• Black Student at USC Defends Confederate Flag
    288 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33593506] How?[/QUOTE] South Carolina considered itself independent from the USA. So it wanted US soldiers off their land. The US refused, so South Carolina used military intervention. I mean, criticize the CSA all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the US intended to attack and retake the CSA as soon as they seceded.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;33593524]i don't see how that justifies slavery in any way? it's still was/is one of the most despicable practices ever practiced by man. we don't justify cortez & the spanish empires wholesale slaughter of the aztecs because they felt they had the religious right.[/QUOTE] I was never trying to justify it.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;33593524]i don't see how that justifies slavery in any way? it's still was/is one of the most despicable practices ever practiced by man. we don't justify cortez & the spanish empires wholesale slaughter of the aztecs because they felt they had the religious right.[/QUOTE] Just like no one should try to justify the slaughter of Native Americans or the concept of Manifest Destiny that led to US expansion across North America.
[QUOTE=CG-105;33593522]So how does that second thing negate the fact that they attacked the fort? I mean, the issue at hand was whether the land was theirs or not (it wasn't).[/QUOTE] It was outside of Charleston, South Carolina. It was CSA land, and South Carolina didn't want what they now considered a foreign army there.
[QUOTE=OvB;33593496]They saw nothing wrong with it and they did not do it out of hatred or spite.[/QUOTE] absolutely not. they saw black people as inferior, nee they said it was their duty to enslave them. [quote]that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.[/quote] if that's not hatred or spite you are simply giving them a pass, for shame.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33593506] How?[/QUOTE] The North wanted to intrude on the South's rights and in doing so would have greatly crippled their economy.
[QUOTE=OvB;33593532]I was never trying to justify it.[/QUOTE] then why bring it up? it doesn't matter if they felt they were religiously correct in owning slaves or that it benefited them economically. it was still a disgusting practice that should have been ended at all costs which is what the abolitionists realized.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;33593547]The North wanted to intrude on the South's rights and in doing so would have greatly crippled their economy.[/QUOTE] If that economy is rooted in the enslavement of people, then it should by all means be crippled.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;33593547]The North wanted to intrude on the South's rights and in doing so would have greatly crippled their economy.[/QUOTE] my god, you sound like a politician. be more vague and hand-wavey please.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593476]That's just a grandfather clause. they can be moved around within the states but you can't bring new ones in. the goal was to wean everybody off of slaves as the contemporary slaves died off.[/QUOTE] there was no weaning. it was too expensive to get slaves off of ships. almost all of the slaves were perpetually born into slavery. the importation of slaves was banned in 1808 anyway.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33593543]It was outside of Charleston, South Carolina. It was CSA land, and South Carolina didn't want what they now considered a foreign army there.[/QUOTE] It doesn't change the fact that they attacked the fort. And you can't justify it as an "ousting of a foreign power" because there is no legal basis for secession.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33593506]Despite the fact that Confederate leaders supported slavery on a moral level, such as the CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens in his cornerstone speech? [editline]5th December 2011[/editline] How?[/QUOTE] On a moral level most union leaders had no problems with slavery.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33593555]If that economy is rooted in the enslavement of people, then it should by all means be crippled.[/QUOTE] I'm with you on that one, I'm not trying to justify slavery.
[QUOTE=CG-105;33593587]It doesn't change the fact that they attacked the fort. And you can't justify it as an "ousting of a foreign power" because there is no legal basis for secession.[/QUOTE] yes there is, the thirteen colonies were the first to exercise it.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;33593547]The North wanted to intrude on the South's rights and in doing so would have greatly crippled their economy.[/QUOTE] They didn't want to just arbitrarily crush the south's economy. Why would half of a country willingly crush the other half when it would weaken the whole? That makes no rational sense. People thought slavery was bad, and wanted to abolish it on moral reasons. Not on a "this will fuck up those southern pricks so bad" reason.
