was not to end slavery until January 1, 1863 (Emancipation Proclamation) arguable only a war time solution to slavery, and the south really didn't risk long term loss of slavery until January 31, 1865 ( Union passes the 13th Amendment ).

 

What is baffling is, why would a company manufacture or make rebel flags anymore. How is it that you can still purchase one? I guess money talks.

Capitalism I guess; however, the flags in question belonged to Lee...

[JMS]

What is it you are trying to persuade me to believe exactly?

I, and Fredrick Douglas are rising in defense of the US constitution. A document which Douglas believed was an anti slavery document. And to respond to your accusations otherwise.

 

I cannot escape the feeling your goal is to prove you could not possibly have gotten something wrong. I agree the founders were wise in their framing of the Constitution. I have the greatest admiration for Frederick Douglass, and I think his interpretation of the Constitution as it stood in his day is nothing short of brilliant.  I just think it is silly to suggest that the original draft of the Constitution did not make concessions to slavery (which is implicitly, if not explicitly, racist).

I admit when I'm wrong. I think the problem here is you don't.

 

I'm not even on shaky ground here historically speaking. You say you respect Fredrick Douglas, well Fredrick Douglas believed the constitution did not protect slavery, but hurt slave interests. You say the "constitution in Douglas's time", only that's the same constitution with regards to all the passages which you say help your case and which Fredrick Douglas says destroys your case.

 

1) The three-fifths clause was a compromise between both slavers and abolitionists. If it was totally innocuous, then why was it repealed?

innocuous? It hurt the interests of the slave states by reducing their representation in the House. It was first rendered moot in 1865 when the Thirteenth Amendment was passed which outlawed slavery, as there were no more slaves. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment latter superseded it(1868).

 

"Representatives shall be apportioned ...counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed..."

2) The original version of the Constitution did allow for slavery until the year 1808.  Is this in dispute?

No, actually the "original version" of the Constitution did not prohibit slavery; until the thirteenth amendment was passed in 1865. The clause you are referring to was a moratorium on congress prohibiting of slavery for the first 20 years of the union. I think we can all agree a very modest clause considering ultimately Slavery went on for 80 years until slavery or slave holders succeeded and directly lead to the premature ending of that institution.

 

3) The fugitive slave act may have been "stripped of all language which inferred it refereed to slaves," but its intent and legal implications are clear. Do you disagree that it was intended to allow slavers to get runaway slaves back, and it was in fact used as the legal basis for doing so?

We have to be careful here..  the Fugitive Slave Act, which was a law passed by Congress is not what we are discussing.   We are discussing the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution, which was a fiction. If the fugitive slave clause did what you are suggesting it did, Congress wouldn't have felt the need to pass the fugitive slave act only a few years after ratifying the constitution.   No the Fugitive Slave Clause of the constitution was not directed nor did it apply to slaves,  according to Fredrick Douglas and James Madison;   It was proposed by Southern Slave States and was rejected.  Modified from it's original intent.

[mjah]

Well it does show that when push came to shove they cared more about independence from the north than they did about slavery. If they were willing to give up one too help secure the other, it's a fair conclusion.

 

No, it really isn't.  They weren't willing to give up one cause to help secure the other.  One cause was already lost.  All that was left was to hew to the dishonest salesmanship they had used to sell the war to southerners.  To stop fighting once their own cause was lost, but before their cheap-talk make-believe causes were also lost, would mean revealing themselves as liars to their own people.  There was no other political option but to pivot to that.  And thousands more died.

 

Ultimately, Confederate leadership gave up and surrendered anyway.  Does this mean they cared more about preserving themselves as part of the Union than they cared about independence, which they in turn cared about more than slavery?  Of course not.

 

 

They say it over and over and over again... they screamed it in battle, they debated it for 80 years prior to succession. We are still debating it, and even still debating it from the same geographical regions. The issue ( slavery ) has changed.. but the chant from the south in favor of states rights has not.

