So Much for Louisville..Teacher Burns Flag

[C-pher]

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060822/NEWS01/608220378

Stuart Middle School teacher burns U.S. flags in class
Lesson causes uproar in Jefferson

By Chris Kenning
[email protected]
The Courier-Journal


A Stuart Middle School teacher has been removed from the classroom after he burned two American flags in class during a lesson on freedom of speech, Jefferson County Public Schools officials said.

Dan Holden, who teaches seventh-grade social studies, burned small flags in two different classes Friday and asked students to write an opinion paper about it, district spokeswoman Lauren Roberts said.

A teacher in the school district since 1979, Holden has been temporarily reassigned to non-instructional duties pending a district investigation. The district also alerted city fire officials, who are conducting their own investigation.

"Certainly we're concerned about the safety aspect," Roberts said, along with "the judgment of using that type of demonstration in a class."

Pat Summers, whose daughter was in Holden's class, said he was among more than 20 parents upset about the incident at school yesterday. Holden apparently told the students to ask their parents what they thought about the lesson, he said.

"She said, 'Our teacher burned a flag.' I'm like, 'What?' " Summers said. "When I was (at the school) at 8 a.m., the lobby was filled with probably 25 or 30 parents" who were upset, he said.

Holden could not be reached yesterday for comment.

Roberts said the flag burning did not appear to be politically motivated, based on an interview with Holden.

Summers said no advance notice had been given to parents, nor were school administrators aware of Holden's plans, Roberts said.

Stuart sixth-grader Kelsey Adwell, 11, said students were abuzz about the incident yesterday.

"They just can't believe that a teacher would do that -- burn two American flags in front of the class," she said. "A teacher shouldn't do that, even though it was an example."

Kentucky has a statute last amended in 1992 making desecration of a national or state flag in a public place a misdemeanor, but the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that flag desecration is protected speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky said the federal ruling would trump the state statute.

Congress has tried unsuccessfully to prohibit flag burning with a constitutional amendment. The latest attempt failed in the Senate this year.

Beth Wilson, director of Kentucky's ACLU, said the district is allowed to decide what's instructionally appropriate.

But "if a school is masking their objections to flag burning under the guise of safety, it raises questions about freedom of speech and academic freedom," she said. She said her group would monitor the case but did not plan to get involved at this point.

Regardless, school board member Pat O'Leary said the flag burning was unnecessary and could have offended some students, including those in military families.

"A teacher doesn't do that," he said. "It's just disrespectful."

Rebecca Creech, a Stuart sixth-grader, said she also thought it was "wrong."

Ginny Adwell, Kelsey's mother and the school's PTA president, said some parents who called for Holden to be fired were "going a little bit overboard" and should remember that the teacher was trying to provoke thought.

Brent McKim, president of the Jefferson County Teachers Association, said Holden has "been teaching for many years, and has by all accounts a good teaching record. It was not a political statement and was meant to illustrate a controversial issue. To fire someone because of that would be inappropriate," he said. "It wasn't like he was taking one side or another."

McKim said he was gathering facts that would determine whether the district was justified in removing Holden from the classroom.

In 2001, a teacher in Sacramento, Calif., faced suspension for using a lighter to singe a corner of an American flag in class.

The teacher later was fired, but district officials cited numerous acts of poor judgment and disregard for superiors.

Reporter Chris Kenning can be reached at (502) 582-4697.

At least a lot of the kids were upset...as were the parents.

 

[dwarven1]

Well, that will certainly start some discussion! Frankly, with some kids (not only today but when I was in seventh grade), a demo like that is the only way to get their attention!

Teacher: "Now class, what would you think if I burned a flag in class?"
Class "Zzzzzzzzzz"

Teacher: [whips out lighter and lights flag on fire]
Class:

 

[C-pher]

Still, not sure that flag burning is something that needs to be taught in class.

And it sure doesn't need to be taught on my dime!

 

[Jaxon]

Still, not sure that flag burning is something that needs to be taught in class.

And it sure doesn't need to be taught on my dime!

It wasn't being "taught" C, it appears to have been a demonstration by the teacher on several aspects of constitutional law.

A fire in the classroom is bad, but I think the whole thing was blown way out of proporation.

RJ

 

[dwarven1]

Still, not sure that flag burning is something that needs to be taught in class.

And it sure doesn't need to be taught on my dime!

