At what age did slaves get their vote at?

Nothing is served by name calling. Nothing.

The flag certainly does represent (to me) the atavastic South. Use of that symbol may have different motivations, but people who use that flag are certainly aware of the meaning it carries beyond their stated use.

When I was at college, some students hung this flag out of their dorm rooms and argued that they were merely expressing pride in their Southern heritage. Another southern student wrote that "Anyone proud of their heritage knows that politeness is highly valued in the South and that by offending others they are being rude".

I think that this captures it -- intentional rudeness. Of course, Hitch is himself intentionally rude, but his ends are different than Huckabee's.

" At what age did slaves get their vote at?"

Seeing as how slaves were freed and black men were allowed to vote before women, and before those aged 18-21, you have no point.

"Use of that symbol may have different motivations, but people who use that flag are certainly aware of the meaning it carries beyond their stated use."

Only to idiots.

The US flag has more to do with slavery than the Confederate flag, and it is a disservice to history to try and claim that the South and the Confederacy was the source of slavery, when it was in fact the WHOLE UNION.

The U.S. Constitution had slavery written into that. It was not the Confederacy to blame. We either accept that, or continue living in a cultural lie.

Hitchens notes the flag appeared in retaliation to the civil rights movement. Therefore, those who first raised it in the 60s did so in a racist context. That is what makes the flag so clearly racist, not the pattern or its military history.

San:

Next time, pass the second grade before you try to come onto an internet forum.

I'm couldn't allow the irony of this statement to pass unchallenged. Why is it so often that ignorant rubes recommend completing an education?

San, I'd rather read an article by an articulate Brit (his "aires" aside) than a post by a "hate mongerer" like you. Go back to Foxnews and spread your nonsensical, poorly worded "thoughts" where you belong.

San: you've been posting BS on these boards for a while now, and I'm still not sure if these are your actual thoughts, or if you are just a grade A troll. Either way you seem to have a lot of time on your hands so I thought I'd help you out.

Here are some ways you can improve on your debating skills. You'll find that you don't actually "win" by calling the other person a retard or saying non-sense repeatedly until everyone is tired of listening to you:

http://debate.uvm.edu/

Here's one on forum posting for you. Note that getting the last post in does not mean that you're points were the best, it just means everyone else is tired of reading and commenting on whatever trash you wrote:

<link>

And for some fun reading, here's an article on the origin of the phrase "douche bag." I'm sure you've heard it a lot, and just thought maybe you were curious about its meaning:

<link>

I know you must be busy with all of the postings, and with the libel suits you keep threatening, but I hope you can find time in your schedule to read some of these things and enjoy yourself.

And San, thank you for making the internet a better place for all of us.

Nah, that's not true. Name-calling can be fun and cathartic, there is no point in writing it off completely. [g] This kind of reminds me of the boilerplate pacifist response to fighting, namely, that it solves nothing and is inherently wrong. Whenever I hear that, I think back to J.S. Mill's response: "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of mind that thinks nothing is worth fighting for is far worse."

I think most people here can see for themselves that a certain subset of our species, such as "San" here, can hardly be reasoned with. But why let it go at that? Why let him have the run of the place and, in so doing, cloud the judgment of impartial readers who may lack an understanding of the issue? Why not shout down the retrograde idiocy he and his ilk represent, in all its forms? Rather than idly endure the slings and arrows of semi-literate nimrods such as him, I say why not let loose with a return volley? It's kind of fun. [g]

"Hitchens notes the flag appeared in retaliation to the civil rights movement."

And Hitchens is wrong constantly.

Your point is what?

Thanks for proving that you are a troll by posting off topic.

I only hope that you will be removed shortly for your spamming of this forum.

"I think most people here can see for themselves that a certain subset of our species, such as "San" here, can hardly be reasoned with"

Oh sure, try to claim reason when you are trying to pretend that the Confederacy was the origin and end of slavery, even though the US as a whole indulged in slavery, and that the South was no different than everyone else.

All you are doing is scape goating them in order to hide from your own racism.

You are sick and disgusting.

...and where in the U.S. was it absolutely essential to the economy?

Ok, then.

...?

Ah yes, those white liberal negro-lynchers. I can't tell you how many times my mother scared us kids into submission with true tales of Volvos tearing through black New England townships, assaulting the frightened African-American populace with their Rick Astley albums and rolled up New York Times newspapers-cum-torches.

Of course the flag isn't racist, it is not a sentient being...

The Civil War (and, hence, the Confederacy) was most definitely about slavery, though.

The south wanted low tariffs because it had chosen to put it's full production capacity into growing cash crops to sell and using said revenues to buy its necessities. The institution that enabled that choice: slavery.

Tariffs had been a back and forth fight for the 19th century, and yet it was when the representative of the abolitionist party got elected president that the south seceded. Of course it was about slavery.

As far as the 3/5ths rule, the travesty is that slaves got counted at all for political representation. That the south was able to get 3/5ths representation for people with no votes and no rights was a spectacular con on their part.

Do you believe that the segregationists during the civil rights movement believed in states' rights? If you are, I think you're a first class idiot. The only states' right they cared about was the 'right' to descriminate. The principle meant nothing to them in the 1960's and it meant nothing in 1860. States' Rights meant slavery.

As far as the alleged great southern belief in States Rights, was Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Act included? Or were they just pro states rights when it let them be pro slavery?

The tide, both economic and social, was turning against slavery at the time of the civil war. The south chose to erect sandbags around their peculiar institution...

LOVE the Rick Astley reference. Has somebody been watching 'Sunny in Philly'? [g]