The Confederate Flag

[Asclepias]

Flags of the Confederate States of America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Georgia the Confederate battle flag was reintroduced in 1956, just two years after the Supreme Court decision Brown v Board of Education. It was considered by many to be a protest against school desegregation.[31] It was also raised at the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss) during protests against integration of schools.[32]

Confederate Flag Controversy

Along with the U.S. flag and the South Carolina state flag, the Confederate flag had been displayed atop the South Carolina statehouse dome since 1962.

Gotta love the myth of good ole southern tradition. This clown is actually supporting symbolism that would have stood for segregation.

 

[SmedlyButler]

I'm going to skip discussion about your apparent moral neutrality for now. It just seems odd to me that someone who professes to be Christian (or have I got that wrong?) can adopt a stance that is so obviously ethicallly/morally relativistic. Like saying sin is determined subjectively by the sentiments of the time being discussed. You seem to be unsure of the concepts, you can refresh your memory here, An Overview of Ethical Theory;

The objectivist holds to three main positions. First, moral values are objective in the sense that they are not created by humans and are independent of subjective human thought processes. Objectivists have often argued that moral values exist in a higher nonphysical realm. Second, moral values are unchanging in the sense that they do not vary over time and from place to place. No matter how far back in time you go, or where on this planet you might travel, the same unchanging moral values will apply in those places. Third, moral values are universal in that they apply to everyone who exists. No one is privileged enough to escape from these norms and, instead, they umbrella over every living person.

OR

Morality, then, is relative in the sense that it is relative to our human needs and preferences. Second, moral values are far from the unchanging things that objectivists allege. Our value system is continually shifting in dramatic ways. In past centuries people commonly approved of slavery and torture, and we now reject these as moral atrocities. In past centuries people disapproved of premarital sex, and today many people deem it to be morally acceptable. Not only do we see these dramatic changes in moral attitudes through time, but we can see it today when comparing one culture’s moral values with another. This is particularly evident with issues such as abortion, euthanasia, alcohol consumption, recreational drug use, public nudity.

Most Christians at least claim to be solidly in the Objectivist camp.

Anyway that's all a separate issue for now, let's stick with your refusal to accept historical refutation of this opinion which you keep repeating;

Boss - Except that the South wasn't fighting to allow slavery. The US Supreme Court had repeatedly upheld the institution of slavery and it was a perfectly legitimate and legal practice in America. How can you be fighting to allow something that is already allowed and has been allowed for 85 years?

It's been pointed out to you this opinion is contrary to the historical documents issued by the Secessionist States themselves. Their Declarations are unambiguous as to what the fight was about. e.g South Carolina (the first State to secede in case you forgot) said;

For twenty-five years this agitation (anti-slavery) has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

And the statements by the principals involved are also unambiguous. I think this quote has been offered before but it is so representative of the sentiments that justified war over Union that I will give it to you again;

Confederate Vice President Stephens said that ;

“...the present revolution, (secession) is founded … on the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

I don't think there can be a rational discussion of your OP topic if you refuse to accept the plain language of history. If one side argues from opinion derived from a false, emotional reading of history, as you continue to do, instead of fact, the discussion will be endlessly unproductive.

 

[Boss]

I didnt miss the point of the OP. Its plain you were whining about the PC movement against the loser flag. I never claimed you said the south will rise again. I just let you know unequivocally that it never would.

Yes its a part of US history. Put it in a museum next to the Benedict Arnold display. Treasonous losers don't get to dictate what honor the loser flag should have to anyone but themselves. You may think its something cool. I dont. On that we will have to agree to disagree.

Personally I dont need to be reminded by seeing someone proudly display it. If I wanted to see it I could look it up on line. Its very different from seeing Black people marching for their rights. One is for the betterment of mankind the other is for retarding the progress of mankind. Big, huge, gigantic difference.