As an object lesson, and to get the little darlin's attention, I think it worked very well!!

C-pher, we don't have to agree that flag-burning is good or bad, but the whole point of school is to teach the little rug-rats how to THINK. Think back on junior high - did you LIKE dissecting a frog? I didn't. But it taught me things about living, and formerly living creatures that I wouldn't have learned otherwise. I sure as hell HATED phys ed and having to jog, but again - I learned things.

I think this is being blown way out of proportion. But then, I don't see the point in arresting someone because he burned a flag, either. Just like I don't like Jesse Jackson referring to NYC as "Hymietown", either. Or hearing Cindy Sheehan spread her verbal diarrhea. But they are all protected by that same freedom - of speech.

 

[Major Blood]

I agree, this was blown way out of proportion. It was obviously done to provoke thought and discussion on the subject, which it did.

I also don't think it right to consider flag-burning a crime. If we are to be a free nation, we can't make exceptions just because something may offend us.

I also find it quite ironic, if not moronic, that the same people down there up in arms about flag burning have no qualms with proudly displaying the confederate flag, which is a symbol of renouncement of the United States and an attempt to actually secede from the Nation...

They sure seem to have some unique ideas about "patriotism".

 

[daceman63]

burn what you want....arson is a crime. Lighting a fire in a room full of children is stupid. I don't care what you're burning. Fortunately nobody got hurt. As a parent i don't have a problem with freedom of speech and/or expression. I do have an issue with a fire in the same room with my children. He should have asked permission to do the demonstration and had a fire marshall there to observe the safety or in this case the lack thereof.....

 

[Pilgrim]

He could have used a picture or movie of some hippy burning a flag and gotten the answers he was looking for.

 

[Jaxon]

As an object lesson, and to get the little darlin's attention, I think it worked very well!!

C-pher, we don't have to agree that flag-burning is good or bad, but the whole point of school is to teach the little rug-rats how to THINK. Think back on junior high - did you LIKE dissecting a frog? I didn't. But it taught me things about living, and formerly living creatures that I wouldn't have learned otherwise. I sure as hell HATED phys ed and having to jog, but again - I learned things.

I think this is being blown way out of proportion. But then, I don't see the point in arresting someone because he burned a flag, either. Just like I don't like Jesse Jackson referring to NYC as "Hymietown", either. Or hearing Cindy Sheehan spread her verbal diarrhea. But they are all protected by that same freedom - of speech.

+1

RJ

 

[Jaxon]

burn what you want....arson is a crime.

Arson is crime for money or personal gain. This wasn't arson.

Lighting a fire in a room full of children is stupid.

Can't argue with that.

<SNIP> He should have asked permission to do the demonstration and had a fire marshall there to observe the safety or in this case the lack thereof.....

Indeed. he should have done several things better.

RJ

 

[Jaxon]

He could have used a picture or movie of some hippy burning a flag and gotten the answers he was looking for.

Not really. Kids today see way more in film than we ever did at their age, and an old film with a "hippie" burning a flag wouldn't have the same impact.

The guy made his point, but it slipped by the mob.

RJ

 

[C-pher]

I never said that I didn't agree that he should burn the flag. I said that I don't think that school was the place for this.

And before you start calling people that raise the confederate flag moronic. Maybe you should know some history about said flag.

It's a very southern pride thing to have that flag flying in your yard. Many of the people had family that served in the Confederate Army. And to them, it's not a flag of secession but a flag of freedom. The Beauregard Battle Flag was designed as just that, a battle flag. The flag of the Confederate States of America was the Stars and Bars. Two different flags. Learn your history.

While secession wasn't based on wanting to not be part of the USA, it was based on ideals that the south didn't agree on. They were being forced to change something that was a vital part of the Southern Economy. The North was taking over with the Industrial Revolution. They had all the money tied up with immigration from Europe and factory development. The North boomed with almost all of the Factories that were in the USA. They also controlled two thirds of the railroads. The south was pretty much dependent on Agro.

When elections came, Abraham Lincoln carried every free state except New Jersey, and was elected President while carrying NO Southern state. The South had chosen Kentucky Senator John C. Breckinridge, but without the electoral votes, Lincoln became President-elect.

That's when the disscussions of secession and the Southern secessionist movement grew.

You now have people that want to take away all your guns. The extremists on each side talk about putting the other side on an island and let them do what they want.