[h2]IN ANY CASE, THIS ARGUMENT ISN'T ABOUT THE MORALITY OF SLAVERY[/h2] I'm just trying to say that the confederate jack doesn't stand for racism
[QUOTE=CG-105;33593587]It doesn't change the fact that they attacked the fort. And you can't justify it as an "ousting of a foreign power" because there is no legal basis for secession.[/QUOTE] There was no legal basis for the colonies to rebel against the British Empire. There is hardly "legal" basis for acts of rebellion and secession. South Carolina considered itself part of the CSA, it no longer recognized the US government, so soldiers in South Carolina would be considered a foreign occupation.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593590]On a moral level most union leaders had no problems with slavery.[/QUOTE] Again, what is the source? At least I'm referring to specific statements made by the 2nd executive officer of the CSA, you're just stating your argument like it's fact.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593590]On a moral level most union leaders had no problems with slavery.[/QUOTE] the debate isn't "was the union better than the south". the debate was, what does the flag stand for. to me it stands for a group of states that wanted to maintain their ability to do one of the most evil things imaginable so they seceded and along with the union killed a lot of people. anyone who claims the flag is something other than that has a totally different perspective but the historical facts don't change with perspective.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33593555]If that economy is rooted in the enslavement of people, then it should by all means be crippled.[/QUOTE] THAT'S NOT THE POINT!!!! No one is denying that slavery is bad! The point is that the war was fought (by the North) to keep the Union united! The South attacked first, yes. But it was an attack provoked by the North! Similarly Japan attacked the US first in WWII, but it [i]was[/i] an attack provoked by US.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593603] I'm just trying to say that the confederate jack doesn't stand for racism[/QUOTE] right it's the symbol of a rebellion that was fought for the rights to do terrible things. not all rebellions are in the name of freedom as you claim (laughable considering we're talking about slavery). not a single flag doesn't supposedly stand for freedom and pride, but you have to look at what kind of freedom and pride.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593603]I'm just trying to say that the confederate jack doesn't stand for racism[/QUOTE] really? based on the past four pages it seems that a large percentage of people don't see it that way. given that this is the internet which is generally more accepting of dissenting opinions, society as a whole would be even less receptive of your little theory. so to use the confederate flag in modern times is to invoke symbols of racism, regardless of what you think the supposed reality is. it's that simple
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33593599]They didn't want to just arbitrarily crush the south's economy. Why would half of a country willingly crush the other half when it would weaken the whole? That makes no rational sense. People thought slavery was bad, and wanted to abolish it on moral reasons. Not on a "this will fuck up those southern pricks so bad" reason.[/QUOTE] No, not like that. They weren't out to "fuck up those southern pricks so bad" but you can make them yield by crippling them economically. And you say people think slavery was morally wrong, most union citizens didn't give a shit about the issue.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593603][h2]IN ANY CASE, THIS ARGUMENT ISN'T ABOUT THE MORALITY OF SLAVERY[/h2] I'm just trying to say that the confederate jack doesn't stand for racism[/QUOTE] it stands for the confederacy, a nation (or whatever) founded on the basis that black people are inferior to whites.
[QUOTE=Master X;33593633] The point is that the war was fought to keep the Union united![/QUOTE] no-one cares about this point though. of course the war was fought to keep the union united but it wouldn't have happened if the south didn't secede over the rights to keep slaves. everything else is just obfuscation.
[QUOTE=mrcsb;33593637]really? based on the past four pages it seems that a large percentage of people don't see it that way. given that this is the internet which is generally more accepting of dissenting opinions, society as a whole would be even less receptive of your little theory. so to use the confederate flag in modern times is to invoke symbols of racism, regardless of what you think the supposed reality is. it's that simple[/QUOTE] It's not that simple though, nothing is black and white, especially when dealing with this kind of thing.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;33593638]No, not like that. They weren't out to "fuck up those southern pricks so bad" but you can make them yield by crippling them economically.[/QUOTE] you aren't making any sense. there was no-one to cripple when abolitionism became a political force. it was way before there even was a secession.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33593545]absolutely not. they saw black people as inferior, nee they said it was their duty to enslave them. if that's not hatred or spite you are simply giving them a pass, for shame.[/QUOTE] [quote]Northerners and Southerners alike were just as bigoted toward black people and that won't change until years down the road with the end of Segregation.[/quote] The bigotry and hatred towards blacks was on both sides. You could argue that both sides saw blacks as inferior. While the north fought for the end of slavery, they were still racist in many respects. Slavery to southerners was taught through generations of Religious indoctrination. Many didn't see it as wrong. (Again, they saw it as a God given right) Racism and bigotry was still strong in the North, too. You cannot deny that.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;33593638]No, not like that. They weren't out to "fuck up those southern pricks so bad" but you can make them yield by crippling them economically.[/quote] But the issue came up before the south even seceded. The south seceded because the Union was trying to abolish slavery. [quote]And you say people think slavery was morally wrong, most union citizens didn't give a shit about the issue.[/QUOTE] Yea, most people didn't. However, they elected the Republican Party, which was very abolitionist and progressive, to represent them. These elected officials viewed slavery as bad and wanted to get rid of it.
[QUOTE=Master X;33593633]THAT'S NOT THE POINT!!!! No one is denying that slavery is bad! The point is that the war was fought (by the North) to keep the Union united! The South attacked first, yes. But it was an attack provoked by the North! Similarly Japan attacked the US first in WWII, but it [i]was[/i] an attack provoked by US.[/QUOTE] and the reason the union was disunited was due to the southern states not wanting to abolish slavery!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.