Thats pretty much BS. The Nazi symbol is originally a symbol of good luck. I dont wear a shirt with it because I understand it offends people. No skin off my nose because after its said and done me not displaying the symbol doesn't hurt me at all. People that display symbolism that knowingly offends others are merely less evolved as humans.

Yes, you completely missed the point of the OP, and you continue to miss the point. I'm not "whining" about anything, I am expressing my opinion. Do you think it's "whining" when you claim the flag offends you?

It's fine for you to let me know the south won't rise again, I never claimed it would, should or could, or that it ought to. That has nothing to do with the Confederate battle flag. Again, there is nothing "treasonous" about declaring independence over the right to your property. And I am sorry but YOU don't get to dictate what is acceptable to the rest of society. That's what FASCISTS do! Totalitarian fascists get to decide what the rest of society can accept. I reject your Fascism, you don't fucking OWN me, buddy! And you do not govern my right to free speech, I can display any goddamn flag I please, and you have to tolerate that in America. If you want to live in a place that is full of intolerance for the rights of others, move to IRAN!

We've been through the comparisons to the Swastika, it's NOT THE SAME THING! The Nazis were fighting for racial purity and advocated ethnic cleansing. That was NOT what the South was fighting for. You are the one who is ignorantly applying a history that doesn't apply to the flag, and insisting that's what the flag symbolizes. That's YOUR ignorance on display, not MINE!

 

[Asclepias]

I didnt miss the point of the OP. Its plain you were whining about the PC movement against the loser flag. I never claimed you said the south will rise again. I just let you know unequivocally that it never would.

Yes its a part of US history. Put it in a museum next to the Benedict Arnold display. Treasonous losers don't get to dictate what honor the loser flag should have to anyone but themselves. You may think its something cool. I dont. On that we will have to agree to disagree.

Personally I dont need to be reminded by seeing someone proudly display it. If I wanted to see it I could look it up on line. Its very different from seeing Black people marching for their rights. One is for the betterment of mankind the other is for retarding the progress of mankind. Big, huge, gigantic difference.

Thats pretty much BS. The Nazi symbol is originally a symbol of good luck. I dont wear a shirt with it because I understand it offends people. No skin off my nose because after its said and done me not displaying the symbol doesn't hurt me at all. People that display symbolism that knowingly offends others are merely less evolved as humans.

Yes, you completely missed the point of the OP, and you continue to miss the point. I'm not "whining" about anything, I am expressing my opinion. Do you think it's "whining" when you claim the flag offends you?

It's fine for you to let me know the south won't rise again, I never claimed it would, should or could, or that it ought to. That has nothing to do with the Confederate battle flag. Again, there is nothing "treasonous" about declaring independence over the right to your property. And I am sorry but YOU don't get to dictate what is acceptable to the rest of society. That's what FASCISTS do! Totalitarian fascists get to decide what the rest of society can accept. I reject your Fascism, you don't fucking OWN me, buddy! And you do not govern my right to free speech, I can display any goddamn flag I please, and you have to tolerate that in America. If you want to live in a place that is full of intolerance for the rights of others, move to IRAN!

We've been through the comparisons to the Swastika, it's NOT THE SAME THING! The Nazis were fighting for racial purity and advocated ethnic cleansing. That was NOT what the South was fighting for. You are the one who is ignorantly applying a history that doesn't apply to the flag, and insisting that's what the flag symbolizes. That's YOUR ignorance on display, not MINE!

Dont get emotional on me. You were doing great until that last post.

 

[Boss]

I'm going to skip discussion about your apparent moral neutrality for now. It just seems odd to me that someone who professes to be Christian (or have I got that wrong?) can adopt a stance that is so obviously ethicallly/morally relativistic. Like saying sin is determined subjectively by the sentiments of the time being discussed. You seem to be unsure of the concepts, you can refresh your memory here, An Overview of Ethical Theory;

The objectivist holds to three main positions. First, moral values are objective in the sense that they are not created by humans and are independent of subjective human thought processes. Objectivists have often argued that moral values exist in a higher nonphysical realm. Second, moral values are unchanging in the sense that they do not vary over time and from place to place. No matter how far back in time you go, or where on this planet you might travel, the same unchanging moral values will apply in those places. Third, moral values are universal in that they apply to everyone who exists. No one is privileged enough to escape from these norms and, instead, they umbrella over every living person.

