Confederate Flag Displayed, Sparks Dispute In Virginia - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;42344556]The symbol of a nation that fought tooth and nail to continue the practice of enslaving black people[/QUOTE] The American flag is the symbol of a nation that fought tooth and nail to murder natives and steal their land. What's your point?

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;42344556]The symbol of a nation that fought tooth and nail to continue the practice of enslaving black people[/QUOTE] Thats also the American Flag.

fly this one with pride instead [t]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9qo2aWZ9Yrg/S7dOP0BboeI/AAAAAAAAAXU/NbXOvk0396I/s1600/20081226+Grand+Union+Flag.png[/t]

[QUOTE=spiritlol;42343658]So even if you choose to be incorrect and believe that slavery was the root of the secession I hope you realize that Lincoln did not intend on ending slavery in the south at all. He merely wanted to prevent the new states applying for the Union from being slave states. So please tell me why the South would go and gimp themselves over "muh slavery" when they weren't even threatened in the first place? Oh no there's no way it could be over state rights or the fed gaining too much power. Its not like Lincoln repeatedly ignored the constitution throughout his term. No one thinks secession was a smart idea but believing slavery was the cause is of a similar level of poor thought. To make your argument accurate you'd have drop that racism card you've been playing too, since A: The Union was racist as south up even until the end of reconstruction and B: They didn't care about the slaves being black, the cared about the slaves being cheap labor (you can look at the Norths railway construction exploiting the Irish the same way, it was all about what cheap manpower could be justified), cotton is what they cared about, it being 50% of the Souths income at the time. Finally, you can't really pull the morality card over slavery in the context of that time in the United States. Abolitionism came from Europe and very few people supported the idea early in the United States but politically countries began to see it as a way to compete for prestige while they juggled it with production, ie France and England abolished slavery in their mainland but not their colonies. It was less of a movement of how disgusting slavery was and more of a resurgence and re imagining of ideologies such as Thomas Jefferson's "All men are created equal". Only one state in the North had completely abolished slavery, Massachusetts. Others just created ways of hampering slavery such as Vermont allowing slave ownership but the slaves could not be in Vermont. Sure it's easy to look at the people who fly the battle flag and generalize them and the southerners as slavery supporting racists. But you can't use that angle to look back into the civil war. One of the principles of understanding history is to put everything into context, back then the kind of racism you see in the south today didn't exist. That radical kind of racism came out of reconstruction, not the confederacy. Basically southern butthurt is the result of the war not the cause dude.[/QUOTE] Everything in this post is wrong. First of all, every Southern state specifically stated that the North trying to end slavery as their casus belli. Look it up here, dude: [url]http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html[/url] Second, you say that the war was about "state rights or the fed gaining too much power. Its not like Lincoln repeatedly ignored the constitution throughout his term." Yet the south seceded before Lincoln was even inaugurated. And the only reason why he did make some questionable constitutional choices was because the south had started a goddamn war! And your little conspiracy theory about "cheap labor" is ridiculous and has no backing. The North, as you mentioned, had all the cheap labor it needed in the form of poor immigrants. Third, the abolition movement in the New World had been around for decades before the Revolution. It actually reached a peak point immediately after the Revolution was won, and many people expected founders such as Washington, Madison, and Jefferson to lead the cause for abolition. Jefferson actually supported abolition until he got into debt and he withdrew his support. And what's this about Massachusetts being the only state to abolish slavery? That is completely false. Finally, the rebel flag is a symbol of the confederacy, which was an explicitly stated racist institution which ran on slavery and fought to protect slavery. Anyone who flies it should be as ashamed as they would be if they flew a Swastika flag.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42341432]noone has the right to own another human if the states thought they did then they were rightfully stripped of that 'right'[/QUOTE] Define right

[QUOTE=katbug;42346636]Define right[/QUOTE] Katbug apparently believes that slavery is a-ok.

[QUOTE=Thlis;42346829]Katbug apparently believes that slavery is a-ok.[/QUOTE] No, not at all. But Lachz0r has no fucking clue what a right is.

[QUOTE=spiritlol;42343658]So even if you choose to be incorrect and believe that slavery was the root of the secession[/QUOTE] dont understand shit like this, the CSA in their formation said why they seceded if you dont believe the people seceding telling you they were seceding because of slavery, then why even bother with the pretense of being historical [editline]29th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=katbug;42346636]Define right[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url]

[QUOTE=thisispain;42347520]dont understand shit like this, the CSA in their formation said why they seceded if you dont believe the people seceding telling you they were seceding because of slavery, then why even bother with the pretense of being historical [editline]29th September 2013[/editline] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url][/QUOTE] Amendments were made post-constitution. He also said "nobody", which implies that his statement stretches to all peoples.

[QUOTE=katbug;42347582]Amendments were made post-constitution. He also said "nobody", which implies that his statement stretches to all peoples.[/QUOTE] no idea what that has to do with anything you said define right and i defined it for you. a right is laid out in the constitution to never be enslaved.

