CDZ The Confederate (Rebel) Flag

[Steinlight]

Offensive because it represents human slavery.

Who cares, by that logic, the US flag is offensive, as is the British, French, Spanish, and Ottoman Flag as slavery was practiced by all these countries..

Go cry about "racism" in the corner you big gay baby.

Your mislogic should make you cry.

Abraham Lincoln didn't even start the Civil War to end slavery, and didn't free a single slave during the war or his entire presidency.

The first statement is true; the second one is bullshit.

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free all slaves (just the ones in the Confederacy) but it did free the majority, and was in part a tactical/political move, to keep European powers from getting involved on the South's side.
,
,
,
,
,

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave. It was an empty proclamation for political purposes that didn't free a single slave under union control. You can make all the "proclamations" you want about freeing slaves in other countries, but in this case it had no bearing in reality.

The Union Army even used slave labor at points, seizing slaves as "contraband".

While the United States government initially declared, in no uncertain terms, that it was fighting for the reunification of the country and not the abolition of slavery, many of Virginia's slaves saw the approaching Union army as an army of liberation. As soon as Union forces took control of Fort Monroe in the spring of 1861, for example, runaway slaves began flocking to their lines. The Union commander at Fort Monroe, General Benjamin F. Butler, decided to retain these slaves within his lines as "contraband of war." If the Confederates could use slave labor to their advantage, Butler announced, the Union had the right to confiscate those slaves. Virginia's slaves, for their part, were usually eager to assist the Union soldiers in exchange for freedom and wages.

How can you on one hand support the idea that individuals are free and sovereign, having a right not to be forcefully enslaved, than on one hand stop other sovereign individuals from withdrawing from the union?

 

[Spare_change]

I have to admit I'm curious ....

If the Civil War was only about slavery, why did hundreds of thousands of southerners, who owned no slaves, get into the fight?

 

[Steinlight]

Who cares, by that logic, the US flag is offensive, as is the British, French, Spanish, and Ottoman Flag as slavery was practiced by all these countries..

Go cry about "racism" in the corner you big gay baby.

Your mislogic should make you cry.

Abraham Lincoln didn't even start the Civil War to end slavery, and didn't free a single slave during the war or his entire presidency.

The first statement is true; the second one is bullshit.

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free all slaves (just the ones in the Confederacy) but it did free the majority, and was in part a tactical/political move, to keep European powers from getting involved on the South's side.
,
,
,
,
,

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave. It was an empty proclamation for political purposes that didn't free a single slave under union control.

Oh poster please.

What to do when your point is called out as the bullshit it is: Move the goalposts. Now it's "under Union control".

You are the one moving the goal posts. Even you admit he was "freeing slaves" you admit he had no control over. Which means nothing.

 

[Pogo]

Your mislogic should make you cry.

Abraham Lincoln didn't even start the Civil War to end slavery, and didn't free a single slave during the war or his entire presidency.

The first statement is true; the second one is bullshit.

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free all slaves (just the ones in the Confederacy) but it did free the majority, and was in part a tactical/political move, to keep European powers from getting involved on the South's side.
,
,
,
,
,

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave. It was an empty proclamation for political purposes that didn't free a single slave under union control.

Oh poster please.

What to do when your point is called out as the bullshit it is: Move the goalposts. Now it's "under Union control".

You are the one moving the goal posts. Even you admit he was "freeing slaves" you admit he had no control over. Which means nothing.

What "means nothing" is your appended analysis of "what it means".

You made a declarative statement about what it IS. And you were wrong.

 

[Steinlight]

Abraham Lincoln didn't even start the Civil War to end slavery, and didn't free a single slave during the war or his entire presidency.

The first statement is true; the second one is bullshit.

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free all slaves (just the ones in the Confederacy) but it did free the majority, and was in part a tactical/political move, to keep European powers from getting involved on the South's side.
,
,
,
,
,

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave. It was an empty proclamation for political purposes that didn't free a single slave under union control.

Oh poster please.

