Please help me define 'offensive'

Yes your right, Slavery was an issue, but you have to understand Slavery was a US institution at the time and was a moral evil that neither side was righteous in..

After you learn more about history of the so called civil war that is taught in your HS history book, you would learn that slavery was a side note to the war for southern independence.

The slave trade was started in the UNION, most african slaves were imported into this country under a US flag, and brought to this country in New England be New England slave ships, UNDER A US FLAG NEVER a confederate one (The african slave trade was actually abolished and illegal in the confederate constitution)

Did you know that the Union had slave states that fought against the confederacy during and even AFTER the war?

Did you know that Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri all were UNION states that were allowed to keep slaves even for 3 years after the war ended?

There were many causes for the war, most of wich were tariffs
and constitutional questions, slavery was a side note.

Most in the south had advocated abolishing the institution as soon as the south had won it's independence..

Robert E. Lee was one of the most vocal supporters of the abolition of slavery in the south..

One of the most well-publicized reasons, yeah. Makes for a good banner standard to wave around. Unfortunately, the equal rights part had to wait a LONG time to show up. :/ </cynic>

IMO, based on what I remember of my AP US History class, slavery was just one more expression of the federal v. states problem. Many of the southern states wanted to continue slavery, figured they had a right to as states and the gummint should keep its nose out of state business.

So the federal gummint said to the states, "Hey, you have to listen to us."

The states said "No, we don't. As states, we have the right to secede if we don't agree with that."

With a throw-down like that, the federal government *had* to say "Hey, come back!" or risk dissolution of the whole US, not just cracking in half.

I don't rightly recall the technical terms involved in the different styles of government (more powerful federal government v. more powerful state government), unfortunately.

Also, it really didn't help that many of the Southern states were strongly agricultural, where many of the Northern states were more industrialized. As time went on, there was a lot of economic inequality going on.

So it'd be more accurate to say that the major cause was the debate over sovereignty. As well as the economic aspect of it all.

Note: This is all based on hazy memories of high school, so I could very well be wrong, but those are the major facts I remember.

Edit: Went to HS in Texas, so we had a pretty good focus on the Civil War.

Pico, bring some facts to the discussion please, don't just be a troll..

Thank you..

Yes and yes, I did know that. As much as you'd like to play my opinions out as ignorant, I am aware of how things fell out back then.

Doesn't change a few facts. The north DID abolish slavery, whether or not it was done for the right reason at the time, it was done.

While it is true many southerners felt slavery should be ended, let's not pretend they all wanted to do it out of love for their fellow man. Many many many felt it would be the prudent thing to do as the military was practically in ruins, the country was broke, and disarming the blacks and putting them back in chains on the plantation could erupt in a uprising that could not be stopped. Also, let's not pretend that -if- the south had won and -if- those who favored abolishing slavery got their way, that blacks would have been any more than indentured servants in a feudal society.

Does this mean that all was wine and roses up north? No. But it did improve, and improves today.

Now, again, -if- the south won and -if- slavery were abolished, let's consider the south in todays world. Would black americans born in todays world in a victorious south have equal rights? Would they be voting? Living next door to whites in affluent neighborhoods? Hmmm?

Sorry my disagreements with you seem trollish. I just have very strong feelings about equality and predjudice. However, please don't believe waving the troll flag at me will scare me away from something I believe in. Seems that flag is an easy one to wave at anything someone doesn't like.

Whoops, that person is saying something I don't like and doesn't have the wherewithall to spout dates and names, ok "Troll troll troll"

Sorry.

Honestly, I can't say. Cause and effect is never easy (you can tell I read too much alternate history ). There could have been any number of events that would've made things go differently.

But prejudice was pretty institutionalized everywhere back then, not just in the South. The South just had the most visible and stringent expressions of it, with the Jim Crow laws that were enacted after Reconstruction ended.

I wonder how much of it is due to the cultural aspects of the respective North and South as distinct units. We've all seen the depictions of antebellum Southern culture in the media -- which all pretty much point to a deeply traditional culture. As opposed to the modernized industrial culture where innovation is more valued.

Hmm. Methinks I have an excuse to head to the bookstore soonish for research purposes.

Homosexuality occurs among all species of animals, as well. Do you hate gay dogs and cats?

You are a cute little troll doll Jellin The beliefs Jellin has are hardly unique to her, they are widespread - why do you think there is so much furor over the flag in the first place> Just because she is not listing out point by point, date by date the events that occured to back up her beliefs does not mean she is a troll. It means she has better things to do with her time than memorizzing Civil War minutiae...you would be well served to do the same.

But the important thing is, no one ELSE really gives a flying shi'ite either. Except for like some guy in a bar that thinks your cute, then starts hitting on you, then finds out you're not into penises. But you get the idea.

So that's what everybody thinks about censorship in these forums, is it?

Glad I started this thread.

Eh. I respectfully beg to disagree on this point -- "those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it."

We remember so we don't make the same mistakes. Hopefully, anyway.

Um... I could have sworn homosexual like behavior (ie: pleasure actions utilizing the genitals) was only documented in a specific speices of orangatang, and then, only when they found a new food supply after migrating from one they had just depleated as some form of celebration.

All other similarly seaming actions by other genus were found to be directly linked to some form of confusion on the animals part OR a form of Alpha Beta struggle (ie: struggle for dominance in group).

Edit: I think we are doomed to repeat history the more we pick at the scars it left the world with. Take the lessons, Take the knowledge, whipe the history, the tradition, the hatred, the old. History is like the world's baggage...

Um no. Think again.

Is the above link safe to open at a work place?

Its not porn. Its a salon article.

Um as I read that It supports my statments in their entirety.

To explain why: I said that they have witness behavior that appears to be homosexual but is often prooven (When it can be prooven what it is for) to be for establisment of dominance. The monkies are the only provable exception based on the partnerings (age is not a factor with them either). All other related 'acts' are found to be forms of dominance and submission. Uinformed people like to decide if an animal makes the same movment as a human it means the same thing.

Awww I wuv ooo

And some people will refuse to accept something as true even when it's staring them in the face. They make up all sorts of reasons why it's not what they want it to be.

Or possibly vise versa? hrm..?

(though I asume you mean "it's not what they don't want it to be"

"Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, must be a duck." Dosn't follow, ask a psycologist.

However we should probably have the "Is homosexuality natural or genetic" discussion in a seperate thread, were vering to far here to have a proper version of that conversation.

Gwydeon,
Lets see documentation supporting your theory.

Your documentation supports my theory as much as yours.

And your theory is asumption*, Mine is that you are asuming.

* = This stament made based on the fact that I asume (heh) that you can not proovably read animals minds.

Wow, this thread disentegrated into a discussion about what animals touch each other's whangs and vaginas.

Isn't the internet a strange and wonderful place? ;D

ps: I still think this side bar needs its own thread.

Then make a new thread. It really saddens me how people can base so much hatred on lack of knowledge and have no desire to learn anything at the same time.

The article I posted was one on the subject. Science has repeatedly shown homosexuality in nature.

No changing minds of bigots I suppose. Carry on.

No offense (I'm certainly not arguing against you! Far from it.), but Salon.com is HARDLY something I would base an arguement on... If it said the earth was round, I would go ask someone at my college to confirm it.