something different to fight about

[Fritz]

Fired over rebel flag plate, worker sues Tampa
The Civil War buff says he was booted from city parking, suspended, then discharged.
By MELANIE AVE, Times Staff Writer
© St. Petersburg Times
published March 16, 2003


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TAMPA -- Larry Carpenter is a shy, soft-spoken man who would like nothing better than to one day play the part of a Confederate soldier in a Civil War re-enactment.

But for now, his battlefield is a federal courthouse and his enemy is the city of Tampa.

Carpenter, a 47-year-old Detroit native, sued the city last week, claiming his First Amendment rights were violated when he was fired for refusing to remove a license plate depicting the Confederate flag from the front of his 2001 Ford pickup.

He didn't use the truck in his $14-an-hour job as a traffic worker, but he did park it in a city lot.

"They don't pay for the truck," Carpenter said. "They don't pay for the insurance. They shouldn't be able to tell me what to put on it."

Carpenter wants to make one thing clear: He is not a racist. He got the plate because he is a Civil War buff.

"People need to understand that this isn't a fight about the Old South and slavery," said his attorney, J. Benton Stewart II.

"It's a fight for my rights," Carpenter insists.

His problems began in January 2002, when a supervisor told him to remove the plate or park off city property.

Carpenter refused, and the city suspended him without pay three times.

On Sept. 11, 2002, Carpenter came to work and was told he was fired for failing to obey orders to remove the plate.

According to the lawsuit, only one person complained about the plate in the six years Carpenter worked for the city. That person later rescinded the complaint, the lawsuit states.

There is no city policy dealing specifically with license plates or bumper stickers on personal vehicles.

City policy does, however, forbid employees from using slurs and other conduct directed at another person's race, color, national origin, sex, religion, handicap or age.

According to Carpenter's lawsuit, he was told by transportation manager Elton Smith that the license plate "created an antagonistic environment in the workplace."

Tom Gonzalez, labor and employment attorney for the city, said city officials acted properly in firing Carpenter.

"I don't think a public employee has any particular right in displaying that flag parked in a parking lot," Gonzalez said. "It's obvious that flag has resulted in a great deal of controversy. It's not a secret that it can cause a disruption in the workplace."

Carpenter said his fascination with the Civil War -- which he calls the War Between the States -- began when he moved from Michigan to Kentucky in the 1970s.

That's when he first put a battle flag on his truck.

Though he is still researching his heritage, he said he had ancestors who fought for the Confederacy. He is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a nonprofit historical organization. He also is a member of the Civil War Preservation Trust.

For Carpenter and his fiancee, Jamie Ugolini, the Civil War is a hobby. They attend re-enactments, watch documentaries and participate in parades.

He has a hat and boots that the Southern soldiers wore and he hopes to someday buy a uniform and a black powder gun so he can participate in a large re-enactment.

"It's our heritage," said Carpenter, a grandfather of two who did not want his photograph taken, saying he feared harassment.

Although he understands the Confederate flag is a divisive symbol that represents the enslavement of black Americans for many people, Carpenter said he doesn't hold that view.

"It's about history," he said.

Carpenter said his firing has been a significant personal hardship.

He got a job with the city in 1996 so he could become vested within 10 years and earn retirement benefits.

After his firing, he fought for and won unemployment benefits when a state Unemployment Compensation Appeals referee found the city "violated (Carpenter's) First Amendment right to freedom of speech."

Carpenter now runs his own land-clearing business.

In his lawsuit, Carpenter is seeking to be rehired with back pay.

Stewart said the city should either allow employees to express their views or institute a policy that prohibits religious, political or personal symbols from all city property, including fish depictions for Christians and rainbows for homosexuals.

Carpenter said he's fighting so all city workers can express their beliefs unhindered in the future.

"If you believe in your rights . . . you should stick with your values," Carpenter said. "That's what I did."

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/16/Hi...bel_flag.shtml

[GrantDawg]

Sad. I'm for changing State flags because a flag should be representive of the whole State. This is just stepping on indiviual rights.

[Honolulu_Blue]

While I don't think it's right for a state to fly the Confederate flag (see: South Carolina), I think it's perfectly fine for this guy to have it on the license plate of his truck. Hell, he should be able to drive the General Lee into work wether he parks it in a "city" lot or not. This is crap.