OR

Morality, then, is relative in the sense that it is relative to our human needs and preferences. Second, moral values are far from the unchanging things that objectivists allege. Our value system is continually shifting in dramatic ways. In past centuries people commonly approved of slavery and torture, and we now reject these as moral atrocities. In past centuries people disapproved of premarital sex, and today many people deem it to be morally acceptable. Not only do we see these dramatic changes in moral attitudes through time, but we can see it today when comparing one culture’s moral values with another. This is particularly evident with issues such as abortion, euthanasia, alcohol consumption, recreational drug use, public nudity.

Most Christians at least claim to be solidly in the Objectivist camp.

Anyway that's all a separate issue for now,

Well, I am not a Christian, nor have I ever professed to be one. MY argument in regard to morality is, you can't retroactively apply today's moral views on yesterday and cast judgements on that basis. It's intellectually dishonest. You MUST view the conscientious choices and viewpoints of the past in the prism of the prevailing morality of that time. In 1861, there were very, VERY few white people who considered black people their equal. In fact, it's probably close to 100% who DID NOT have that view. The exception were a handful of Quaker ministers who started the abolition movement. Even with that, MOST who supported abolition did not view the black man as an equal to whites. I am assuming you are like me and opposed to people abusing dogs... it doesn't mean we think dogs are equal to humans.

So this notion that the North was fighting for the equality of black people is ABSURD! OR... that the South was fighting to keep black people oppressed. It had NOTHING to do with Civil Rights. It took another century for that "morality" to develop and become prevailing in society.

let's stick with your refusal to accept historical refutation of this opinion which you keep repeating;

Boss - Except that the South wasn't fighting to allow slavery. The US Supreme Court had repeatedly upheld the institution of slavery and it was a perfectly legitimate and legal practice in America. How can you be fighting to allow something that is already allowed and has been allowed for 85 years?

It's been pointed out to you this opinion is contrary to the historical documents issued by the Secessionist States themselves. Their Declarations are unambiguous as to what the fight was about. e.g South Carolina (the first State to secede in case you forgot) said;

For twenty-five years this agitation (anti-slavery) has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

And the statements by the principals involved are also unambiguous. I think this quote has been offered before but it is so representative of the sentiments that justified war over Union that I will give it to you again;

Confederate Vice President Stephens said that ;

“...the present revolution, (secession) is founded … on the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

I don't think there can be a rational discussion of your OP topic if you refuse to accept the plain language of history. If one side argues from opinion derived from a false, emotional reading of history, as you continue to do, instead of fact, the discussion will be endlessly unproductive.

But AGAIN... You are applying TODAY'S standards. You're pretending the North had some righteous view on Civil Rights for the slaves, and they certainly did not. What these quotes are illustrating was the prevailing philosophy of the times, in the North as well as the South. Why do you think slavery had been legal for 85 years? Why do you think the SCOTUS repeatedly upheld the institution of slavery and continued to allow it? Why do you think no president before Lincoln attempted to rectify the injustice? Why do you think no Congress tried to do away with it? Why didn't someone point out to the Founding Fathers that "all men are created equal and endowed with rights" wasn't being applied to blacks?

Slavery was morally justified. That's just a fact of life. Trying to pretend it wasn't and the South was attempting to morally justify it against the will of the North, is ignorant of the facts. The SCOTUS had ruled that slaves were legitimate property... not citizens with rights! I hate that... I wish they hadn't ruled this way! But I can't deny history, it's there. With that said, the South had a legitimate complaint... you're trying to take their property from them without due process in violation of your own 4th Amendment. You simply cannot rule that this is your legitimately owned property but we have the right to take it from you. That was the perspective of the South in a nutshell.