 

 

Again, word vs. deed.  Deed is far more important.  You place a curious and untoward amount of faith in a lip-service cause that, in both the Civil War era and the modern era, has been shown to be a lie by the very leaders who use(d) it as a smokescreen in the first place.  Again, it is essential to separate leadership from populace, as the causes between the two are quite different.  The Civil War was fomented, launched, and steered by Confederate political leadership -- not by the people whose general sentiments were taken advantage of so they and not the politicians would be the ones to fight and die.

 

 

Yes ultimately the civil war was fought over slavery, but that is not the reason which moved all the states, even most of the states to succeed, nor is it the reason the average southerner supported the war. It was however underneath all the thinly veneered alternative reasons given for the conflict..

 

This much we agree on, save for the bolded part.  Slavery absolutely WAS the reason which moved all the secessionist states to secede, because secession is a political action and Confederate politicians made the political decision per state to secede.  

 

Another job they tasked themselves with was salesmanship of their elective war to a largely uninformed population, who fell for the state's rights argument and signed up to fight.  Gotta have a military to back up the political decision.  But that does not mean the decision to secede was made by bumpkin family-farmers in town taverns on the issue of states' rights -- just as the political decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was not made by everyday Americans in their neighborhood Applebee's on the issue of WMD terrorism.

[Larry]

Well it does show that when push came to shove they cared more about independence from the north than they did about slavery.

Link.

 

 

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

 

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

 

 

 

Texas

[Copied by Justin Sanders from E.W. Winkler, ed., *Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas*, pp. 61-66.]

A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

 

. . . .

 

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. 

 

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States. 

 

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

 

[JMS]

No, it really isn't.  They weren't willing to give up one cause to help secure the other.  One cause was already lost.  All that was left was to hew to the dishonest salesmanship they had used to sell the war to southerners.  To stop fighting once their own cause was lost, but before their cheap-talk make-believe causes were also lost, would mean revealing themselves as liars to their own people.  There was no other political option but to pivot to that.  And thousands more died.

The cause they were willing to give up ( slavery ) wasn't the cause lost to them.   The cause lost to them in early 1865 late 1864 was independence.    So they were willing to give up on the goal which was still achievable in order to give them a shot at the goal which otherwise was not (Independence).

Let's review. Slavery was not irrevocable lost to the South until Congress Passed the 13th amendment  January 31, 1865.. .

Around the same time,  the thirteenth amendment was being voted on in the House... , Jefferson Davis sends Duncan Kenner of Louisiana to Europe with the offer that the south would give up slavery in exchange for European recognition of their "independent" state. Late 1864

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/314895/Kenner-mission

 

The South could have ended any chance the Thirteenth Amendment had of passing the house by ending the war, giving up their desire for Independence;  seating their congressmen and blocking the thirteenth Amendment which required a 2/3rds majority vote and 3/4th of all the state legislatures under the union.    The south even in 1865 could have blocked that politically if they were willing to end the war.   If slavery was ultimately what they cared about over independence they would have done that.   In 1865 when we were coming right down to it...  That's not what they choose to do.

 

My point isn't that the ultimate reason the south succeeded wasn't slavery.   My point like oil in the gulf wars in the 20th and 21st centuries;  the reasons for the American Civil war were many and can't easily be boiled down to one.   There would have been no succession without the slave issue, that much is absolutely true.  But the north (Lincoln) was willing to concede on slavery in order to avoid succession and yet the the south went for independence.  Even as late as early 1865 when the war was lost to them,  the south still could have defended slavery.   They again chose not to.opting for independence.

[HTTR434]

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=AwrBT4eqBMBTKZYAxmtx.9w4;_ylu=X3oDMTB1MWhybWkzBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA01PVVMxOTdfMQ--?p=stephen+a+smith+mark+cuban+rant&tnr=21&vid=3C16C41160C97218F9A83C16C41160C97218F9A8&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DUN.607990601353265954%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DYsSngFgkOSU&sigr=11afs0naa&tt=b&tit=Stephen+A.+Smith+Rants+on+Mark+Cuban%26%2339%3Bs+Comments+on+Race&sigt=11rrqkkk9&back=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Dstephen%2Ba%2Bsmith%2Bmark%2Bcuban%2Brant%26fr%3Diphone%26_tsrc%3Dapple&sigb=12vifrgj8

Not directly related but everyone should watch this. It's 5 min long.