[QUOTE=thisispain;42347611]no idea what that has to do with anything you said define right and i defined it for you. a right is laid out in the constitution to never be enslaved.[/QUOTE] I asked Lachz0r what his idea of what a right was. I'm not arguing against the fact that the constitution says you can't own slaves. I'm saying that the old constitution granted that right, before it was amended.

No one takes confederate flags seriously in here, I used to wear a confederate flag bandanna in junior high and it was never an issue, i looked fucking stupid though. I think they're funny and harmless to have up [editline]29th September 2013[/editline] it's just a piece of cloth, it's not doing anything

I think people who flys a confederate flag are silly and don't know anything about US history. I live in north VA so I never really see any of them. But honestly making a big deal because you see a flag that you dont like is even more sillier. Just let people fly whatever flags they want it's just cloth.

every time i go to dairy queen there's a big rusted pick-up truck parked in the same spot with a transparent confederate battle flag over the entire back window and a smaller sticker of the same flag in the corner to show he means business. there's also a US army sticker on it, which seems kind of contradictory

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42345077]Thats also the American Flag.[/QUOTE] Slavery didn't play a very big role in the deterioration of the relations between Britain and the colonies. The main reason for why the founding fathers didn't outlaw it is because independence had much less support in the south and a ban on slavery would've been a dealbreaker. Whats more the idea that slavery was indisputably evil didn't spread to the european elite until after the civil war. For the time they were willing to tolerate slavery if it benefited them. Slavery did, however, play a huge role in Texan war for independence.

[QUOTE=Moustacheman;42340066]Most Confederate soldiers were poor yeomen. Officers were primarily slave holders. And Robert E. Lee was well known to be against slavery.[/QUOTE] A quick glance into the journals from common southern soldiers it's starkly apparent that most believed African decedents to be wholly subhuman and only fit for slavery. Even the lowliest soldiers were extremely racist. While for some the first priority was southern independence, it's absolutely not overgeneralizing to say that all of them were very, very racist and totally in favor of slavery. No conscious human being who disagreed with slavery would have fought for the confederacy *willingly*, it's a simple fact.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;42349647]A quick glance into the journals from common southern soldiers it's starkly apparent that most believed African decedents to be wholly subhuman and only fit for slavery. [/QUOTE] A quick glance into the journals from common Northern soldiers reveals the same exact thing, and you can see this in how they treated the all-black regiments. This was at a time when racism was seen as scientific fact and the supposed deficiencies of the 'African race' was common knowledge. Lincoln signing the Emancipation Proclamation didn't suddenly make everyone in the north accept blacks with open arms, it just meant that they weren't slaves.

[QUOTE=catbarf;42349711]A quick glance into the journals from common Northern soldiers reveals the same exact thing[/QUOTE] A) No it doesn't B) In the cases where racism is expressed it's expressed as a form of apathy, which isn't good, but it's not as bad as literally "it's our god given right to enslave these subhuman negros"

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42340077]so proud of the people who were willing to kill and do die to defend the concept 'that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition' pathetic[/QUOTE] So let's instead fly the flag of a nation run by tyrants who unleashed terrible atrocities upon civilians that they claimed were their own people. [editline]29th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=hypno-toad;42349647]A quick glance into the journals from common southern soldiers it's starkly apparent that most believed African decedents to be wholly subhuman and only fit for slavery. Even the lowliest soldiers were extremely racist. While for some the first priority was southern independence, it's absolutely not overgeneralizing to say that all of them were very, very racist and totally in favor of slavery. No conscious human being who disagreed with slavery would have fought for the confederacy *willingly*, it's a simple fact.[/QUOTE] A lot of europeans thought blacks were subhuman. That was a fact of life given the time. Quit holding people to your modern standards.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;42340359]There's nothing wrong with flying a confederate flag goddamnit. The war of northern aggression wasn't JUST about slavery, and the confederates suffered just as much as the union[/QUOTE] Northern Aggression? More like the rebellious Southern states trying to justify their backwards society ruled by a tiny elite of agriculturist elites by claiming that somehow it was somebody elses fault for that war. [editline]30th September 2013[/editline] The South seceded for the sole purpose of preserving slavery.

I've seen a couple cars here in Rural Nova Scotia (Canada) with the Confed flag as Vanity plates.

[QUOTE=Explosions;42345680]Finally, the rebel flag is a symbol of the confederacy, which was an explicitly stated racist institution which ran on slavery and fought to protect slavery. Anyone who flies it should be as ashamed as they would be if they flew a Swastika flag.[/QUOTE] Thing is, it wasn't racsim. By modern standards it was, but in its day it was just a fact of life. I understand that the confederacy's casus belli was either directly or indirectly related to slavery. What I will argue against is people portraying the confederates as some kind of monsters because they practiced slavery. By modern standards, such things are unacceptable. But in the time period we're talking about, owning slaves defined your social position. It was simply a fact of life back then. And especially, it was part of the southern agrarian way of life. Of course these people are not going to be happy if you want to take a core foundation of their way of life. Do I blame them for seceding? Absolutely not. I am, however, proud that slavery is no longer a thing. Do I think it needed a war to happen? No. Economic pressures from governments not in support of slavery would have forced the confederacy to gradually abandon slavery, at which time peaceful reunification might have been a thing. This is the way a decent, free nation goes about things. Throwing away countless of your children's lives in some conflict about lines on a map is what an empire does. The civil war was nothing more than growing pains for the american empire.

