Confederate Flag Displayed, Sparks Dispute In Virginia - Polidicks

[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] So?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42352700]So?[/QUOTE] He's right. As horrible of a thing slavery is, most abolitionists only cared because it would one-up the South. Dred Scott was probably the only abolitionist who really cared.

[QUOTE=Moustacheman;42352730]He's right. As horrible of a thing slavery is, most abolitionists only cared because it would one-up the South. Dred Scott was probably the only abolitionist who really cared.[/QUOTE] source

[URL="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4i2978.html"]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4i2978.html[/URL][QUOTE=Explosions;42352752]source[/QUOTE] [editline]29th September 2013[/editline] You're fairly naive, to be honest, if you actually think racism wasn't as common in the North as it was in the South.

[QUOTE=Moustacheman;42352771][URL="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4i2978.html"]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4i2978.html[/URL] [editline]29th September 2013[/editline] You're fairly naive, to be honest, if you actually think racism wasn't as common in the North as it was in the South.[/QUOTE] Never said there wasn't racism in the north. Most people in the north wanted to end slavery but never thought that blacks could live alongside white people. That's why you get things like Liberia, which was partially founded by northerners. However, the source you provided does not make any mention of racism in the abolitionist movement besides a passing mention in the first sentence. It then goes on to tell how the white abolitionists did not have the same aspirations as the black abolitionists, which I think is mainly due to the fact that they didn't know/think that black people could live with white people.

[QUOTE=Explosions;42352884]Never said there wasn't racism in the north. Most people in the north wanted to end slavery but never thought that blacks could live alongside white people. That's why you get things like Liberia, which was partially founded by northerners. However, the source you provided does not make any mention of racism in the abolitionist movement besides a passing mention in the first sentence. It then goes on to tell how the white abolitionists did not have the same aspirations as the black abolitionists, which I think is mainly due to the fact that they didn't know/think that black people could live with white people.[/QUOTE] I agree with you there. My only real reason for flying the flag or joining a Confederate unit in reenactments is out of family history. My great great great etc. Granddad came here from Scotland and fought for the Confederacy. After the war, he married a Cherokee woman and moved back to Scotland. I have no clue on his own opinions. His journal was lost ages ago. But I do this out of ancestral pride, not vice or hatred. Anyways, we both agree slavery was horrible. [editline]29th September 2013[/editline] I'm glad to see we've come to an agreement.

[QUOTE=Moustacheman;42352730]He's right. As horrible of a thing slavery is, most abolitionists only cared because it would one-up the South. Dred Scott was probably the only abolitionist who really cared.[/QUOTE] So? The southern rebels had no right to exist as an independent state when the entire basis of their creation was them literally stating that black people are inferior to whites and must be slaves.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42352993]So? The southern rebels had no right to exist as an independent state when the entire basis of their creation was them literally stating that black people are inferior to whites and must be slaves.[/QUOTE] You're right, Sobotnik. It's a simple statement that white abolitionists had a far different agenda then black abolitionists. They were definitely right about banning slavery. But they wanted to do it for a simple, stupid rivalry. Also, the Confederacy almost had the support of the British, and if they hadn't lost Gettysburg, they would have had full support.

[QUOTE=Moustacheman;42353040]You're right, Sobotnik. It's a simple statement that white abolitionists had a far different agenda then black abolitionists. They were definitely right about banning slavery. But they wanted to do it for a simple, stupid rivalry. Also, the Confederacy almost had the support of the British, and if they hadn't lost Gettysburg, they would have had full support.[/QUOTE] No, the abolitionists saw slavery as a vile institution that must be destroyed. I don't know what this "rivalry" is that you're talking about.

