• Black Student at USC Defends Confederate Flag
    288 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Broseph_;33601751]Only for the presidential election of 1864, before that he passed a act reaffirming the legality of slavery in the Union[/QUOTE] He didn't say slavery was legal in the Union, he said slavery was illegal in the Confederate States of America.
[QUOTE=Zareox7;33604234]Do I need to go into depth to what exactly these compromises did? I'll elaborate just a little bit, the Missouri Compromise banned slavery north of the parallel 36°30'. I'm pretty sure this threatens the legal institution of slavery. For someone being so aggressive about how american schools apparently don't teach history anymore, you should probably go back.[/QUOTE] The Missouri Compromise did not, get your facts straight, it only banned the formation of slave states above it, while slavery remained legal in Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia, Delaware and Maryland, all states remind you wholly above the 36th Parallel [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Missouri_Compromise_Line.svg/500px-Missouri_Compromise_Line.svg.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Broseph_;33604541]The Missouri Compromise did not, get your facts straight, it only banned the formation of slave states above it, while slavery remained legal in Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia, Delaware and Maryland, all states remind you wholly above the 36th Parallel[/QUOTE] My bad, I forgot to add 'in the former Louisiana Territory'. Regardless, you just proved my point against your own. It's an obvious obstruction to the institution of slavery, leading up to the civil war, to which you said there was none.
[QUOTE=Zareox7;33604522]He didn't say slavery was legal in the Union, he said slavery was illegal in the Confederate States of America.[/QUOTE] He did though by listing the states that were in rebellion under the proclamation and what jurisdictions that were exempted from the proclamation of the states that were listed, as a result those explicit exemptions serve as a undeniable legal sanction of the institution of slavery, this ignoring the fact he publicly stated he did not want to abolish slavery in the Union and that he never once attempted to legally force the Union states and exempted jurisdictions to free their slaves [editline]6th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zareox7;33604612]My bad, I forgot to add 'in the former Louisiana Territory'. Regardless, you just proved my point against your own. It's an obvious obstruction to the institution of slavery, leading up to the civil war, to which you said there was none.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but when I read 'threat to slavery' I read that as abolishment, not legal boundaries
According to the southerners of the 1800's, they saw it as a threat to slavery. [editline]6th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Broseph_;33604706]this ignoring the fact he publicly stated he did not want to abolish slavery in the Union and that he never once attempted to legally force the Union states and exempted jurisdictions to free their slaves[/QUOTE] He stated that he wanted to halt the extension of slavery before he was president, and he saw the complications of completely abolishing slavery pre-civil war, also, *cough* 13th amendment *cough*. That's legally forcing union states to free slaves.
[QUOTE=Zareox7;33604800]According to the southerners of the 1800's, they saw it as a threat to slavery. [editline]6th December 2011[/editline] He stated that he wanted to halt the extension of slavery before he was president, and he saw the complications of completely abolishing slavery pre-civil war, also, *cough* 13th amendment *cough*. That's legally forcing union states to free slaves.[/QUOTE] You do realize the average Southerner didn't own slaves? And the 13th Amendment was adopted a few months after the war ended, 2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation continued to allow slavery in the North.
[QUOTE=dogmachines;33605020]You do realize the average Southerner didn't own slaves? And the 13th Amendment was adopted a few months after the war ended, 2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation continued to allow slavery in the North.[/QUOTE] this isn't about the average southerner though, the confederate flag represented the CONFEDERACY not the average southerner
[QUOTE=dogmachines;33605020]You do realize the average Southerner didn't own slaves? And the 13th Amendment was adopted a few months after the war ended, 2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation continued to allow slavery in the North.[/QUOTE] The Emancipation Proclamation didn't allow or abolish anything. It said that plantations in Confederate states that were captured by Union forces would have their slaves freed. If the state agreed to come back into the Union, they could keep their slaves. Lincoln did this to try and scare the Confederates into surrendering.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;33592459]i don't get how you're showing southern pride by hearkening to the days when the south was at it's worst or whatever[/QUOTE] I think it's moreso because those were they days when the south was essentially its own country so it represents its individualism. Regardless of whether or not it represents pride in the south, there are too many connections between it and fighting to keep slavery (among other things) so I still wouldn't recommend it even if it's a "proud to be from the south" context.