What to do when your point is called out as the bullshit it is: Move the goalposts. Now it's "under Union control".

You are the one moving the goal posts. Even you admit he was "freeing slaves" you admit he had no control over. Which means nothing.

What "means nothing" is your appended analysis of "what it means".

You made a declarative statement about what it IS. And you were wrong.

No I wasn't wrong. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in the Union or Confederacy. This is historically recognized. You even admitted it was a political calculation. So are you withdrawing this claim, that isn't wasn't a political calculation, and deferring from the historical fact that it didn't free a single slave?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have to admit I'm curious ....

If the Civil War was only about slavery, why did hundreds of thousands of southerners, who owned no slaves, get into the fight?

Because of cultural racism, which supported the white man over the black.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The first statement is true; the second one is bullshit.

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free all slaves (just the ones in the Confederacy) but it did free the majority, and was in part a tactical/political move, to keep European powers from getting involved on the South's side.
,
,
,
,
,

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave. It was an empty proclamation for political purposes that didn't free a single slave under union control.

Oh poster please.

What to do when your point is called out as the bullshit it is: Move the goalposts. Now it's "under Union control".

You are the one moving the goal posts. Even you admit he was "freeing slaves" you admit he had no control over. Which means nothing.

What "means nothing" is your appended analysis of "what it means".

You made a declarative statement about what it IS. And you were wrong.

No I wasn't wrong. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in the Union or Confederacy. This is historically recognized. You even admitted it was a political calculation. So are you withdrawing this claim, that isn't wasn't a political calculation, and deferring from the historical fact that it didn't free a single slave?

You have made no point, Steinlight.

The EP elevated the struggle from preserving the Union to the moral position of ending slavery. France and England thereafter did not seriously consider interfering, which doomed the Confederacy.

 

[Steinlight]

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave. It was an empty proclamation for political purposes that didn't free a single slave under union control.

Oh poster please.

What to do when your point is called out as the bullshit it is: Move the goalposts. Now it's "under Union control".

You are the one moving the goal posts. Even you admit he was "freeing slaves" you admit he had no control over. Which means nothing.

What "means nothing" is your appended analysis of "what it means".

You made a declarative statement about what it IS. And you were wrong.

No I wasn't wrong. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in the Union or Confederacy. This is historically recognized. You even admitted it was a political calculation. So are you withdrawing this claim, that isn't wasn't a political calculation, and deferring from the historical fact that it didn't free a single slave?

You have made no point, Steinlight.

The EP elevated the struggle from preserving the Union to the moral position of ending slavery. France and England thereafter did not seriously consider interfering, which doomed the Confederacy.

No one disputed it was a political calculation. But even in your post, you didn't deny it didn't free a single slave because you know I am right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh poster please.

What to do when your point is called out as the bullshit it is: Move the goalposts. Now it's "under Union control".

You are the one moving the goal posts. Even you admit he was "freeing slaves" you admit he had no control over. Which means nothing.

What "means nothing" is your appended analysis of "what it means".

You made a declarative statement about what it IS. And you were wrong.

No I wasn't wrong. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in the Union or Confederacy. This is historically recognized. You even admitted it was a political calculation. So are you withdrawing this claim, that isn't wasn't a political calculation, and deferring from the historical fact that it didn't free a single slave?

You have made no point, Steinlight.

The EP elevated the struggle from preserving the Union to the moral position of ending slavery. France and England thereafter did not seriously consider interfering, which doomed the Confederacy.

No one disputed it was a political calculation. But even in your post, you didn't deny it didn't free a single slave because you know I am right.

Of course it did (just not physically at that moment) and of course you are wrong.

 

[Ernie S.]

Offensive or not?

Why?

The confederate flag (stars and bars) not so much....the rectangular Southern Cross which really came out as a symbol of post-war Jim Crow, very much so.

Most main stream won't differentiate

Yeah, I know....and it shows their ignorance...just like the ignorance of those who fly the Southern Cross and go blah blah blah about their "heritage"....not even knowing what the correct flag is.

