Alabama Gov looses support of 'Confederate' voters

[SuperJerk 0]

Confederate heritage groups upset with Alabama governor

 

 

MONTGOMERY, Alabama (AP) -- Confederate heritage groups seemed excited when Gov. Bob Riley's annual proclamation designating April as Confederate History and Heritage Month dropped a paragraph saying slavery was the cause of the Civil War.

 

The groups said they were pleased because they consider that description of slavery historically inaccurate. Their excitement, however, was short lived.

 

"It was a mistake," said Jeff Emerson, the governor's communications director, on Monday. He said he did not know how the mistake was made.

 

Emerson said the governor was unaware of the deletion until The Associated Press contacted his office. The governor quickly reissued the proclamation with the paragraph on slavery restored, and posted it on his Web site.

 

"That makes Bob Riley look very inconsistent and inept," said Roger Broxton, president of the Confederate Heritage Fund.

 

State Rep. Oliver Robinson, House chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus, was pleased that Riley withdrew the version of the proclamation that makes no mention of slavery.

 

"To me, the members of the Black Caucus, and the majority of black citizens of Alabama that would be a disgrace," he said.

 

For many years, Alabama governors have signed proclamations designating April as Confederate History and Heritage Month. When Riley became governor in January 2003, he used the same proclamation as his predecessor, Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman.

 

It contained a paragraph that says "Our recognition of Confederate history also recognizes that slavery was one of the causes of the war, an issue in the war, was ended by the war, and slavery is hereby condemned... "

 

Broxton and others in Confederate heritage organizations said they had complained to the governor that the paragraph was historically incorrect.

 

"It leaves the impression that slavery was the total cause of the war and that's untrue. It was more about tariffs and taxes," said Benjamin Hestley, chief of heritage defense for the Alabama Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

 

Hestley and others were pleased when they received copies of the proclamation that Riley signed March 18, which deleted the slavery paragraph.

 

Broxton said restoring the language will hurt Riley if he runs for re-election next year and faces former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in the Republican primary.

 

"Roy Moore will get all of the Confederate vote for governor," Broxton predicted.

 

credit: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/05/ala...y.ap/index.html

 

 

1. Anyone who says the southern states left the union because of tariffs and taxes either doesn't know what they're talking about, or is just trying to make the South look good. The issue of slavery, and its expansion into the new territories was one of the majors causes of tension between the North and South decades leading up to the Civil War. The catalyst for the seccesion was Lincoln's election, who was elected from the anti-slavery party, and it was the anti-slavery potential of this election that caused the deep resentment in the south over Lincoln's election. The south was more and more on the losing side of the balance of power between slave and free states, and Lincoln's election was the final straw. That's no to say that tariffs weren't an important issue, but not the primary one as Mr. Hestley is proposing. In fact, one of the main reasons for the North's anti-slavery position was economic in nature, as the growing industry did not rely on slavery the way the south did. Slavery and politics are so interwoven in pre-Civil War era, it is impossible to divorce the two and say that slavery was not the main cause of the south secession and the subsequent war.

 

2. Its been 140 years. You lost. Get over it.

[The Czech Republic 0]

That's like kids from Wisconsin that I grew up with, WISCONSIN, mind you, that wear Confederate flag belt buckles. I ask whey they're racists, and they say "no I'm not, I just support states' rights." Yeah sure.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Anyone who wears a flag belt buckle of any sort should be beaten.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

some of them have t-shirts with the Battle flag saying "These colors don't run"

 

I never asked them "Didn't the South lose?"

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Looked for a pic with Lil Jon and the Confederate Flag and found this.

[Vyce 0]

Oh good. Now, I can proudly wear the Confederate flag, and claim that it's because I'm trying to be more 'street'.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

Mosi doesn't mention how black rappers sometimes use African and Middle-Eastern iconography, an area where in some places slavery is still legal in 2005.

 

As for the Dixie Sticks...who cares? It's a free country. I wouldn't wear that redneck stuff, but it doesn't bother me if anyone else does. Morons would wear that stuff where I grew up in northern California. And have window stickers. But I mean...they can do it. It's the USA.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I wouldn't wear that redneck stuff, but it doesn't bother me if anyone else does.  Morons would wear that stuff where I grew up in northern California.  And have window stickers.  But I mean...they can do it.  It's the USA.

I know I can't speak for everyone, but knowing the political beliefs of most people here, I don't think anyone is arguing against someone's right to brandish the Confederate flag on their truck, their clothes, whatever. However, it's not really a left/right issue to feel that it's a bad thing that these images and the messages they resonate are being encouraged as some kind of cultural icon.