[Radii]

Hang a big confederate flag in your cubicle and yeah I can see the issue, but this is pretty damn stupid right here.

[Easy Mac]

In Columbia SC, city workers are not allowed to eat at Maurice's barbecue b/c he flies the confederate flag at all his locations, and the government does not want to be associated with that.

Personally, if the guy wants to put a confederate flag on his car (so long as its not a state/company car), that his business. If he wants to wear a flag around town, good for him. It doesn't mean I have to respect him for it, but at least he has guts to do it. Now if he wore it to work and refused to take it off, fire him, but that didn't happen here. I'd think he'd get a settlement out of this. I personally feel it stands for oppresion and am appalled by it, but to each his own.

And on a side note, I went to a county council debate here in Greenville about whether MLK should be a county holiday. While in line, a white guy objected to a black man in a wheelchair getting preferential treatment. He proceded to call him names I will not repeat. The man in the wheelchair grabbed the other guy and put him in a headlock. The white guy was arrested, the man in the wheelchair got to go into the meeting. Oh yeah, and I met Jesse Jackson, that was fun

[clintl]

He shouldn't be fired for parking a truck with Confederate flag on it in the parking lot.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Frtiz, this is just one of countless examples of the p.c. b.s. that we're surrounded by here in the South. Every other region has their own too of course, we just seem to be in line for an extra helping at times.

[KWhit]

If the redneck wants to have a confederate flag on his pickup truck, he should be able to. He probably has a decal of Calvin pissing on a Chevy logo, but nobody makes him take that crap off.

Of course, here in GA we have a governor who wants to get the conferedate symbol put back on the state flag after we just got rid of it. And I thought we had moved past that backward crap.

Sigh.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by KWhit
Of course, here in GA we have a governor who wants to get the conferedate symbol put back on the state flag after we just got rid of it. And I thought we had moved past that backward crap.

Ummmm...I've seen no indication that Purdue himself "wants to get the confederate symbol put back on the state flag." All I've seen is that he wants a non-binding referendum.

[Havok]

This is absolute BS.... i'd sue like a mofo if i was this guy.

you can thank Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for this mess.

[EagleFan]

Just to play devil's advocate a little. Why not just remove the damn thing when asked to and then attempt to take action to have it allowed instead of letting it ever come to getting fired.

That symbol has a lot of hatred tied to it's history. Especially for someone from Detroit to want to display it. If it's a southerner at least they have it as their heritage so there's a better reason.

Sorry, I feel it's just plain stupid to allow yourself to get fired over something like this when you can go along with the request and get it settled through the same means. He's just looking for a descrimination suit so he can get some money, most likely. That's the only difference, allow yourself to get fired and then you might win a big payday. That just shows that the issue isn't really the most important factor.

With that said, I'm completely fed up with all the PC crap that goes around. But in a case like this, there was ample opportunity to avoid the consequence and still take action to allow for displaying it.

[KWhit]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Ummmm...I've seen no indication that Purdue himself "wants to get the confederate symbol put back on the state flag." All I've seen is that he wants a non-binding referendum.

Well, I had hoped the controversy was dead, but he won't let it die. Most everyone has moved on and are focused on more important issues, but Purdue continues to push for the referendum (even over the objections of many in his party). Probably because the flag issue helped get him elected.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by KWhit
Well, I had hoped the controversy was dead, but he won't let it die. Most everyone has moved on and are focused on more important issues, but Purdue continues to push for the referendum (even over the objections of many in his party). Probably because the flag issue helped get him elected.

I think he would love to let it die, but it his election was for a large part due to this issue (and the teacher's hating Barnes). He has to do something, but the last thing he wants is that flag back. Hence, a non-binding referendum that will do little to nothing.

[KWhit]

I hope you're right, GD. I think if the old flag were to be re-instated, I'd have to pull a Dixie Chicks and say that I was embarassed to be from the state of Georgia. Of course, then they may not play my CD on the radio. Wait, I don't have a CD. Yeah! Bonus!

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by EagleFan
Just to play devil's advocate a little. Why not just remove the damn thing when asked to and then attempt to take action to have it allowed instead of letting it ever come to getting fired.

That symbol has a lot of hatred tied to it's history. Especially for someone from Detroit to want to display it. If it's a southerner at least they have it as their heritage so there's a better reason.