It wasn't about "being allowed" because it had never been NOT allowed! In the entire history of the nation it had always been allowed, upheld by the SCOTUS repeatedly, upheld by Congress repeatedly, advocated and supported by every president, repeatedly. People want to act like the North had passed some law against owning slaves and the South was rebelling, and that simply is not what happened at all. IF that's what happened, you might have a legitimate argument, but that's NOT what happened.

To the contrary, the US Government had always allowed people to own slaves, repeatedly had opportunities to do something about that and failed, repeatedly supported the institution time and time again. This was going on for DECADES before the Confederacy ever existed. The South didn't make this the law of the land, they weren't disobeying any law or rebelling against any new law that had been made. 40 years before the Civil War, the US outlawed slave trade. You could no longer go to the ports and purchase slaves... had the South been unwilling to abide by this, they would have risen up then in defiance. They didn't.

By all historic accounts, the technology was advancing to a point that was making slave labor obsolete. Slavery would have ended eventually because it was to become less efficient and more expensive than the alternative. Slave owners were hardly in denial of this, they knew the writing was on the wall, but they had invested a lot of money in slaves and the courts had upheld their legitimacy as property over and over again. From their perspective is was akin to if the EPA came out tomorrow and said: "We can no longer tolerate people owning gas-powered vehicles, and we're going to confiscate them!" Well, they don't have that power under the Constitution and the 4th Amendment, sorry! People have money invested in fleets, and it's their right to continue owning property they paid for.

 

[rightwinger]

I didnt miss the point of the OP. Its plain you were whining about the PC movement against the loser flag. I never claimed you said the south will rise again. I just let you know unequivocally that it never would.

Yes its a part of US history. Put it in a museum next to the Benedict Arnold display. Treasonous losers don't get to dictate what honor the loser flag should have to anyone but themselves. You may think its something cool. I dont. On that we will have to agree to disagree.

Personally I dont need to be reminded by seeing someone proudly display it. If I wanted to see it I could look it up on line. Its very different from seeing Black people marching for their rights. One is for the betterment of mankind the other is for retarding the progress of mankind. Big, huge, gigantic difference.

Thats pretty much BS. The Nazi symbol is originally a symbol of good luck. I dont wear a shirt with it because I understand it offends people. No skin off my nose because after its said and done me not displaying the symbol doesn't hurt me at all. People that display symbolism that knowingly offends others are merely less evolved as humans.

Yes, you completely missed the point of the OP, and you continue to miss the point. I'm not "whining" about anything, I am expressing my opinion. Do you think it's "whining" when you claim the flag offends you?

It's fine for you to let me know the south won't rise again, I never claimed it would, should or could, or that it ought to. That has nothing to do with the Confederate battle flag. Again, there is nothing "treasonous" about declaring independence over the right to your property. And I am sorry but YOU don't get to dictate what is acceptable to the rest of society. That's what FASCISTS do! Totalitarian fascists get to decide what the rest of society can accept. I reject your Fascism, you don't fucking OWN me, buddy! And you do not govern my right to free speech, I can display any goddamn flag I please, and you have to tolerate that in America. If you want to live in a place that is full of intolerance for the rights of others, move to IRAN!

We've been through the comparisons to the Swastika, it's NOT THE SAME THING! The Nazis were fighting for racial purity and advocated ethnic cleansing. That was NOT what the South was fighting for. You are the one who is ignorantly applying a history that doesn't apply to the flag, and insisting that's what the flag symbolizes. That's YOUR ignorance on display, not MINE!

I cant believe you posted this

YES we do get to judge the south. It is not the stuff of fascists, it is what civilized rational people do.

YES.....the south was the moral equivalent of Nazis in their subjugation of their fellow man and denial of human rights

 

[Asclepias]

So this notion that the North was fighting for the equality of black people is ABSURD! OR... that the South was fighting to keep black people oppressed. It had NOTHING to do with Civil Rights. It took another century for that "morality" to develop and become prevailing in society.