[QUOTE=Pedro the Fuzzy;33604517]The thing is most Southerners really aren't huge racists (WOAAHHH!!! NO WAY!!!) and see the Rebel flag as a symbol of Southern pride. In a way I suppose, it's embracing history. It may not have been a pretty time but we can't change it.[/QUOTE] They shouldn't embrace it. It makes them look like racists and most of their ancestors didn't even vote for it. In fact, the sucession was extremely unpopular amoung the lower classes. It's only later, when this fucktarded 'Lost Cause' bullshit started going around did the attitudes change.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33593042]No, actually the main issue with the Confederate Government and the number one reason they seceded from the Union was slavery. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#History[/url][/QUOTE] Not really, slavery wasn't the main 'issue' of the war until after it had began. It was more about the South feeling their rights were being infringed upon by the North - they didn't feel like they had enough of a say in the government and Lincolns election just threw them over the edge. The North wasn't even really that opposed to slavery, a significant portion of Northerners were quite racist, simply didn't care, or feared for their livelihood.
-nevermind getting tired again-
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593089]slavery wasn't even a relevant problem until Lincoln made it a point to abolish slavery because the south had a lot of money in slaves. Lincoln himself did own slaves before his presidency, but if the south won the war Lincoln would have been out of office. He did what it took to stay in office, he didn't free them on an issue of morality.[/QUOTE] Lincoln most likely owned slaves as a result of his wife being the daughter of a prominent slave-owner. Personally he wasn't fond of slavery, though his stronger feelings regarding the matter didn't develop until later in his presidency. Read Lincolns letter to Horace Greeley: [quote] Executive Mansion, Washington, August 22, 1862. Hon. Horace Greeley: Dear Sir. I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right. As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed wish that all men every where could be free. Yours, A. Lincoln. [/quote]
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;33605077]this isn't about the average southerner though, the confederate flag represented the CONFEDERACY not the average southerner[/QUOTE] True, but to someone who doesn't own slaves, aka the vast majority of the people fighting for the south, the Confederacy doesn't represent slavery. It represents freedom for them, as well as being their home which they are fighting to defend.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;33605281]Lincoln most likely owned slaves as a result of his wife being the daughter of a prominent slave-owner. [/QUOTE] lincoln did not own slaves
[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;33605279]Read their fucking constitution. They left because they though the north was going to take their slaves-even though the north specifically said that they wouldn't.[/QUOTE] I have read it, it only mentions slavery when it provides a guarantee that the confederate government will not make laws restricting slavery of 'negros' [editline]6th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;33605314]lincoln did not own slaves[/QUOTE] I thought not, my saying so was in response to the claim that he had done so. If he were to have had slaves at any time it probably would have been because of that. Thanks for the clarification though
[QUOTE=Pedro the Fuzzy;33604517]The thing is most Southerners really aren't huge racists (WOAAHHH!!! NO WAY!!!) and see the Rebel flag as a symbol of Southern pride. [/QUOTE] uh this is pretty fucking misleading if not a blatant lie because i've lived in several southern states (none of which were even in the deep south) and casual racism has been pretty common in every one of them. just because your limited circle of friends isn't racist doesn't mean the south isn't. people who claim racism is dead are either willfully blind or completely fucking ignorant.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33593038]the rights to own slaves. it was one of the major causes of secession from the union.[/QUOTE] One issue out of so many more than you seem to forget. [editline]6th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=-nesto-;33593058]I dunno why everyone thinks the South was the only one with slaves. The north had em too and the war was never about freeing them. The only reason the north abolished was to hurt the south's coin purses.[/QUOTE] After 1804 all states north of the Ohio River and the Mason-Dixon Line has abolished slavery. You're spewing bullshit.