I fly the Confederate Battle Flag because it pisses people off.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The "Southern Cross" is a constellation of stars in heaven.

And it's also the name for the confederate battle flag, the one we commonly called the confederate flag.

So fucking what?

Hmmm, really nice behavior in the CDZ.

Well, I guess I could rephrase the inquiry...

What is the relevance to the topic?

Oh, I really don't expect to see improvements in comportment from Righties, realizing how severely damaged they are to begin with. Carry on. You will, anyway...

 

[JakeStarkey]

What "means nothing" is your appended analysis of "what it means".

You made a declarative statement about what it IS. And you were wrong.

No I wasn't wrong. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in the Union or Confederacy. This is historically recognized. You even admitted it was a political calculation. So are you withdrawing this claim, that isn't wasn't a political calculation, and deferring from the historical fact that it didn't free a single slave?

You have made no point, Steinlight.

The EP elevated the struggle from preserving the Union to the moral position of ending slavery. France and England thereafter did not seriously consider interfering, which doomed the Confederacy.

No one disputed it was a political calculation. But even in your post, you didn't deny it didn't free a single slave because you know I am right.

Of course it did (just not physically at that moment) and of course you are wrong.

If it didn't free them from physical slavery when it was proclaimed than it didn't free them you fool.

Of course it did. They from thenceforth were held in false imprisonment, and the slaves could not be judged with murder for slaying their captors.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What "means nothing" is your appended analysis of "what it means".

You made a declarative statement about what it IS. And you were wrong.

No I wasn't wrong. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in the Union or Confederacy. This is historically recognized. You even admitted it was a political calculation. So are you withdrawing this claim, that isn't wasn't a political calculation, and deferring from the historical fact that it didn't free a single slave?

I did not "admit" that -- I inserted it. I was the one who brought it up.

What its purpose or partial purpose may have been is irrelevant to the question of its effect. As is the contingency on whether the South lost the war or not. Your original statement you're trying to escape from was that "Lincoln didn't free a single slave". Then WHO DID?

All of this is off the topic of the flag, and increasingly pointless as your continual goalpost-moving -- and now this "Jewish" post -- make it clear you're a waste of time, and henceforth, on Ignore for abject failure to think.
.
.
.
.

You want to know why your post is jewish? Because you are weaponizing the language like the jewish leftists of the Frankfurt School did to confuse reality.

The only thing relevant to the question of whether the EP freed the slaves is whether it free the slaves. And it didn't free a single one.

You lose all cred in a thread when you do this. You and your screed are simply accepted as adult from that point on

That is ironic coming from the guy saying EP freed the slaves in one breath while admitting it didn't physically free them from slavery in the next. Ironic that you can't debunk my point on the Frankfurt School, so you just act all shocked and offended since you have no counter.

I am neither but your ire is up, obviously. They were legally free, and their captors could be apprehended and even put to death for false imprisonment and theft of personhood and labor.

 

[Flopper]

Offensive because it represents human slavery.

What if a 20 year old has one in his truck, mailbox etc. but has it because to him, it is just pride of being from the South? To me, it's the intent with which it is displayed. No?

Suppose it was a swastika? Would you assume the 20 year old is just showing pride in being from Germany? Any time you display a symbol such as; a Christian cross, a swastika, or a hammer and sickle you are making a statement of support.

Not a fair comparison. The swastika (Nazi version) did represent a government, like the CF did in its various forms, but it never represented a German culture. Southern culture had already existed as distinct on its own, before the Civil War started. Some of that antebellum culture did involve slavery --- but that isn't the only thing it involved. By contrast, did Nazism -- which is specifically and exclusively a government-- ever represent anything more than unbridled conquest and genocide?

I think it's safe to say that other than military personnel during WWII, nobody has ever displayed a swastika simply to show they're from Germany. That's quite a difference between the two.
.
.
.
.
.

My point is if you display an emblem, you are identifying yourself with what that emblem represents. So if you display the confederate flag you, are identifying yourself with the Confederate States America which was at war with the United States and defended the right to own slaves.