[QUOTE=Irkalla;42350614]Thing is, it wasn't racsim. By modern standards it was, but in its day it was just a fact of life. I understand that the confederacy's casus belli was either directly or indirectly related to slavery. What I will argue against is people portraying the confederates as some kind of monsters because they practiced slavery. By modern standards, such things are unacceptable. But in the time period we're talking about, owning slaves defined your social position. It was simply a fact of life back then. And especially, it was part of the southern agrarian way of life. Of course these people are not going to be happy if you want to take a core foundation of their way of life. Do I blame them for seceding? Absolutely not. I am, however, proud that slavery is no longer a thing. Do I think it needed a war to happen? No. Economic pressures from governments not in support of slavery would have forced the confederacy to gradually abandon slavery, at which time peaceful reunification might have been a thing. This is the way a decent, free nation goes about things. Throwing away countless of your children's lives in some conflict about lines on a map is what an empire does. The civil war was nothing more than growing pains for the american empire.[/QUOTE] The conflict was initiated by the southern rebels anyways, so it's their fault for the war.

I took American history in Grade 11 here in Canada, when we got to the Civil War, our teacher kept emphasizing that the War was not just over slavery.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42350538] More like the rebellious Southern states trying to justify their backwards society ruled by a tiny elite of agriculturist elites by claiming that somehow it was somebody elses fault for that war. [/QUOTE] Its not like they would lose any power from freeing the slaves. They would still have giant pools of cheap labor that would basically live like serfs.

[QUOTE=Irkalla;42350614]Thing is, it wasn't racsim. By modern standards it was, but in its day it was just a fact of life. I understand that the confederacy's casus belli was either directly or indirectly related to slavery. What I will argue against is people portraying the confederates as some kind of monsters because they practiced slavery. By modern standards, such things are unacceptable. But in the time period we're talking about, owning slaves defined your social position. It was simply a fact of life back then. And especially, it was part of the southern agrarian way of life. Of course these people are not going to be happy if you want to take a core foundation of their way of life. Do I blame them for seceding? Absolutely not. I am, however, proud that slavery is no longer a thing. Do I think it needed a war to happen? No. Economic pressures from governments not in support of slavery would have forced the confederacy to gradually abandon slavery, at which time peaceful reunification might have been a thing. This is the way a decent, free nation goes about things. Throwing away countless of your children's lives in some conflict about lines on a map is what an empire does. The civil war was nothing more than growing pains for the american empire.[/QUOTE] You disgust me. You are literally justifying slavery. Have fun in your sicko racist fantasy land.

[QUOTE=Irkalla;42350614][B]What I will argue against is people portraying the confederates as some kind of monsters because they practiced slavery. By modern standards, such things are unacceptable. But in the time period we're talking about, owning slaves defined your social position. It was simply a fact of life back then. And especially, it was part of the southern agrarian way of life. [/B][/QUOTE] wtf is this a joke lol? this is fp's slavery apologist

my school banned all confederate imagery. [editline]29th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Irkalla;42350614]Thing is, it wasn't racsim. By modern standards it was, but in its day it was just a fact of life. I understand that the confederacy's casus belli was either directly or indirectly related to slavery. What I will argue against is people portraying the confederates as some kind of monsters because they practiced slavery. By modern standards, such things are unacceptable. But in the time period we're talking about, owning slaves defined your social position. It was simply a fact of life back then. And especially, it was part of the southern agrarian way of life. Of course these people are not going to be happy if you want to take a core foundation of their way of life. Do I blame them for seceding? Absolutely not. I am, however, proud that slavery is no longer a thing. Do I think it needed a war to happen? No. Economic pressures from governments not in support of slavery would have forced the confederacy to gradually abandon slavery, at which time peaceful reunification might have been a thing. This is the way a decent, free nation goes about things. Throwing away countless of your children's lives in some conflict about lines on a map is what an empire does. The civil war was nothing more than growing pains for the american empire.[/QUOTE] did you just seriously say it was okay because "those were the days"? shit then beating jews and insulting them in 1940s was A-okay if you were in europe because of the social structure of that time.

ITT People not knowing that the only reason most of the north supported abolition was to undermine the political and economic power of the south.

[QUOTE=Derubermensch;42352088]ITT People not knowing that the only reason most of the north supported abolition was to undermine the political and economic power of the south.[/QUOTE] I agree completely, since the political and economic power of the south relied on owning and abusing human beings.