[QUOTE=Moustacheman;42353040]You're right, Sobotnik. It's a simple statement that white abolitionists had a far different agenda then black abolitionists. They were definitely right about banning slavery. But they wanted to do it for a simple, stupid rivalry. Also, the Confederacy almost had the support of the British, and if they hadn't lost Gettysburg, they would have had full support.[/QUOTE] The British wouldn't have supported them, that would have been political suicide. The middle classes were gaining the vote in Britain around this time and many factories boycotted rebel cotton during the war. Given that also the British had spent the past 60 years actively hunting down slave traders, and had abolished slavery already (plus forced the Danish, French, and a whole plethora of other countries) to abolish slavery and slave trading, it would seem bizarre for one of the main leaders of the abolitionist cause to support the rebels. Also the rebels could have never feasibly won in any circumstances. They had already lost in 1861 when they bombed Fort Sumter.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42353077]The British wouldn't have supported them, that would have been political suicide. The middle classes were gaining the vote in Britain around this time and many factories boycotted rebel cotton during the war. Given that also the British had spent the past 60 years actively hunting down slave traders, and had abolished slavery already (plus forced the Danish, French, and a whole plethora of other countries) to abolish slavery and slave trading, it would seem bizarre for one of the main leaders of the abolitionist cause to support the rebels. Also the rebels could have never feasibly won in any circumstances. They had already lost in 1861 when they bombed Fort Sumter.[/QUOTE] I don't even know what I'm saying anymore I haven't slept in three days and I'm pretty sure you're right so I just admit defeat. This is my Appomattox Courthouse and likely my last post in this thread.

[QUOTE=Moustacheman;42353040]You're right, Sobotnik. It's a simple statement that white abolitionists had a far different agenda then black abolitionists. They were definitely right about banning slavery. But they wanted to do it for a simple, stupid rivalry. Also, the Confederacy almost had the support of the British, and if they hadn't lost Gettysburg, they would have had full support.[/QUOTE] The British never seriously took considerations for the Confederacy.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42339965]One day, in the future, I truly hope that people will realize that that was never the Confederate flag but just a battleflag :v:[/QUOTE] It was on the Confederate flag, though I doubt those in which you're referring to are aware of that.

[QUOTE=LSK;42353301]It was on the Confederate flag, though I doubt those in which you're referring to are aware of that.[/QUOTE] Part of it doesn't matter. If you're not showing the whole thing, then it's just the battleflag. Not to mention the Confederates had a different national flag almost every year of the war.

[QUOTE=Explosions;42352752]source[/QUOTE] The fact that the emancipation proclamation only sought to free slaves living in Confederate states so as to incite rebellion.

abraham lincoln was an abolitionist and the presidential candidate of an abolitionist party, how can you honestly say it was just done for a moral high ground or to incite rebellion?

Georgia boy here, and I love the rebel flag. I don't wave it around all the time, but it's an iconic symbol of the style of the American South.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42353904]abraham lincoln was an abolitionist and the presidential candidate of an abolitionist party, how can you honestly say it was just done for a moral high ground or to incite rebellion?[/QUOTE] If you need any proof of Lincoln's relaxed and flippant attitude toward abolition, look no further than Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune written on August 22, 1862. Lincoln was a nationalist and a centralist, abolition was a subordinate and possibly unneeded objective to him, and he incited abolition only when it was politically beneficial to him. What he cared about was undermining regionalism. This letter was written not weeks before his Gettysburg Address. And if you need a better understanding of the ulterior motives behind the emancipation proclamation read his letter to James C. Conkling from August 26th of the following year.

[QUOTE=Derubermensch;42355941]If you need any proof of Lincoln's relaxed and flippant attitude toward abolition, look no further than Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune written on August 22, 1862. Lincoln was a nationalist and a centralist, abolition was a subordinate and possibly unneeded objective to him, and he incited abolition only when it was politically beneficial to him. What he cared about was undermining regionalism. This letter was written not weeks before his Gettysburg Address. And if you need a better understanding of the ulterior motives behind the emancipation proclamation read his letter to James C. Conkling from August 26th of the following year.[/QUOTE] That's all well and good and you could convince me that the Emancipation Proclamation was a political maneuver. That doesn't explain his desperate and passionate effort to pass the 13th Amendment near the tail end of the war.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42352993]So? The southern rebels had no right to exist as an independent state when the entire basis of their creation was them literally stating that black people are inferior to whites and must be slaves.[/QUOTE] Doesn't matter why they seceded, they still had the right to secede. You might argue that they had no moral grounds to do so, at which point I'd ask you to objectively define morality. [editline]30th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=lolwutdude;42351727]wtf is this a joke lol? this is fp's slavery apologist[/QUOTE] what is relativity We don't bash the Sumerians for it, and we don't bash the Egyptians for it. Why? Because it was part of who they were. Children grew up around slaves and became adults around slaves, bore their children around slaves, and eventually died around slaves. Is it such a stretch to imagine that Southerners, too, might not have been able to fathom a workable version of their society without slavery?