Sorry, I feel it's just plain stupid to allow yourself to get fired over something like this when you can go along with the request and get it settled through the same means. He's just looking for a descrimination suit so he can get some money, most likely. That's the only difference, allow yourself to get fired and then you might win a big payday. That just shows that the issue isn't really the most important factor.

With that said, I'm completely fed up with all the PC crap that goes around. But in a case like this, there was ample opportunity to avoid the consequence and still take action to allow for displaying it.

I know you're just playing Devil's Advocate, but I was taught to stand up for my rights.

However, let's take this one step further. What if this were a Nazi flag on his license plate? Is the answer still the same?

What about a license plate that says "gay pride"?

Where is the line drawn?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Blackadar
Where is the line drawn?

as a matter of fact it is drawn right here.


______________________

^^^^^^
The "Line"

[sabotai]

EaglesFan, one problem with that is that he's not looking for a big payday, all he's demanding is his job back with back pay (money he would have made had he kept his job.) So it doesn't seem like he let himself get fired to cash in.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by KWhit
Well, I had hoped the controversy was dead, but he won't let it die. Most everyone has moved on and are focused on more important issues, but Purdue continues to push for the referendum (even over the objections of many in his party). Probably because the flag issue helped get him elected.

Actually there's quite a lot of us out here who have no intention of letting the issue just "die". One gutless political S.O.B. just saw his career ended because he sold the voters of the state out to a handful of special interest groups and/or racists, we showed just how well-received that move was. Gov. Perdue has little choice but to pursue the matter as promised ... unless of course he'd like to see "Boot Barnes" become "Sack Sonny". (given his current performance on the budget situation that may turn out to be a moot point by the next election )

One way or another Roy's rag will not be left flying over this state.

Jon

[Draft Dodger]

personally, I think he should be looking for a big payday. It's asinine that he would be fired for that.

of course, I also think it's asinine that we've boiled down everything that the Civil War was about to "slavery" and, by extension, reducing the Confederate flag to primarily representing "racism".

[RendeR]

I disagree altogether with the opinion that the battle flag has any hatred tied to it at all. That flag has NOTHING to do with slavery or the eprsecution of blacks. That flag was adopted by a group of states to serve their fighting men in battle.

Where is that dissertaion someone had about the civil war and its reasons for happening? Slavery, while a public outcry during the time, was NOT the reason for the civil war, nor was anything relating to that flag a symbol of it.

This guy has every right to sue. Someone in his management chain got a bug in his ass about it and thought they had an issue. Its not this man's responsibility to "go along" with anyone and pursue it afterwards. Anytime you want to discipline a worker it is your responsibility to make sure you have your facts right, because shit like this always comes back to bite you.

The city should pay him every penny he was due, including estimated overtime. The idiots who ok this firing should in turn, be canned for ineptitude.

People need to get a grip and worry about themselves and stop looking to point fingers at whatever anyone else may be doing. if you don't like his license plate, don't fucking look at it. You have that option.


bah, end rant.


Ren

[KWhit]

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
personally, I think he should be looking for a big payday. It's asinine that he would be fired for that.

of course, I also think it's asinine that we've boiled down everything that the Civil War was about to "slavery" and, by extension, reducing the Confederate flag to primarily representing "racism".

The problem (at least in Georgia) is that the state flag was changed to include the Confederate Battle Cross in 1956. It had never been a part of the state flag before then. The reason it was incorporated into the state flag was as a protest to racial integration. So the argument that it is a piece of southern heritage doesn't hold water to me.


The following is from An article from Information Please

"Another misperception is that in a number of Southern states some version of the Confederate flag had been flown without interruption since the Civil War. For the most part, the Southern states that raised the Confederate battle flag or incorporated it into their state flag did so during the 1950s and 1960s, in a defiant stand against integration. Denmark Groover, the Georgia House floor leader who in 1956 sponsored the legislation to add the Southern Cross into the state flag, has freely admitted as much. He maintains that he and many of Georgia's legislators at the time were staunch segregationists who had urged that the Confederate symbol be added to the flag as a protest against federal integration orders. In 2001, 45 years later, Groover, now retired, again voiced his opinion on Georgia's flag, this time advocating that the divisive symbol be removed."

[Draft Dodger]

Interesting info there KWhit - an informative read.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
Interesting info there KWhit - an informative read.

Interesting, but it struggles with the facts quite a bit.