 

While nobody should be denied the rights to wear a Confederacy t-shirt, hopefully society's reaction will shame them into making the choice not to. Kind of like why I don't go burning American flags to protect my right to do so.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

I wouldn't wear that redneck stuff, but it doesn't bother me if anyone else does.  Morons would wear that stuff where I grew up in northern California.  And have window stickers.  But I mean...they can do it.  It's the USA.

I know I can't speak for everyone, but knowing the political beliefs of most people here, I don't think anyone is arguing against someone's right to brandish the Confederate flag on their truck, their clothes, whatever. However, it's not really a left/right issue to feel that it's a bad thing that these images and the messages they resonate are being encouraged as some kind of cultural icon.

 

While nobody should be denied the rights to wear a Confederacy t-shirt, hopefully society's reaction will shame them into making the choice not to. Kind of like why I don't go burning American flags to protect my right to do so.

"Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear."

 

Seriously, it IS a partisan issue because you come back to the argument of what exactly the message is that is resonating from these images. Or what the perceived message is.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'd never want to ban the Confederate flag (fre speech), but the controversy here is whether or not the Confederacy was a regime that primarily existed as an attempt to defend slavery.

 

This governor is saying "it was", but other people are saying "we won't vote for you" because of that.

[Ripper 0]

I am all for banning them from flying with the US flag and being included in state flags, because, you know...thats bullshit.

[Nighthawk 0]

Lincoln was a moderate.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

"Time on a Cross" by Fogel and Engelman was a pretty good book (heck, I think it won a nobel for em) about slavery and whether or not it was economically profitable and would have continued if not for the civil war. Basically, they debunk the myth that if the CW had not occured, slavery would have just died out because it was unprofitable.

 

If you're interested in the topic, its a great read.

[Slayer 0]

hopefully society's reaction will shame them into making the choice not to.

Because the shame of a society has done so much before

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I am all for banning them from flying with the US flag and being included in state flags, because, you know...thats bullshit.

I never understood the whole change the flag thing while I lived in GA. I mean, really, its just a heritage of the state, sometime wearing a scarlet A helps one to realize the mistakes of the past.

 

If you seriously think about it, the vast majority of those who fought and died on both sides were just caught up in the middle. The infantry of the South wasn't really fighting for slavery, just to survive because the blokes @ the top decided that the states would rebel and brought the CW upon themselves and on the backs of those who fought. Kind of like Vietnam in a way.

 

EDIT: To be clear, the reasons for the war starting had everything to do with economics and slavery. Secondly, the South had the war won in the first few weeks but totally blew it (they won the first battle and were within 100 miles of DC with no Union army close enough to intercept) because they were arrogant and didnt realize how much of a war it would have been. However, like in most wars, those who do the bulk of fighting and dieing had no hand in the starting (Vietnam?).

[SuperJerk 0]

"Time on a Cross" by Fogel and Engelman was a pretty good book (heck, I think it won a nobel for em) about slavery and whether or not it was economically profitable and would have continued if not for the civil war. Basically, they debunk the myth that if the CW had not occured, slavery would have just died out because it was unprofitable.

 

If you're interested in the topic, its a great read.

Sounds excellent.

 

I remember having that discussion in my Civil War class in college, as many southern apologists have tried to say that slavery wasn't profitable. We also discussed why the south was anti-tarriff. I'll admit it has always seemed weird to me that the south didn't industrialize (as many thought it would, then switched their position on tarriffs later on to one more favoring an agricultural economy). Obviously it wasn't an impossible thing, since the south eventually did industrialize, but why not sooner?

 

Another question I've wondered about is whether or not slavery was hurting the southern economy in other ways. It seems to me as though having an unpaid underclass was costing jobs for a lot of poor whites in the south, and once slavery was over the share-cropping system also crowded whites out of the job market.

[The Decemberists 0]

The catalyst for the seccesion was Lincoln's election, who was elected from the anti-slavery party, and it was the anti-slavery potential of this election that caused the deep resentment in the south over Lincoln's election. The south was more and more on the losing side of the balance of power between slave and free states, and Lincoln's election was the final straw.

My problem with this would be that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free anyone, which seems odd if Lincoln really was so into the whole abolishionist movement, morally anyway.

 

His only real and consistant slavery viewpoint was that they should all be sent back to Africa where they belonged.

[CanadianChris 0]

The catalyst for the seccesion was Lincoln's election, who was elected from the anti-slavery party, and it was the anti-slavery potential of this election that caused the deep resentment in the south over Lincoln's election.  The south was more and more on the losing side of the balance of power between slave and free states, and Lincoln's election was the final straw.