Your entire post was an epic fail but this was interesting to me. I already showed you the historical documentation that the south ceded over slavery. You simply cant be this thick in the head and maintain credibility. How many times does slavery have to mentioned in the succession documents for you to understand you are wrong? it doesnt matter what the north was fighting for. We all know for sure the south was fighting to keep Blacks enslaved. That flag you love embodies that sentiment.

 

[OnePercenter]

The confederate flag is the redneck Swastika.

O beautiful, for racist skies
For white supremacy
For Rush and Glenn
Our favorite guys
and NASCAR fantasy!
America! America!
The immigrant expel
Protect us good white Christian folk,
the rest condemn to hell.

This thread was already full of stupid. You just made it worse.

Stupid opinion doesn't intellectually progress a thread.

Can you present an argument that rednecks don't believe this? Remember, I travel about 1000 hours per year to at least 20 different states and hear many conversations, many by the toothless wonder rednecks who seem to believe this.

 

[OnePercenter]

The PC police seem to be gaining momentum with this issue of late. I see more and more commentary about it on the Internet and hear people commenting from time to time on television. So I decided maybe it's time to open a thread on the topic and deliver my personal views on the matter.

Let me begin by saying, I have done some pretty extensive research into my genealogy, as my family name is very rare and unusual. Before the Internet and boundless resources to discover this kind of information, we mostly relied on elder family members to tell us about our past. My grandmother used to say we were "Black Dutch" and for years, I had no idea what that meant or what it was. As it turns out, the term "Black Dutch" can mean almost anything. It is a 'catch-all' identifier that has been used by several mixed cultural groups through the years.

Interestingly enough, my ancestors were actually the original "Black Dutch" and they came from German peasantry living in the Black Forest from almost Biblical times. Seems some King, I think it was Otto II, wanted to exterminate all the poor people in society, as a means to raise the culture to a higher level. In order to escape persecution, many peasants in Germany fled into the Black Forest, and thus began the legacy of the Black Dutch. In the 17th and 18th centuries, it was also used by Jamaicans, Haitians, people of mixed Caribbean descent, and also by some Native Americans who married Europeans.

Much of my ancestry was hidden for many years out of fear of persecution. After years of research online through Ancestry.com and other sources, my sister and I have pieced together the colorful quilt of our personal lineage. I am largely Native American, with two great grandparents who were full blooded Cherokee and Choctaw. I have the German peasant Black Dutch, along with African, Creole and Asian ancestry as well. Now, the thread topic is not about my background, but I just wanted to stipulate this from the start, so as to avoid any misunderstanding as to my intentions or persuasions when it comes to the topic. For all intents and purposes, I am a Mutt. I'm probably less "white European" than anything, and what little bit I have in me is peasant class.

I've grown up in Alabama, the Heart of Dixie. All my life, I have seen the Confederate Flag. I have at least two ancestors who fought and died in the Civil War, fighting for the Confederacy. I've read countless books on the war, watched hours of documentaries, heard several lectures and I'm constantly digging for new information because it's a subject that has always interested me. I will say two things here, first... it is troubling to me how much 'disinformation' has been taught regarding the Civil War, and two... it is despicable how racist supremacist groups hijacked the battle flag of the Confederacy and made it into a symbol of hate. But even more disturbing to me is how uneducated people have bought into the image and view the flag as something offensive.

Regardless of whether some are offended by the flag, it is a part of American history and our past. I've never understood the mindset that seeks to ban the flag or remove it from view in public. Is this supposed to erase something or correct anything? Couldn't we just as easily make the same argument that we should pretend the Civil War never happened and we never had slavery in America? What about images of Dr. King, the police using firehoses in Birmingham, Bull Connor, George Wallace... why not erase them from memory as well?