As the Atlanta Journal (owned by flag-change supporter Cox Enterprises btw) reported "

"In none of our research did we find any record of a stated connection between changing the flag and opposition to desegregation rulings ... Introduction of the bill (to change the flag) was for one reason and one reason only: to create a living memorial to our great heritage and the brave people involved".

Atlanta Journal, July 5, 1992


Further, in the very hearing where the state flag was hijacked from the residents of Georgia by Barnes & his minions, the aforementioned Groover admitted that "he probably used some rhetoric" in '56 to connect the flag change to a protest of court-ordered integration. That sounds like a pretty good indication that it was some posturing by a politician, not something rooted in reality.

It seems those who decided that backroom deals should change the flag are now trying to engage in a little revisionist history of their own.

[KWhit]

No, I think that site has the facts straight. Oh, and you admitted yourself that Groover finally stated that "he probably used some rhetoric" connecting the flag to the segregation issue. Well, that's good enough for me. But here's more:

Why did Georgia state legislators suddenly decide that showing southern heritage was important in February of 1956?

Did it have anything to do with the hot debate that was going on in the GA legislature regarding the passing of Georgia's Interposition Resolution? You can read the whole text of the resolution here, but in summary it was GA's response to the landmark case of Brown vs the Board of Ed which de-segregated public schools. Here's a little tidbit from the resolution:

"A resolution to declare the Supreme Court decisions of May 17, 1954, and May 31, 1955, in the school segregation cases, and all similar decisions, by the Supreme Court null, void and of no effect....

That the State of Georgia has at no time surrendered to the General Government its right to maintain racially separate public schools and other public facilities;

That the State of Georgia, in ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, did not agree, nor did the other States ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment agree, that the power to operate racially separate public schools and other facilities was to be prohibited to them thereby;"


Blah, blah, blah. Same stuff from the resolution. It was passed by the GA House on Feb 8, 1956. Denmark Groover declared that "it would be notice to the people of the nation interested in maintaining segregation and states' rights that we will stand between the Supreme Court and our citizens in their efforts to stand on their Constitutional rights."

At the same time, Georgia passed a state bill allowing it to close all public schools if the feds enforced integration and open up segregated "private" schools. And a law was passed that session stating if a police officer was caught not enforcing GA's laws of segregation, he would be stripped of his pension.

Basically, the entire 1956 session was devoted toward twarting the federal government's institution of Brown v. Board of Ed.

The bill that changed the flag was signed on Feb 13, 1956.

The flag was not meant to evoke slavery. It was meant as a slap in the face to the federal government saying that GA had a right to stay segregated.

But this is just as bad, IMO.

Oh, and the flag was designed by a segregationist.

Source: State Senate Research

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by KWhit Oh, and you admitted yourself that Groover finally stated that "he probably used some rhetoric" connecting the flag to the segregation issue.

I've never denied such statements were made, particularly in instances where they were expedient. Expedience is, after all, a long-standing tradition in politics, Southern or otherwise.

Well, that's good enough for me.

There's the difference in us I guess. If you like the current revisionist history being offered by, or in support of, the current crop of racists assaulting Southern heritage, there isn't much I can do about that. Except pity you briefly perhaps and then redouble my efforts to ensure that the flag matter comes to a righteous conclusion.

See ya at the polls

[KWhit]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA

If you like the current revisionist history being offered by, or in support of, the current crop of racists assaulting Southern heritage, there isn't much I can do about that.

The people who want the flag changed are racists? Wow, you're more confused than I thought. And did you read the info from the Senate Research Office?

[Ben E Lou]

Jon, Jon, Jon:

1. Whether the flag to you represents heritage or something more sinister, the fact is this: it was hijacked by racists during the Civil Rights era, and heritage-thinking white people stood by, watched, and did little or nothing to resist their noble symbol being used as an emblem of racism and hatred.

2. It would be HORRID economically for Georgia to put that flag back up.

3. Do you REALLY want a flag for our state that insults and alienates such a large portion of the population like this??? (2000 Census figures had Georgia at 28.7% black, and rising...)

I think you're getting caught up in something similar to the anti-Bush crowd. Because they can't stand Bush, ANYTHING he does is wrong--even when he clearly gets it right. Similarly, the current so-called Civil Rights leaders are more often than not spewing rhetoric that is outdated and unnecessary. However, this is one of few things that they've actualy gotten right. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The way it was done was horrid. The people who did it were politically and self-motivated. WHAT THEY DID was right.