That's what was happening back then, but with a different topic. People voting things into office without caring about your votes and concerns.

So, before you start saying something about a culture and history you don't understand, moronic, please think of who you might be speaking too.

I was raised a Southern Boy. The Beauregard Battle Flag was my college flag and the Rebel was our Mascot. I hold both the Beauregard Battle Flag and the Stars and Stripes dear to my heart. As both have strong meaning to me and my family.

So please just think before you make comments about things that you don't fully understand.

Both Flags have meanings of freedoms. Freedoms from being forced opinions on you and your beliefs.

 

[C-pher]

Also, just so you know. Kentucky wasn't part of the original secession. While technically, they are South of the Mason-Dixon, they are not considered part of the Confederate States of America in full.

If I'm not mistaken, there were factions in Kentucky that wanted to secede, but some of the state was still held by the Union Government.

And from living there, there aren't many people that fly that flag. You don't really see it until you move to the eastern parts of TN and down into Mississippi.

But again you chose to spout off information that you don't fully understand....





Crap, I'm starting to feel like our Scrivybaby!

 

[daceman63]

where did common sense go? doesn't anyone think before they act anymore?

 

[Arioch]

where did common sense go? doesn't anyone think before they act anymore?

I didn't think "common sense" (the most UN-common thing in the world) is now a part of any school's curricula.

 

[daceman63]

I didn't think "common sense" (the most UN-common thing in the world) is now a part of any school's curricula.

agreed...

 

[Jaxon]

Okay, just cause I'm a swell guy, here's today's visual review of flags of the CSA, otherwise known as Confederate States of America.

The original flag of the Confederate States of America, commonly known as the "STARS AND BARS", was approved by the Congress of the Provisional Government of the Confederate States, and first hoisted over the capitol building in Montgomery, Alabama, on the afternoon of the 4th day of March, 1861. Congress did not adopted a formal Act codifying this flag, but it is described in the Report of the Committee on Flag and Seal, in the following language:
The flag of the Confederate States of America shall consist of a red field with a white space extending horizontally through the center, and equal in width to one-third the width of the flag. The red space above and below to be the same width as the white. The union blue extending down through the white space and stopping at the lower red space. In the center of the union a circle of white stars corresponding in number with the States in the Confederacy.

The first flag was raised over the capitol in Montgomery by Miss Letitia Christian Tyler, the granddaughter of President John Tyler.

This new flag spread quickly in use across the South, even beyond the borders of the seven States of the CSA. The official version was to have the stars in a circle, with the number corresponding to the States actually admitted to the Confederacy. Thus, there would have been 7 stars from 4 March 1861 until 7 May 1861, when Virginia became the 8th Confederate State by Act of Congress. Thereafter, the number of stars continued to increase until Tennessee gained her seat as the 11th State on 2 July 1861. The number remained 11 through the summer, but increased when Missouri and Kentucky were admitted to the CSA by Acts of Congress approved 28 November 1861 and 10 December 1861, respectively.

Despite the official pattern and numbers, however, individual examples of the Stars and Bars varied greatly, with numbers of stars ranging from 1 to 17, and star patterns varying greatly beyond the officially sanctioned circle.

There were three "national" flags of the CSA, but I won't bore you with the details. They are easily found online.

The best-known of all Confederate flags—the battle flag—is often erroneously confused with the national flag of the Confederacy. The battle flag features the cross of St. Andrew (the apostle was martyred by being crucified on an X-shaped cross), and is commonly called the "Southern Cross." A large degree of the Southern population was of Scottish and Scotch-Irish ancestry, and thus familiar with St. Andrew, the patron saint of Scotland. The stars represented the eleven states actually in the Confederacy, plus Kentucky and Missouri.

The Army of Northern Virginia was the first to design a flag with the cross of St. Andrew, and Gen. P. G. T. Beauregard proposed adopting a version of it as the standard battle flag of the Confederate army. One of its virtues was that, unlike the Stars and Bars, the Southern Cross was next to impossible to confuse with the Stars and Stripes in battle.

The Confederate battle flag eventually developed wide acceptance throughout the Confederacy, but it was by no means the only battle flag. The Stars and Bars continued to be used, and after it was replaced with a new national flag, that flag—the "Stainless Banner"—also appeared on the battlefield. In addition, some states used their own flags in combat.