There are many things in our past to be ashamed of. The fact that our founding fathers weren't compelled to end slavery at the onset of this nation and it's constitution is probably first and foremost to me, but also, the way Italian and Irish immigrants were treated, the way Asian immigrants were treated, the way many Latino immigrants are still being treated. To me, the battle flag of the Confederacy is kind of a trivial thing to get your panties in a wad about. Especially when it comes to the point about banning it and removing it from public view.

Why not instead, use it as a learning tool? Recognizing the significance in both the Southern and Northern viewpoints surrounding the Civil War and why it was fought? Acknowledging that we don't have a right to not be offended by something? Understanding that tolerance is accepting something that may bother you? Finally, realizing that hiding away our symbols of the past in a dark closet is never going to change our history.

I fly the flag here on occasions as it's part of my family heritage. And yes, I'm proud of it. Yes, the North won the war but all the South ask now is to be left the cluck alone.

It's a beautiful flag indeed

-Geaux

Flying the confederate flag is nothing more than a presentation to your lack of intelligence equaling a German flying the swastika.

 

[OnePercenter]

I fly the flag here on occasions as it's part of my family heritage. And yes, I'm proud of it. Yes, the North won the war but all the South ask now is to be left the cluck alone.
It's a beautiful flag indeed

-Geaux

Well no, they did not.

They seized US territory, fired on US troops and were fighting to enslave Americans.

They were despicable, treasonous and the lot of them should have been executed.


The only thing the Traitorous southern flag is good for is toilet paper.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Rebel-Confederate-Flag-Toilet-Paper/sim/B001B0ZMI8/2]Amazon.com: Rebel Confederate Flag Toilet Paper: Explore similar items[/ame]

Instead we flourished. Instead went on about our way. Stand-by.. The next uprising will make 1861 look like a family get together. And the left had best learn how to defend themselves. Take the time now to prepare and start thinking which side of the picket line you want to be. Then be ready to defend it like the patriots are starting to do all around us. It's just that important

-Geaux

So you're promoting treason?

Are you a terrorist?

Perhaps I can have your name and address so I can inform the authorities.

 

[guno]

There was nothing inherently offensive about the swastika either. It was used for centuries before being usurped by the Nazis
There is nothing inherently offensive about the name Adolph. But you don't see it used much anymore

The Confederate Battle flag was a symbol of the Southern Rebellion until it was usurped by the KKK as a symbol of black oppression. To many blacks that flag symbolizes the men who came in the night and burned and lynched. During the Civil Rights movement, that flag was waived as a reminder of the protesters slave roots

It may have been a perfectly acceptable symbol at one time....but it no longer is

 

[OnePercenter]

For the idiots that think the Civil War was about slavery here's some facts for you.

Only about ten percent of the whites in the South owned slaves.

Do you honestly think that the other 90 percent would risk life and limb over an issue that they were not affected by? Send their sons off to fight a battler to save the livelihood of some plantation owner?

You people are as stupid and the nonsense you spew.

If that's lone star logic, then we need to give Texas back to Mexico.

'you people', a Ross Perot racist epitaph speaks volumes.

 

[guno]

Flags of the Confederate States of America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Georgia the Confederate battle flag was reintroduced in 1956, just two years after the Supreme Court decision Brown v Board of Education. It was considered by many to be a protest against school desegregation.[31] It was also raised at the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss) during protests against integration of schools.[32]

Confederate Flag Controversy

Along with the U.S. flag and the South Carolina state flag, the Confederate flag had been displayed atop the South Carolina statehouse dome since 1962.

 

[guno]

For the idiots that think the Civil War was about slavery here's some facts for you.

Only about ten percent of the whites in the South owned slaves.

Do you honestly think that the other 90 percent would risk life and limb over an issue that they were not affected by? Send their sons off to fight a battler to save the livelihood of some plantation owner?


You people are as stupid and the nonsense you spew.

Really slack jaw, so why after the civil war did the Confederate cracker states institute Jim crow?

 

[Agit8r]

It is inherently anti-American. That much is obvious.