[QUOTE=evilweazel;42340117]Kinda the same deal as Germans who served in WWII. Most of them probably didn't really hate Jews and undesirables and etc., they were just young men who saw their land being attacked, and wanted to do something about it. There's nothing wrong with being proud of your ancestors defending the land that you now live on. It's not really an exception with this, plenty of men who served in the Confederate Army were just doing it because they saw the Union burning their towns and fields, same as why plenty of young men joined in with the Union. Either way, the Confederate flag doesn't mean anything nowadays besides "by the way I'm from the south and I like it"[/QUOTE] Seen any Germans flying the Nazi Germany flag recently?

[QUOTE=Irkalla;42356748]Doesn't matter why they seceded, they still had the right to secede. You might argue that they had no moral grounds to do so, at which point I'd ask you to objectively define morality.[/quote] No they didn't. [quote]what is relativity We don't bash the Sumerians for it, and we don't bash the Egyptians for it. Why? Because it was part of who they were. Children grew up around slaves and became adults around slaves, bore their children around slaves, and eventually died around slaves. Is it such a stretch to imagine that Southerners, too, might not have been able to fathom a workable version of their society without slavery?[/QUOTE] Yes we do. Or maybe you don't because you're a slavery apologist.

[QUOTE=Explosions;42357055]No they didn't. [/QUOTE] Self determination is still a right, even if for a shitty reason.

[QUOTE=Irkalla;42356748]Doesn't matter why they seceded, they still had the right to secede. You might argue that they had no moral grounds to do so, at which point I'd ask you to objectively define morality.[/quote] Let us pretend for a moment, that slavery never existed in the USA. Would the South have seceded? [quote]what is relativity We don't bash the Sumerians for it, and we don't bash the Egyptians for it. Why? Because it was part of who they were. Children grew up around slaves and became adults around slaves, bore their children around slaves, and eventually died around slaves. Is it such a stretch to imagine that Southerners, too, might not have been able to fathom a workable version of their society without slavery?[/QUOTE] I think those ancient civilizations are detestable and (through the lens of today), barbaric third world shitholes, and that much of their civilizations internal social and economic problems were due to slavery. Slavery itself after all is what ruined the Roman Empire, then again, it would be preferable if that Empire had never existed in the first place. [editline]30th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42357069]Self determination is still a right, even if for a shitty reason.[/QUOTE] Does this mean a single person can declare independence as his own state?

[QUOTE=Irkalla;42356748]Doesn't matter why they seceded, they still had the right to secede. You might argue that they had no moral grounds to do so, at which point I'd ask you to objectively define morality.[/QUOTE] Indefensible. You can ask that question, but don't expect to get any sort of response that bothers with answering it. This shouldn't need to be explained to you, you shouldn't have to have morality objectively defined to you. If you can't see that slavery is morally wrong that's your own business.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42358339] Does this mean a single person can declare independence as his own state?[/QUOTE] Trying to talk about theoretical extremes really have no purpose here other than being a strawman.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42359075]Trying to talk about theoretical extremes really have no purpose here other than being a strawman.[/QUOTE] To what degree is self-determination desirable? For instance, I do not believe that people should have the right to declare independence for the purpose of keeping slaves. In fact, I would say its justified for a foreign power to overthrow that government and force them to let the slaves free.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42357069]Self determination is still a right, even if for a shitty reason.[/QUOTE] The reason is everything though.

Still waiting for someone to point out the fact that the north was weary of the south cheap/free labour while they had to pay the workers for their labour... Have to concede the point to Marx on this one....

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42359410]Still waiting for someone to point out the fact that the north was weary of the south cheap/free labour while they had to pay the workers for their labour... Have to concede the point to Marx on this one....[/QUOTE] I already explained that this is unsourced and unproven. It is extremely unlikely that this would be true because the north had millions of immigrants that could be payed next to nothing. And even if it was true that the northerners only cared about profits, so? What does that mean? They still wanted to end slavery while the south wanted to sustain it.