A confederate flag on the back of a truck identifies the owner to most Americans as someone who is anti-black, anti-federal government, or maybe just a dumb ass redneck.

 

[Flopper]

Offensive because it represents human slavery.

That ignorance illustrates the entire non-argument.

Using that (lack of) logic, the American flag, too, represents a heritage of slavery. Cherry pick to push a political agenda. Propaganda.

That's true too. Selective symbolism can represent, on the part on the selector, anything he wants. To a lot of people in a lot of places, the Stars and Stripes also represents conquest and genocide -- like the swastika. Who's to judge?
,
,
,
,
,

Poor analogy. The swastika as a nazi emblem was pretty exclusive when it comes to genocide and fascism.

Bullshit alert!!!!!

FYI, The swastika motif predates the NAZI party by many centuries.

When someone displays a swastika, they are making an unmistakable statement and it's not about ancient India.

 

[Pogo]

Offensive because it represents human slavery.

What if a 20 year old has one in his truck, mailbox etc. but has it because to him, it is just pride of being from the South? To me, it's the intent with which it is displayed. No?

Suppose it was a swastika? Would you assume the 20 year old is just showing pride in being from Germany? Any time you display a symbol such as; a Christian cross, a swastika, or a hammer and sickle you are making a statement of support.

Not a fair comparison. The swastika (Nazi version) did represent a government, like the CF did in its various forms, but it never represented a German culture. Southern culture had already existed as distinct on its own, before the Civil War started. Some of that antebellum culture did involve slavery --- but that isn't the only thing it involved. By contrast, did Nazism -- which is specifically and exclusively a government-- ever represent anything more than unbridled conquest and genocide?

I think it's safe to say that other than military personnel during WWII, nobody has ever displayed a swastika simply to show they're from Germany. That's quite a difference between the two.
.
.

My point is if you display an emblem, you are identifying yourself with what that emblem represents. So if you display the confederate flag you, are identifying yourself with the Confederate States America which was at war with the United States and defended the right to own slaves.

A confederate flag on the back of a truck identifies the owner to most Americans as someone who is anti-black, anti-federal government, or maybe just a dumb ass redneck.

But it doesn't, necessarily --- that is what the viewer infers. It may or may not be partially or wholly accurate. That's why I say the observer can't just unilaterally dictate what's in the mind of the exhibitor. As I said before, my Mississippi mother had some, and for her they meant nothing remotely like that. She wasn't even sure what the Civil War was about. For her it was a memento of "home". And that's it.

My larger point is that, when the observer infers such a sentiment -- or any sentiment, including positive ones -- that observer is enabling the power the exhibitor intended.... and may even be ascribing a motive the exhibitor never had. In other words you have to take the idea of flag fetishism seriously (and I don't) to even get started on either side --- whether displaying it with pride or disparaging it with contempt. Both parties must invest it with emotion, the same way as it takes two to make an argument.

 

[Ernie S.]

"Josf, no one is going to read your boringly long and inaccurate false flag posts."

Changing the subject to me personally is against the rules. This is precisely how false flags work. This individual member of this forum voluntarily joins this forum, and in this forum there are voluntary rules that we are duty bound to follow. So long as everyone follows the rules, there are no broken rules, and debate on the subject matter remains clean.

Here is a flag:
The STRIPED FLAG of the EAST INDIA COMPANY and its CONNEXION with the AMERICAN STARS and STRIPES

The East India Company flag, as well as many other flags, such as the UNION flag, or the flag of any confederacy, or any federal, voluntary, union, or any symbol of any kind, or any label, such as Clean Debate Zone, is a sign, a message, a bit of data, a form of communication, and it can be false, or it can be true.

A false flag can be a flag that claims to be a flag representing Liberty, while the actual people waving the flag are the actual people who commonly brake commonly understood rules.

"...your boringly long and inaccurate..."