 

[Missourian]

You'll have to point out the section of the Constitution that guarantees your right not to be offended.

 

[Boss]

So this notion that the North was fighting for the equality of black people is ABSURD! OR... that the South was fighting to keep black people oppressed. It had NOTHING to do with Civil Rights. It took another century for that "morality" to develop and become prevailing in society.

Your entire post was an epic fail but this was interesting to me. I already showed you the historical documentation that the south ceded over slavery. You simply cant be this thick in the head and maintain credibility. How many times does slavery have to mentioned in the succession documents for you to understand you are wrong? it doesnt matter what the north was fighting for. We all know for sure the south was fighting to keep Blacks enslaved. That flag you love embodies that sentiment.

I already admitted several times that slavery was an intrical part of the issue. Slavery was legal, it was not outlawed by the US. Slaves were property, as ruled by SCOTUS. The main issue about slavery was whether the Federal government had the power to effectively take your property without due process. According to the 4th Amendment, they expressly do not have that power. Now had the SCOTUS ruled that slaves were not property but instead, were humans with constitutional rights... THEN there would be an argument the South was in the wrong. What you and others like to do is jump WAY ahead to AFTER the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendment and claim a moral and legal high ground that simply didn't yet exist.

You want to envision slavery pre-1860 as some deplorable and unacceptable thing in society that Southerners did because they could get away with it, while the North watched in horror and was helpless to stop it. Had the North wanted to end slavery at any time before 1860, all they would have had to do is boycott cotton. Why didn't they do that? It would have ended the practice of slavery much quicker than a war and with far less loss of life. The answer is easy, there was no desire to do that, people up north were prospering off the cotton, it was this nation's leading export. This is why SCOTUS and Congress CONTINUED for 85 years, to uphold the institution and allow it to exist.

Northerners were HORRIFIED over the freedom of the slaves. In the years following the Civil War, many former slaves moved out of the South and went north to find jobs and enjoy their new found freedom, only to be met by angry racist MOBS who lynched them to a degree that was never seen before, even in the South. It was routine practice in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for hoards of whites to drive through black neighborhoods killing every black person in sight. These are the people you are currently glorifying and putting on a pedestal, while you lay the blame all on the South.

In addition, many of the former slaves worked out arrangements with their former masters to stay on the plantation and continue to work. Why would they do such a thing if the conditions were so undesirable? Obviously that was not ALWAYS the case. We are inundated with these horrible images of how slaves were abused, and make no mistake, there were plenty of abuses and that was considerably widespread, but it wasn't universal. What I see here from so many of you is this tendency to paint everyone with a wide brush, to apply your bigoted stereotypes to ALL Southerners equally, because that's what you've been taught to do, that's how you've been taught to think.

 

[Boss]

For the idiots that think the Civil War was about slavery here's some facts for you.

Only about ten percent of the whites in the South owned slaves.

Do you honestly think that the other 90 percent would risk life and limb over an issue that they were not affected by? Send their sons off to fight a battler to save the livelihood of some plantation owner?

You people are as stupid and the nonsense you spew.

Really slack jaw, so why after the civil war did the Confederate cracker states institute Jim crow?

Jim Crow laws were instituted across the South and in some cases in the North as well. In 1875, Congress passed a Civil Rights bill that effectively overruled the Jim Crow laws, but when the case made it's way to the Supreme Court in 1893, guess what happened? The high court of the United States (not the CSA) ruled the 1875 Civil Rights Act unconstitutional, solidifying Jim Crow laws for years to come. It was not until 1957 that Congress passed another Civil Rights Act.

Also, it is ironic that the first Progressive president, Woodrow Wilson, was instrumental in establishing Jim Crow policies throughout the government. But again, we have idiots who want to throw all the blame on the South because they've become the scapegoat for your racist guilt. You see, you can continue to be racist pieces of shit while pointing your racist finger at the South and laying all the blame on them. You've been doing that for years, it's bred into you from generations ago.