As an OHio boy, I have a problem with flying the CSA Battle Flag, but then I have a problem with burning the USA flag. However, both actions are equally protected, despite how or whom they offend.

RJ

 

[dwarven1]

It's a very southern pride thing to have that flag flying in your yard. Many of the people had family that served in the Confederate Army. And to them, it's not a flag of secession but a flag of freedom. The Beauregard Battle Flag was designed as just that, a battle flag. The flag of the Confederate States of America was the Stars and Bars. Two different flags. Learn your history.

Thank you for your post, Chris. I learned something today... did a google search and found this page which talks about the various flags some more. I think I'll have to do some more reading, though... there seems to be a lot that is glossed over in the history books I've read so far. (yeah, I know... what a surprise. )

Again, thanks.

 

[C-pher]

Not a problem Ross. As Jaxon posted. It "is often erroneously confused with the national flag of the Confederacy."

I didn't mean to freak out...but as a Southern Boy, I took offense to the post by Major Blood with was based on nothing but prejudice of something not known.

People THINK that they know what the flag stands for...most mis-commonly associate with Slavery. While yes, slavery was ramped during this time. It's how it was used and changed that people don't understand.

Much like the swastika. Talk to any Native American and it was a sign of healing to some tribes...and was considered a sacred symbol. It was Germany and Hitler that changed said meaning, and now people associate it with the Nazis.

Comments like his are just based on not having the knowlege of what they speak.

 

[KMaurer]

Just to add to C-Pher's history lesson, there's also the fact that the northern majority in Congress had manipulated the tariff structure for at least a couple of decades to strongly favor the industries of the north at the expense of the southern agricultural economy. The 1828 "Tariff of Abominations", for example, was strongly opposed by the south, including Vice President John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. In protest to this and similar economic pressures imposed on the south to favor the north, serious discussions of secession became more common in the south.

Ken

 

[C-pher]

After I wrote the above post, I realized that you had a link in there Ross.

And this is what I read.

Note: It is necessary to disclaim any connection of these flags to neo-nazis, red-necks, skin-heads and the like. These groups have adopted this flag and desecrated it by their acts. They have no right to use this flag - it is a flag of honor, designed by the confederacy as a banner representing state's rights and still revered by the South. In fact, under attack, it still flies over the South Carolina capitol building. 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 conderacy only exacerbate the lies which link the seccesion to slavery interests when, from a Southerner's view, the cause was state's rights.

 

[Major Blood]

While I'd like to thank everyone for the impassioned history lesson, you missed my point entirely, which was not motivated by ignorance nor meant to offend.

I'm well aware that there were different flags, I chose the Confederate Flag as the most obvious example. The point is, despite regional and sentimental attachment, it is NOT this nation's flag, period. So for someone to constantly browbeat about patriotism and respect for this country, while continuing to fly a flag that for many represents the worst time in the history of this country, is somewhat hypocritical. I know pride usually trumps objectivity, so I'm not surprised some took personal offense, but I do apologize as that was not my intent.

What I won't apologize for is calling anyone who would compare the right to keep and bear arms, which is promised by the Constitution, and the right to enslave your fellow man for profit, which flies against the main tenets of said Constitution, a moron. You can dress it up however you please, with the pretty dress called "States Rights", or the even more incredulous title of "Agricultural Interests", it's still boils down to an ugly evil that was rightly wiped from the face of this nation along with the backwards halfwits that supported it.

If you take pride in that part of Southern Legacy, you have no right to sit up in this forum and take potshots at those you claim are trying to take your rights away.

Oh, and the point regarding the changing meanings of symbols, the swastika for example, while inspired doesn't really apply. You're talking about two distinct groups separated by hundreds of years. You don't see Germans flying the Swastika unless they are/were Nazi or neo-Nazi sympathizers, period. No non-nazi German flies the swastika because they were raised as "German Boys" and feel a sense of pride in that symbol. They're ashamed of that flag, for what THEIR ACTIONS MADE IT REPRESENT TO THE WORLD, and rightfully so.

We just don't have that sense of humility in this country, which is why it's going to hell in a handbasket...but that's another story.

 

[Jaxon]

We're gonna need a bigger boat.

RJ

 

[C-pher]

Again, I can see that you didn't read anything that was posted. The Beauregard Battle Flag has nothing to do with Slavery, or any of the said groups to which you are holding onto so tightly.