That is a common false flag type message. The actual fact of the matter is such that in the Clean Debate Zone, where it is against the rules to incite a flame war with personal attacks, the subject matter IS NOT my personal character where I am falsely, deviously, covertly, written up as someone who is boring, and someone who is capable of offering inaccurate information. The subject matter here and now concerns a flag that supposedly represents forced slavery of innocent people by those people waving that flag.

If that is the claim, then which flag is waved by which people, as those people truly, accurately, and with malice aforethought, break common, moral, rules?

Example:
http://nationallibertyalliance.org/files/marshal/1 US Marshals and the Constitution.pdf

Quote:___________________________________
As part of the famous Compromise of 1850, Congress passed one
of the most roundly hated and violently opposed laws in
American history. The Fugitive Slave Act required U.S. Marshals
in the north to return escaped slaves to their masters in the
South. Northern abolitionists, who were intent on abolishing the
institution of slavery, turned on the Marshals in a number of
slave rescue cases.

But the Marshals, regardless of their personal feelings, had no
choice. The Constitution itself required the free states to return
fugitive slaves. The Fugitive Slave Law merely implemented that
Constitutional provision. To deny the law, even a hated law,
meant a denial of the Constitution itself. The Marshals enforced
the law.
________________________________________

The Nazi type blind obedience to following any criminal order issued by any criminal no matter how immoral the criminal order might be is directly comparable to the following example of rule of law:

AntiFederalist Papers Paper 15 Freedom Documents

Quote:______________________________
The abuse which has been thrown upon the state of Rhode Island seems to be greatly unmerited. Popular favor is variable, and those who are now despised and insulted may soon change situations with the present idols of the people. Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous. The General Assembly of the state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784, are absolutely and at once free.

They have fully complied with the recommendations of Congress in regard to the late treaty of peace with Great Britain, and have passed an act declaring it to be the law of the land. They have never refused their quota of taxes demanded by Congress, excepting the five per cent impost, which they considered as a dangerous tax, and for which at present there is perhaps no great necessity, as the western territory, of which a part has very lately been sold at a considerable price, may soon produce an immense revenue; and, in the interim, Congress may raise in the old manner the taxes which shall be found necessary for the support of the government.
____________________________________

Those whose claims of absolute authority concerning the facts are often those who have failed to actually acknowledge the lawful process by which facts are found.

Example 1:
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER 1 U.S. 236 1788 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Quote:____________________________
It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.
_________________________________

Example 2:
http://www.thekingcenter.org/sites/default/files/KING FAMILY TRIAL TRANSCRIPT.pdf

Quote:___________________________
Arthur Jackson Haynes, Jr
Page 804
“I have considered in my thirty-five-year career a jury is the best lie detector there is.”
_________________________________

When any of the slaves (black, white, red, yellow, pink) get out of line then one of the false flag wavers, or many of the false flag wavers, assassinate the errant slave.

I don't even know if I agree or disagree with you. Your style bores me to tears by the end of the first paragraph.
Keep it brief and on point and you might get a discussion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Offensive or not?

Why?

False dilemma fallacy.

 

[Ernie S.]

To those that think the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves, let me ask you this:

If Stephen Harper issued an executive order making homosexuality illegal in the United States, would homosexuality be illegal in the USA?

 

[Unkotare]

Offensive because it represents human slavery.

That ignorance illustrates the entire non-argument.

Using that (lack of) logic, the American flag, too, represents a heritage of slavery. Cherry pick to push a political agenda. Propaganda.

That's true too. Selective symbolism can represent, on the part on the selector, anything he wants. To a lot of people in a lot of places, the Stars and Stripes also represents conquest and genocide -- like the swastika. Who's to judge?
,
,
,
,
,

Poor analogy. The swastika as a nazi emblem was pretty exclusive when it comes to genocide and fascism.

Bullshit alert!!!!!

FYI, The swastika motif predates the NAZI party by many centuries.

When someone displays a swastika, they are making an unmistakable statement and it's not about ancient India.

Depends on the context. Beware categorical statements.

The Swastika in Japan