[KWhit]

1) Yep.

2) Correct.

3) 3 for 3. Damn, Dog, you're on a roll.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Jon, Jon, Jon:

1. Whether the flag to you represents heritage or something more sinister, the fact is this: it was hijacked by racists during the Civil Rights era, and heritage-thinking white people stood by, watched, and did little or nothing to resist their noble symbol being used as an emblem of racism and hatred.

2. It would be HORRID economically for Georgia to put that flag back up.

3. Do you REALLY want a flag for our state that insults and alienates such a large portion of the population like this??? (2000 Census figures had Georgia at 28.7% black, and rising...)

I think you're getting caught up in something similar to the anti-Bush crowd. Because they can't stand Bush, ANYTHING he does is wrong--even when he clearly gets it right. Similarly, the current so-called Civil Rights leaders are more often than not spewing rhetoric that is outdated and unnecessary. However, this is one of few things that they've actualy gotten right. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The way it was done was horrid. The people who did it were politically and self-motivated. WHAT THEY DID was right.

In total and complete agreement.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sky,

In spite of the misuse of the flag in question by various groups, I believe it is and will be proven by vote to be, the preferred state flag. That's the precise reason it was hijacked and the voters were cut out of the process in the first place, the racists and those who appease them know a vote on the issue will result in the same outcome as in Mississippi.

Economics impact? You mean like the tourism growth experienced in South Carolina during the NAACP boycott? Or like the auto plant for south Georgia where the manufacturer said plainly they could care less about the flag? And regardless of whatever economic data you choose to believe, some people aren't willing to put their heritage for sale at any price. If I'd be willing to sacrifice my life to defend that flag, do you really think I'd hesitate to tell some left-leaning, racist-appeasing company to take a hike?

Sky, I honestly couldn't give a rat's ass WTF those who choose to be ofended by a symbol of heritage think or feel or the matter. I-75, I-85 and I-20 are open and run in various directions.

Hell, I'm equally or moreso offended by the presence of the despicable rag that King Roy foisted upon the people of Georgia, a move that has set race relations back further than any point in my adult life. But that offense isn't supposed to matter though, simply because I'm white & Southern I'm supposed to endure it. Well fuck that, it aint going to happen, at least not without one hell of a fight.

This pseudo-issue, raised by a vocal but small minority who were bothered by the existing flag, is nothing more than an assault on anything Southern by a small group of racists and those who fear them.

The battle lines are clearly drawn and it's well past time to (as the AJC poll of the past suggested) put the mater in the hands of the voters. Discussion of the matter is only making things worse, let's just put it in the hands of the people where it belongs.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
In spite of the misuse of the flag in question by various groups, I believe it is and will be proven by vote to be, the preferred state flag.

I could be wrong, but I have a strong feeling you're going to be very surprised by the outcome of the vote.

I could argue this point-by-point, but it is clearly useless. You've made up your mind. Comparing the fact that more people went to Myrtle Beach and whether or not we get an auto plant in South Georgia to losing any shot at the Olympics, Final Four, Super Bowl, etc. etc. etc. is just one example of some rather suspect and specious logic in your post.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
... the racists and those who appease them know a vote on the issue will result in the same outcome as in Mississippi.

I have the same heritage as you. I have relatives that fought for the South and some that gave their lives. I still believe that our flag should have changed and will vote and fight against changing it back. Racism has nothing to do with it.

[JPhillips]

RendeR: Hate to disappoint you, but slavery was the main issue during secession. I copied an earlier post of mine on this issue.

Afer reading "Apostles of Disunion" by Charles Dew its impossible for me to not see slavery as the main issue leading to secession. Dew uses the comments of the Secession Commissioners that were sent by the lower southern states to the states that were on the fence. These make it clear that the states that seceeded first told the others that they should seceed because of slavery.

Some quotes from Dew's book.

Mississippi's commissioner to Georgia closed his statement with,
"Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, the part of Mississippi is chosen, she will never submit to this Black Republican Administration.
She had rather see the last of her race, men, women, and children, immolated in one common funeral pile, than see them subjected to the degradation of civil, political and social equality with the negro race."

Alabama's commissioner to Delaware said that Lincoln sought,
"the establishment of an equality of races in our midst."