 

[Asclepias]

So this notion that the North was fighting for the equality of black people is ABSURD! OR... that the South was fighting to keep black people oppressed. It had NOTHING to do with Civil Rights. It took another century for that "morality" to develop and become prevailing in society.

Your entire post was an epic fail but this was interesting to me. I already showed you the historical documentation that the south ceded over slavery. You simply cant be this thick in the head and maintain credibility. How many times does slavery have to mentioned in the succession documents for you to understand you are wrong? it doesnt matter what the north was fighting for. We all know for sure the south was fighting to keep Blacks enslaved. That flag you love embodies that sentiment.

I already admitted several times that slavery was an intrical part of the issue. Slavery was legal, it was not outlawed by the US. Slaves were property, as ruled by SCOTUS. The main issue about slavery was whether the Federal government had the power to effectively take your property without due process. According to the 4th Amendment, they expressly do not have that power. Now had the SCOTUS ruled that slaves were not property but instead, were humans with constitutional rights... THEN there would be an argument the South was in the wrong. What you and others like to do is jump WAY ahead to AFTER the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendment and claim a moral and legal high ground that simply didn't yet exist.

You want to envision slavery pre-1860 as some deplorable and unacceptable thing in society that Southerners did because they could get away with it, while the North watched in horror and was helpless to stop it. Had the North wanted to end slavery at any time before 1860, all they would have had to do is boycott cotton. Why didn't they do that? It would have ended the practice of slavery much quicker than a war and with far less loss of life. The answer is easy, there was no desire to do that, people up north were prospering off the cotton, it was this nation's leading export. This is why SCOTUS and Congress CONTINUED for 85 years, to uphold the institution and allow it to exist.

Northerners were HORRIFIED over the freedom of the slaves. In the years following the Civil War, many former slaves moved out of the South and went north to find jobs and enjoy their new found freedom, only to be met by angry racist MOBS who lynched them to a degree that was never seen before, even in the South. It was routine practice in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for hoards of whites to drive through black neighborhoods killing every black person in sight. These are the people you are currently glorifying and putting on a pedestal, while you lay the blame all on the South.

In addition, many of the former slaves worked out arrangements with their former masters to stay on the plantation and continue to work. Why would they do such a thing if the conditions were so undesirable? Obviously that was not ALWAYS the case. We are inundated with these horrible images of how slaves were abused, and make no mistake, there were plenty of abuses and that was considerably widespread, but it wasn't universal. What I see here from so many of you is this tendency to paint everyone with a wide brush, to apply your bigoted stereotypes to ALL Southerners equally, because that's what you've been taught to do, that's how you've been taught to think.

Good to see you finally realized you were wrong about the reasons the south started the Civil War. However, you are missing the boat badly. I dont care what the north or the south thought. I know my that my ancestors wanted to be free and not slaves. I know the horrors inflicted by supposedly Christian people during this time period. They still had the bible back then right? Your flag embodied the effort to preserve that. Doesnt matter what year it was. Even then people said it was unethical so that kills your argument. Regardless what non-slaves thought, the actual slaves wanted it to end. Slave owners didn't want it to end They loved your flag. Your flag is toilet paper.

 

[Friends]

the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution...

Our new Government is founded upon...its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
Internet History Sourcebooks

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

Some Northerners fought only to preserve the Union. Other Northerners fought to preserve the Union and to end slavery.

The Confederates fought to preserve slavery. That is why the Confederate states seceded.

On the internet one finds some weird opinions that are probably sincerely held. I have not found anyone who wishes that Negroes were still slaves. I have found people who wish that the Confederacy won the Civil War. If the Confederacy won, slavery would have been preserved for at least another generation, probably much longer.

Slavery might still exist. After fighting a costly war to preserve slavery, there would have been vigorous resistance in the Confederate States of America to ever freeing the slaves. I cannot imagine Martin Luther King, Jr. giving his "I have a dream" speech on the steps of the Jefferson Davis Memorial in Richmond, Virginia.