It has to be with how a group of people were treated by another group they feel was imposing on the rights of a nation. As Ken stated, "In protest to this and similar economic pressures imposed on the south to favor the north, serious discussions of secession became more common in the south."

It was because the more wealthy people of the North thought that they were, in a sense, better than the people of the South. Therefore completely disregarding what they VOTED for, for this country. They were ignored and in a round about way told, "Too bad."

Because you choose not to learn the truths of history is fine. When you talk about taking pot shots and saying that the people of the south are" back-wards halfwits," that's not what I call objective.

As you stated, the Germans aren't proud of what their nation did to a symbol. While the Southerners choose not to accept what others are trying to associate with their flag. The White Supremacists, or others that choose to pick that as their banner. It's not what it represents.

But, like most know that the swastika was not started as the symbol it now holds. People that choose to learn what, as you call, "The Confederate Flag" stands for, or what it represents also know the truths behind the flag. Not lies that they choose to make as truths so they have a soap box on which to stand.

You choose to hold slavery to the flag. That's your view. Doesn't make it the right view. Like any prejudges person, you're not going to change their mind with facts. So I'm not going to try. It's not pride vs. objectivity. It's truth vs. perception.

 

[Major Blood]

Again, I can see that you didn't read anything that was posted. The Beauregard Battle Flag has nothing to do with Slavery, or any of the said groups to which you are holding onto so tightly.

It has to be with how a group of people were treated by another group they feel was imposing on the rights of a nation. As Ken stated, "In protest to this and similar economic pressures imposed on the south to favor the north, serious discussions of secession became more common in the south."

It was because the more wealthy people of the North thought that they were, in a sense, better than the people of the South. Therefore completely disregarding what they VOTED for, for this country. They were ignored and in a round about way told, "Too bad."

Because you choose not to learn the truths of history is fine. When you talk about taking pot shots and saying that the people of the south are" back-wards halfwits," that's not what I call objective.

As you stated, the Germans aren't proud of what their nation did to a symbol. While the Southerners choose not to accept what others are trying to associate with their flag. The White Supremacists, or others that choose to pick that as their banner. It's not what it represents.

But, like most know that the swastika was not started as the symbol it now holds. People that choose to learn what, as you call, "The Confederate Flag" stands for, or what it represents also know the truths behind the flag. Not lies that they choose to make as truths so they have a soap box on which to stand.

You choose to hold slavery to the flag. That's your view. Doesn't make it the right view. Like any prejudges person, you're not going to change their mind with facts. So I'm not going to try. It's not pride vs. objectivity. It's truth vs. perception.

That was a very well written argument. I hope you can keep that same theory of truth vs. perception if somebody raises the Iraqi flag in your neighborhood. I also wonder what the reaction would be should a Native American family move into a Jewish neighborhood and fly a swastika on their property.

As for the issue of flags, well it's really not that complicated. As you said, the Confederate Flag was the battle flag of the south. The south believed, actually DEPENDED, on slavery. When you fight a battle, you fight for everything you believe in, and the flag you choose to march into battle with becomes a symbol for those beliefs, not just for a select few of them. So don't sit here and tell me anyone who associates that flag with the desired continuance of slavery is attempting to "make lies out of truths". The media WISHES they had spin like that.

Also, the Nazi flag stood for a lot more than just persecuting the Jews, but they changed it anyway, out of respect for those that still perceive it that way. The South has not. If that flag only stands for states' rights, which isn't tied to any time period or political/regional affiliation, why not fly a flag we can ALL get behind?

As for reading comprehension, if you had followed your own advice you would see that I wasn't lumping ALL southerners into a group when I said "backwards halfwits", only those whose main purpose for wanting to seceed was tied solely to the profits that slavery enabled them, which comprised a damn good percentage of those fighting under the guise of "states rights". And even IF I WERE generalizing, what you said was moot as I was distinctly and quite clearly referring to those who pledged their allegiance to the Confederacy, which all southerners DID NOT. Or didn't you read that far yet?

And for the record, I don't need a soapbox to stand on, my own two feet serve me just fine.