Georgia's commissioner to Virginia stated the reason for Georgia's secession,
"This reason may be summed up in a single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a seperation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of slavery."

Prominent Southern orator John Preston Smith said in 1861,
"the conflict between slavery and non-slavery is a conflict for life and death."

Don't ever let anyone tell you that slavery was a peripheral issue. That sort of revisionism happened after the South's defeat as a way to justify their cause. As states tried to convince each other to seceed, the one theme they returned to over and over was the "Black Republican's" unholy desire to see the black man as equal to the white.

[RendeR]

Everyone's entitled to an opinion. Yours differes from mine. your research is based in one theology of the events, mine another.

THe basic issue at hand here is a flag. A piece of oprange colored cloth with stripes and stars on it.

I will simply not accept that people today, 150 years after the fact. Cannot and WILL not grow as human beings and let the past be what it is. The past. No one is trying to say that slavery is or ever was a good thing by waving or presenting that flag anywhere. no one is trying to oppress the black people of the world by hanging this symbol on a state building, or on the front of their pickup truck.

There is NO reason, no RIGHT of anyone to limit the use of such a symbol. If you truly believe there is, then the christian crosses and fish, the jewish stars, the American flag itself, all have to go and cannot be flown in public. Because they ALL would then be relegated to espousing something which some other group of people do not believe in and are offended by.

If you don't like it, that is your choice. You do NOT have a right to deny me MY rights as an individual to enjoy the history or heritage that I see in such a thing. just as much as I have no right to tell bleeding heart christian fuckwads that I'm sick to death of their fish symbols. (I'm not that adamant about it, this is just for emphasis of the point)

One thing I'm drawn back to by the voting comments above. Everyone has the right to vote, go out and make yourself heard. if enough people had gotten off their lazy asses in 2000 we might not have this useless ignorant texan in the white house. THe point is, though, that we live in a democracy. where the majority is supposed to rule when it comes to decisions and regulation. this, sadly is not how the government has developed. but thats another bitch of mine. What will happen if they vote the flag back in? will the black community continue to bitch about the choice? probably. Do they have a right to bitch? sure, go ahead. I also have the right to ignore them.

This is a NON issue. The only factors keeping racism alive in this country (with the exception of some seriously screwed up people in their survivalist groups) is those who constantly cry and play the race card because they aren't getting what they want.

I am not a racist, I will give equal billing and opportunity to anyone. but if I'm offering a job and I have 5 whites 2 jews a black and a mexican applying for the job. I'm going to be called a racist if I don't hire either the black or the mexican. Is that how our society should be? no.

Until the minorities stop crying about inequality, which is all but nonexistant in todays world. The whole issue will never die.

People, all of us, have to do our best, for ourselves, and stop expecting society to hand us what we want because we're different thatn someone else. You're not special because you're something other than white, you're just another american.

argh...I apologize for rambling on. I'm just very frustrated by the continuous haragning from special interest groups. I want these issues to be allowed to die as they should have been in the 70's and 80's. We're supposed to be this great society, but how can we be when people want something for nothing?

Ren

PS just another point about the slavery issue. The federal government had no real issues with slavery until lincoln made his proclemation. There were activists for the abolition of slavery in the North, yes, and they got plenty of air time in the newspapers of the day. It was NOT the focus of the Natians government when it came down to the secession movement. There were a lot of other factors which were much much more motivating for the whole conflict. The Southern states representatives made it part of the reasoning, IMO, to help develope a following for the secession movement in the south, to get the landowner and slave owners to pour their support into it. but I agree to disagree with you about that.

[JPhillips]

RendeR: Do you have any proof that slavery was not a major issue? I could give you another hundred quotes from secession commissioners that show that slavery was absolutely the main issue. These speeches, btw weren't made to the common rabble but to the legislators of state governments that had not yet seceeded. If, as you suggest, the slavery issue was not important but merely a propaganda tool, why did commissioner after commissioner from different states keep returning to it? Slavery and racial equality dominate EVERY commissioner speech. Face it, states like Mississippi and Alabama and South Carolina were telling other states to seceed because of an unholy plan to eliminate slavery and, god forbid, see the balck as equal.

The "noble cause" arguments from the south are based on arguments made well after secession. The facts make it clear that the most important issue in determinig secession was slavery. Everything else was merely a side issue.

FWIW- While I don't think any goverment should fly the battle flag, this yahoo has every right to put it on his car.;