My problem with this would be that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free anyone, which seems odd if Lincoln really was so into the whole abolishionist movement, morally anyway.

That old chestnut again?

 

Lincoln knew he couldn't abolish slavery without a constitutional amendment. While working to make the amendment reality, he issued the Proclamation in his role as Commander-in-Chief. When the Northern army rolled through the South, the slaves followed them. It had the effect of freeing slaves everywhere as a result. The Proclamation itself may not have freed the slaves, but its impact on the war ended up freeing them anyway.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I remember having that discussion in my Civil War class in college, as many southern apologists have tried to say that slavery wasn't profitable. We also discussed why the south was anti-tarriff. I'll admit it has always seemed weird to me that the south didn't industrialize (as many thought it would, then switched their position on tarriffs later on to one more favoring an agricultural economy). Obviously it wasn't an impossible thing, since the south eventually did industrialize, but why not sooner?

--Ricardo's theory of competitive advantage. It made economic sense for the south to specialize in its staple goods and let the north manufacture. Had the south tried to industrialize, it would have been at an economic disadvantage to the north. Trade between the two made them both better off.

 

Another question I've wondered about is whether or not slavery was hurting the southern economy in other ways. It seems to me as though having an unpaid underclass was costing jobs for a lot of poor whites in the south, and once slavery was over the share-cropping system also crowded whites out of the job market.

--But those were jobs that even the poor whites wouldn't take. Slavery hurt the economy because it depressed investment into education, but not by keeping out other poor white people. Oh, and believe it or not, share-cropping was an economically beneficial system. Otherwise it wouldnt have existed.

[Jingus 0]

A few points:

 

I remember having that discussion in my Civil War class in college, as many southern apologists have tried to say that slavery wasn't profitable. We also discussed why the south was anti-tarriff. I'll admit it has always seemed weird to me that the south didn't industrialize (as many thought it would, then switched their position on tarriffs later on to one more favoring an agricultural economy). Obviously it wasn't an impossible thing, since the south eventually did industrialize, but why not sooner?

Stephen's answer is right, but there was another reason: there were a shitload of slaves in the South. Enslaved or not, people are gonna fuck and have kids, and that's exactly what the Southern slaves did, in abundance. When you have a ton of free labor at your disposal, who needs a machine? Furthermore, if they did industrialize, where would all those slaves go and what would they do?

 

Another question I've wondered about is whether or not slavery was hurting the southern economy in other ways. It seems to me as though having an unpaid underclass was costing jobs for a lot of poor whites in the south, and once slavery was over the share-cropping system also crowded whites out of the job market.

Once again Popick's right but there's still more to the story. Slavery was more profitable than paying people for several reasons. Firstly because feeding and maintaining a slave was much cheaper than paying a white guy to do the same amount of work, and secondly because at the end of the day you could always sell your slaves (and their kids) if you wanted to.

 

Also, slavery didn't crowd out poor whites for one simple reason: the vast majority of slaves were owned by lower-middle class people and worked on small family farms. Those Gone With the Wind-style giant plantations were few and far between. The experiences of Chicken George in Roots were much more common as things went.

 

And finally, the answer to the "taxes and tariffs" argument: those taxes and tariffs existed primarily because of slavery. The Northern states were trying to punish the Southern ones into giving up that peculiar institution, for both moral and economic reasons.

[Ripper 0]

I am all for banning them from flying with the US flag and being included in state flags, because, you know...thats bullshit.

I never understood the whole change the flag thing while I lived in GA. I mean, really, its just a heritage of the state, sometime wearing a scarlet A helps one to realize the mistakes of the past.

The georgia flag was adopted in the late 50s in a act of defiance towards the civil rights movement. The flag before that didn't have the symbols of the confederacy in it. The flag was basically a "screw you washington, we ain't integrating" statement by those that ran Georgia at the time. When people try to say it was about the heritage of Georgia, it kinda was. A 50 year heritage and it was brought forth by ignorance. It had no business still flying above the state capital and below the United States flag.

 

 

And seriously, who cares if they were caught in the middle. At the end of the day, the confederacy was a gigantic act of treason. Why should this be celebrated and flaunted at public properties?

[Slayer 0]

Why should this be celebrated and flaunted at public properties?

Because it's fun to aggravate people?

 

 

 

 

 

 

...okay, I got nothing

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Stephen's answer is right

 

Once again Popick's right

Jingy, you may want to avoid pumping up my ego like that, I might try to save the board again!!