 

[dd]

Teacher Burns Flag

WOW! I guess one could conclude that flag burning, subject of this thread, surely has generated a LOT of discussion. Several points:

1. Had the teacher used a photo or even burned the flags outdoors, the impact would not have been nearly the same.

2. Burning of flags, including the Stars & Stripes, has been ruled by the SCOTUS to be a protected right of free speech.

3. I do not approve of 2 that decision.

4. I found that I was severely lacking in my education about U. S. History when the TV series Gettysburg was released. In the segment where Jeff Daniels asked the Confederate soldier why he was fighting and got the answer “States raaats!” Meaning >rights< of course. It was a basic question of whether each state was preeminent or whether the federal government was supreme.

We have managed to survive as a country with a government that is supreme over each of the states, at least in some respects, for some 140 years now, so I suppose that the end result was not all bad. Yet, there are situations where the individual state should have remained supreme, but, again, there have been even more erosions since the War of Northern Aggression, such occurring when terms and conditions are attached to fiscal bills funding federal programs. Such changes are now embedded in all states.

Once I realized my lack of understanding of U.S. History, the statement “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal ... and, we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, etc.” Two horrors are found there. First, our Founding Fathers (FF) had a caveat to the first clause, that slaves were exempt and women were not, of course, included. Second, our Courts have since ruled that religion must be kept separate from government to an unacceptable degree, a situation that our Founding Fathers clearly did NOT intend.

To address the first, I find it very difficult to take pride in the actions of the FF when they wrote those glowing words but did not mean them. It took a couple of Amendments to clarify that one, at great cost to our country.

To the second issue, it is clear to me (and I do not understand how the SCOTUS could have concluded otherwise) that what the FF >meant< was that government shall not place one religion above all others, nor select one as >the< official religion of these United States. That is all! They did not mean that schools could not teach about religion, nor that schools or court buildings could not have certain words listed on them (aka the Ten Commandments). Seems to me that more than one religion holds these tenets in high regard as guide for living a good life.

To the present, I think that the teacher did a lot of good, particularly as people are talking about the issue and exchanging ideas. I still do not like anyone burning the Stars & Stripes.

Sorta resembles the misconceptions about the Second Amendment. ‘Nuff said by me for now. dd

 

[C-pher]

OK, where in the hell is my last post???


Ok, let me try to say this again. As my last post has disappeared.

What does truth vs. perception have to do with the Iraqi flag? Or someone with pride from their country flying one in my neighborhood? I don't understand where that one came from?

And as for a single flag that we can all get behind. We have one, the US Flag. And, as I can't speak for all Southerners, I can say that I've never seen any Southerner fly the "Confederate Flag" higher than the Stars and Stripes.

Yes, the South depended on Slavery. But that's not what they were fighting for at that time. And the Majority of the people in the South aren't proud of that time. Most don't believe in slavery. They don't wave the flag because they we believe that we should bring it back. They wave the flag because it stands for the lives that were lost protecting that flag. Protection of rights that were being ignored by people that they felt were better than them. That flag was fought over for the same reasons that our flag is fought over. For freedoms of a people. But with this flag, freedoms of a region, in a Nation that was ignored.

Just because the North kept hold of the "Stars and Stripes" you don't see the same thing here. The North didn't have another flag. And while I can't say for sure, as we will never know...if the South kept the now, "US Flag" and the North adopted another...you would still see that flag flying in the "Yankee" states. We will never know, but I have a feeling that that might be true.

And, if we're all to stand behind one flag, then why do we have State flags? Aren't we one Nation? If that's the case, why does each state feel that they have to have their own flag?

And I do know that the states are still here today when the Confederate States are not...so don't feel that you have to play that argument. But it's still a valid point by your statement.




And on a Side note. I don't think that you are an idiot because you have different views. I do enjoy debate...that's why I don't believe in name calling when you don't believe in the views of another. But, I can tell that you're not an idiot. I think that people tend to get too personal when it comes to topics like this, and while I believe in my past. I don't take what you say personally as a stab to me...if that makes any sense.

 

[KMaurer]

... Yes, the South depended on Slavery. But that's not what they were fighting for at that time. ...

Don't be so quick to concede, C-pher. When the Constitution was originally debated, many of the southern delegates wanted to eliminate the importation of slaves immediately. It was the northern delegates who pushed to continue it, since the people making money from the slave trade were the New England ship owners, not anybody in the south. The south had slavery, and the north got rich off it. There's enough guilt for everybody, not just those who lost the war.

Ken

 

[Admin]

Backing out slowly....

 

[Jaxon]

RJ