[Rocky21]

If you live in a simple world and you have to have one reason the Civil war was fought, slavery is probable the one you want to recite. And again Ill use the same analogy I used before. The same can be said of oil in the first and second gulf wars against Iraq. Those wars were absolutely fought for oil, if there was no oil in or proximal to Iraq no way to we fight either. Yet if you would say the reason the average soldier fought in the Iraq in 1990 or 2003-20012 was oil; you'd be entirely missing the mark.

This is an excellent point.  The Southern states reasons for declaring war were different from the average Southern soldier’s reason for enlisting. 

[Larry]

This is an excellent point.  The Southern states reasons for declaring war were different from the average Southern soldier’s reason for enlisting. 

 

But the average southern soldier didn't cause the war.  His state's government did. 

[Rocky21]

Maybe I'm dehumanizing you by suggesting you could provide ANY..    small word with big meaning... ANY data showing that black people ever supported or were simply not offended by that flag and thus to prove your comparison.

You can't.

On this page, a few posts above yours.

As a black man, I really don't care about the confederate flag. Freedom of speech and all that. It really doesn't affect me

[JMS]

But the average southern soldier didn't cause the war.  His state's government did.

Without popular support the south would not have been able to conduct the war..

I wouldn't even say the secessionist state governments were all motivated by slavery. As I said before the successions from the Union basically came in two waves... The first began in 20 Dec 1860 lead off by South Carolina.. I will give you they all were up in arms their failure to preserve the equilibrium which had protected slavery legally for the last 80 years. This wave was followed over the next 4 weeks by a number of other states with similar motivations. The second wave of successions began 4 months after South Carolina and was lead off by Virginia reacting to the Union order commanding them to raise 72,000 troops to invade their Southern Neighbors.

Virginia did not leave the union until she was given no choice but to commit troops against the Secessionists, which Virginia expressly believed was an illegal order. Illegal because as Virginia's Governor of the time put it no body except congress can declare war, and congress had not done so in April of 1861, and without a declaration of war Virginia would not comply with providing troops.

[s0crates]

I, and Fredrick Douglas are rising in defense of the US constitution.

Then consider me persuaded.

[codeorama]

I hate these threads.

My great great great uncle was Thomas Lafayette Rosser, confederate general, Rugby was his home, Rugby Rd, named after his home. My family has always been proud to be descendents of him. I have never flown a rebel flag and wouldn't because I know that some people are offended by it, but to me, it is not a racist symbol, but because others have chosen to make it that, that is what it has become. (The swastica is not a negative symbol either, but because of its association with nazi's, it's "bad")

What annoys me about these threads is the "traitor" comments.

Guess what... George Washington was a traitor too.

[JMS]

I hate these threads.

My great great great uncle was Thomas Lafayette Rosser, confederate general, Rugby was his home, Rugby Rd, named after his home. My family has always been proud to be descendents of him. I have never flown a rebel flag and wouldn't because I know that some people are offended by it, but to me, it is not a racist symbol, but because others have chosen to make it that, that is what it has become. (The swastica is not a negative symbol either, but because of its association with nazi's, it's "bad")

What annoys me about these threads is the "traitor" comments.

Guess what... George Washington was a traitor too.

 

Rugby Rd... that's interesting... As a former Rugby Player I always figured some home builder had an extra road to name and just indulged himself.   I would have never tied it to a plantation house or the home of a civil war General.   That's interesting local history for me...   Thank you.

[zoony]

What annoys me about these threads is the "traitor" comments.

Guess what... George Washington was a traitor too.

What, pasty white government employees from the Internet sitting around and calling great mean from 150 years ago traitors doesn't do it for you?

[Larry]

What, pasty white government employees from the Internet sitting around and calling great mean from 150 years ago traitors doesn't do it for you?

I believe you meant to say "people of multiple races and multiple employers ACCURATELY calling . . . ."

[twa]

to be a traitor ya must first owe fealty or loyalty.....some ain't deserving of such