If the south fought the war to keep slaves why did new Jersey and Delaware not not ratify the the 13th amendment until 1903? The union army was segeragated. The army of northern Virginia was not. The Confederacy paid pensions to it black soldiers. The union didn't didnt do squat for their black soldiers. The war was over taxes. The federals imposed tariffs to force the south to sell cotton to the textile mills in the north instead of England. England payed much more for cotton. This is also why England supported the Confederacy during the war. These are facts. They tried to rewrite history to hide the truth. Look up Mr H K Edgerton, a black man who's black ancestor fought for the south with honor and he is proud to honor him. I'm tired of people bringing up the war like it has anything to do with racism. I had family on both sides. very few soldiers who fought for the south owned slaves and fought to defend their homes from a barbaric union army that today would be breaking the Geneva convention
Yes, lets drag up 150 year old history to prove a point. The south was not unique in its feelings of white superiority. When Lincoln announced he was fighting the war to end slavery, New York rioted; hanging and burning blacks alive.
"Its not a 'Southern Thing'."
Racism does exist everywhere. However only one portion of the country decided to commit treason and go to war against the United States because they wanted to keep owning and raping and murdering black people with impunity. And many of the descendants of those people still can't get over losing that war, and are working to see it fought again.
But yeah, Yankees are racist too! So Southerners are absolved!
Don't pay any attention to any of those Excuses Atty. Green. These are the same voices that would have continued to perpetuate slavery if the government hadn't stepped in. In their opinion, this country is THEIRS and THEIRS Alone, despite the fact that their ancestors stole it from the American Indians. Their arguments and justifications are not stronger than the ones proposed to kill American Indians, enslave Africans, or Annihilate Jews... I'm sure that they have issues with the Nuremberg Convictions too.
Dwayne, it's really sad how far you have to reach to make your case.
re: point 2. We now know for sure that Scott was unarmed. Did Slager know that for sure during the altercation with Scott? No, he did not.
The fact that you say "Regardless of what happened prior..." is ridiculous. What happened prior is extremely important. The fact that Scott fought with Slager and attempted to take his weapon is extremely important. It gives Slager a valid reason to be fearful of what Scott might do once he got away from the struggle.
The saddest part is you saying that Scott was running out of fear of himself being shot due to 2 recent cases of black men sitting in cars. That's just silly. Scott ran because he felt he was above the law. Let's apply your logic to Slager. He could have been in fear due to all the cases where people flip out violently on police officers during routine/misdemeanor stops because they are hiding from a more serious crime. That has happened way more than two times. It didn't make sense for Scott to run for a broken taillight, and Slager had no other information about why he would run. I think it's appropriate for police officers to assume the worst in scenarios like that. Just because Scott was running away does not mean the situation was "de-escalating." Scott could just have easily been looking for a better position to take shots at Slager like behind the tree he was running to. Yes, we know now he was not armed, but Slager DID NOT KNOW THAT! All he knew is that Scott was combative, attempted to take his weapon, and ran for a reason not related to why he was stopped.
Just like the other race-baiters, you have to make this issue about race when it is not. If Scott were white, and Slager were black, I'd still be on the side of law enforcement given everything else played out the same way. The only difference is you would not be writing this opinion piece if race were reversed in this situation.
The foreman, who was black, went on national TV and stated that the jury unanimously decided that there was NO MALICE on Slager's part. They just could not agree on the conviction of manslaughter. That fact right there destroys your silly argument.
Those lines exist everywhere, not just Charleston, or South Carolina. Its not a 'Southern Thing'. I have seen far more racism in the Northern United States than I have here in Charleston. Need proof? I can say 'Hi' to a black person here and they smile and say 'Hi' back, and without them assuming I am speaking to them only because I want to sell them something.
Racism is also a two way street. Whites can be racist, no doubt. So can blacks. When a black person looks upon a white person whom they do not know, and for no other reason assumes they are racist because of their white skin, then that black person is a racist. Imagination may have something to do with it in all cases as we should judge each person individually, yet we imagine all are the same based upon social grouping or skin colors.
Cid95 - Thanks. I transposed that statement to be two weeks prior to the shooting, not after the shooting. Thank you for pointing out my error.
I'm sure that if this POS had his way he would be wearing a white hood and and an old bed sheet.
His courthouse antics aren't going to get any higher court to overturn his conviction and save him from the death house after massacring nine people and confessing it on tape. That argument might fly in Massachusetts, not South Carolina.
While I agree from the evidence I've seen, Officer Slager is, at the very least, guilty of manslaughter, neither I nor Mr. Green are jurors in the case and his broad generalization about the criminal justice system are just that, a broad generalization.
Mistrials are actually not unusual in cases like this regardless of the color of the officer or the victim, and so before we start condemning the whole system because it didn't go our way, take a breath. Officer Slager was not found not guilty, there will be a retrial, and more than likely he will be convicted. I wonder if that occurs whether Mr. Green will return to write an OP that the criminal justice system worked the way if was suppose to.
This is the system we have and if Mr. Green would like to suggest another, I'm sure we would all like to hear it.
Trumps focusing "Greatly, YUUUgely, Greatly" on our nation. Good for him.
The State Department still has not fully disclosed all the subpoenaed documents and the President has still not disclosed what he was doing the night of the attack! Susan Rice was replaced and given a National Security adviser position to protect her Political silence.... Just saying!
Because the FBI background check denial happened about two weeks after the shooting:
"Less than two weeks after the shooting, Thrailkill finally received a response regarding Roofs background check, informing him to deny the sale."
The NICS check process needs to be tightened up and made effective, as per current law. Of course, someone willing to commit mass murder is probably also willing to illegally acquire a firearm, as we've repeatedly seen in Europe.
@Jshicke: because, hey, what's the worst that could happen? Oh, nevermind.
At this point I'd be happy with the "gun control" idea of merely enforcing existing law.
And still no Snapchat or Instagram category under Culture, Art, and Entertainment.
Trump is going to change the international landscape in a way to benefit him and his family. That's why so chummy with Putin and genocidal Duterte (Philippines). When he makes friends with the enemy, he makes himself richer and creates a yuge security risk for the US.
Nah. It was a $7.8 million smear campaign, not an investigation, so it DOES really sound that bad.
A $1 million project involving monkeys on a treadmill, another $1.2 million to assess the effects of microgravity on sheep, $110 million spent on constructing buildings left empty in Afghanistan, $300,000 for a cheese heritage center, $5 billion for unneeded data centers. $2 million for jazz playing robots. $1.3 million to investigate how a foam koozie keeps a can of cold beer cool on a hot day. $2 million each to train 145 Syrian 'Freedom Fighters' of whom only 96 actually fought. The Pentagon does say it was less than that though because most of the equipment purchased for the training was never used.
$7.8 million for an investigation doesn't sound that bad, really.
You, sir, are awesome.
And the beat goes on:
FINALLY, after 7 years of it, no more Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. Mission accomplished but still nothing to "nail" HRC to the wall in the end. Why? Because it was only a 7-year smear campaign, that cost taxpayers millions of dollars and 7 years of wasted legislative time. Oh, wait a minute, it was not wasted because HRC lost, right? So in the end, political posturing cost taxpayers millions in order to participate in campaign election tampering.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2017,
Charleston City Paper