[Guest MikeSC]

I'll be honest --- I was always taught that slavery was an issue, but not the main issue behind the Civil War.

 

I finally disproved that when I found a copy of the Confederate Constitution and realized that it was basically IDENTICAL to the US Constitution, except for slavery being expressly permitted. There were no other huge differences (The President had a line item veto was one difference).

 

But anybody who says that slavery was not the primary issue needs to do a side-by-side comparison of the US and Confederate Constitutions.

-=Mike

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I am all for banning them from flying with the US flag and being included in state flags, because, you know...thats bullshit.

I never understood the whole change the flag thing while I lived in GA. I mean, really, its just a heritage of the state, sometime wearing a scarlet A helps one to realize the mistakes of the past.

The georgia flag was adopted in the late 50s in a act of defiance towards the civil rights movement. The flag before that didn't have the symbols of the confederacy in it. The flag was basically a "screw you washington, we ain't integrating" statement by those that ran Georgia at the time. When people try to say it was about the heritage of Georgia, it kinda was. A 50 year heritage and it was brought forth by ignorance. It had no business still flying above the state capital and below the United States flag.

 

 

And seriously, who cares if they were caught in the middle. At the end of the day, the confederacy was a gigantic act of treason. Why should this be celebrated and flaunted at public properties?

Why celebrate those who got caught up in the middle? Well, I wouldn't celebrate, but we should reflect and remember. Just like with Vietnam or with any war, we should remember those who fought and died regardless. Most everyone on any side of a conflict is just caught up in the middle, as the few people at the top dictate what happens and what side they're on.

 

Good men and women die on each side of a war.

[The Decemberists 0]

And seriously, who cares if they were caught in the middle. At the end of the day, the confederacy was a gigantic act of treason. Why should this be celebrated and flaunted at public properties?

Which Lincoln shouldn't have had a problem with,

 

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. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit

Abe Lincoln, 1848

 

Except when you run the government they're trying to skake off, eh Abe?

[The Decemberists 0]

The catalyst for the seccesion was Lincoln's election, who was elected from the anti-slavery party, and it was the anti-slavery potential of this election that caused the deep resentment in the south over Lincoln's election.  The south was more and more on the losing side of the balance of power between slave and free states, and Lincoln's election was the final straw.

My problem with this would be that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free anyone, which seems odd if Lincoln really was so into the whole abolishionist movement, morally anyway.

That old chestnut again?

 

Lincoln knew he couldn't abolish slavery without a constitutional amendment. While working to make the amendment reality, he issued the Proclamation in his role as Commander-in-Chief. When the Northern army rolled through the South, the slaves followed them. It had the effect of freeing slaves everywhere as a result. The Proclamation itself may not have freed the slaves, but its impact on the war ended up freeing them anyway.

In 1861 a proposed amendment to the Constitution would have explicitly stated that the federal government had no authority - ever - to interfere with slavery in states where it existed. Lincoln supported this saying. Which suggests to me he had no real interest in seeing the slaves freed.

[Guest MikeSC]

Lincoln didn't support the total abolition of slavery. He was liberal for his time, but he was about as bad as Sen. Byrd in that regard.

 

Then again, neither did Northerners. It'd be hard for him to free all slaves when most in the North didn't approve of it. Workers didn't want freed slaves to depress wages.

 

They had RIOTS when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

My only problem with the whole North vs South thing is that people who know nothing about the Civil War immediately assume that all soldiers and generals fighting for the south were racist. Which they weren't. Most of them didn't care, hell some of them had never owed a slave nor did they support slavery.

 

The main leaders of the Confederate Congress who didn't fight? Yeah, they were racist dirtbags. Davis especially. Most of the generals though were only fighting because their state was involved and didn't want to see their homes burned to the ground.

 

The sad thing is all southern soldiers are believed to be racist while all northern soldiers are believed not to be. But odds are the ratio between the two sides was dead even more than anything.

[Ripper 0]

The thing is, it doesn't MATTER what they believed. It matters what they were fighting for. There were plenty of guys on the northern side that thought keeping blacks as slaves was all well and good and just as many southerners who disagreed with slavery. But the bottom line is, you are going to associated with the cause in which you are fighting for.

 

Thats why when people always talk about the confederate fighters being poor farmers not fighting for slaves, I just don't care. Somewhere there were German soilders that didn't agree with the destruction of the Jews. There were some anti-semetic allied forces that couldn't have cared less what was happening to them. What did you fight for is the question that has to be answered. If these poor farmers from the confederacy had won the war, slavery would not have been abolished.