[QUOTE=mrcsb;33605682]uh this is pretty fucking misleading if not a blatant lie because i've lived in several southern states (none of which were even in the deep south) and casual racism has been pretty common in every one of them. just because your limited circle of friends isn't racist doesn't mean the south isn't. people who claim racism is dead are either willfully blind or completely fucking ignorant.[/QUOTE] What states.
[QUOTE=mrcsb;33605682]uh this is pretty fucking misleading if not a blatant lie because i've lived in several southern states (none of which were even in the deep south) and casual racism has been pretty common in every one of them. just because your limited circle of friends isn't racist doesn't mean the south isn't. people who claim racism is dead are either willfully blind or completely fucking ignorant.[/QUOTE] I've lived in (or been to) a ton of states and have seen shit that can be construed as racism in all of them. It's really no surprise seeing racism in a state. Lots of people live in states, so you're bound to eventually run into racism.
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;33605776]One issue out of so many more than you seem to forget. [/QUOTE] well history books seem to omit theses reasons as well as the writings of the confederate leaders. maybe you guys have some kind of secret document out-lining their real reasons, but even the wikipedia article, which probably has fights about the civil war on a daily basis, mentions slavery as the primary and most major cause.
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;33605122]The Emancipation Proclamation didn't allow or abolish anything. It said that plantations in Confederate states that were captured by Union forces would have their slaves freed. If the state agreed to come back into the Union, they could keep their slaves. Lincoln did this to try and scare the Confederates into surrendering.[/QUOTE] He also did it to lessen the likelihood of Britain or France lending the CSA legitimacy. The Emancipation Proclamation pushed the issue of slavery to the forefront of the war; Britain and France, both of which had formally abolished slavery at that time. Support for the Confederacy would have seemed like supporting slavery afterwards.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33593082]The war was about freeing slaves, though. Lincoln was a staunch abolitionist, and the Republican Party was staunchly abolitionist. Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, many southern states didn't like it and seceded.[/QUOTE] Abe was a good president, but he was not an abolitionist: [I]I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.[/I]
I would argue that the war was about states rights up until the Proclamation.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;33606864]Abe was a good president, but he was not an abolitionist: [I]I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.[/I][/QUOTE] From the looks of it he was an abolitionist. However, as he stated, the war was fought to keep the Union united, not to free slaves.
[QUOTE=Master X;33606990]From the looks of it he was an abolitionist. However, as he stated, the war was fought to keep the Union united, not to free slaves.[/QUOTE] Even my AP US History textbook (AP is run by the very liberal College Board) I took 2 years ago says the war started to save the union. Only later did freeing the slaves become a big issue in the minds of the masses, it was to raise moral after mess in [del]Gettysburg[/del] Antietam. But to be honest, I'm pretty sure Lincoln wanted to end slavery, even if he couldn't admit it due to political correctness (also note his vice pres. was a racist Southerner who was pro-slavery, he fucked up the restoration period when he became president after Lincoln died).
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593010] I'm willing to bet that a lot of political issues we have today would be gone if the south won the war. they might be replaced by something else and whether or not it would be an improvement today isn't really for us to know.[/QUOTE] We'd probably be fucked over considering if the South won they would have simply succeeded in seceding, not bringing the North with them into a new form of government. We would definitely have had conflicts over territory and more later on. Our economy would have been ripped to pieces (the largely industrial north and the largely agricultural south were like Siamese twins, inseperable), weakened by the war effort, and the European countries would have started pushing in on Mexico and the West. In fact the European countries wanted us to keep fighting each other, and purposely instigated it a few times, and hence never took a specific side really. They were also partially neutral since they had economic stakes in both the North and the South. Cotton was huge in the South, but wheat was actually more so on the border/north. They would rather go without some cotton than starve. [editline]6th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=The Baconator;33607070]Even my AP US History class I took 2 years ago says the war started to save the union. Only later did freeing the slaves become a big issue in the minds of the masses, it was to raise moral after mess in Gettysburg.[/QUOTE] Abraham claimed that, yes, but keep in mind if he publicly said he wanted emancipation outright the border states would likely have left to the rebels. “I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky.” -- Abraham Lincoln. The emancipation only became largely public after Antietam where the minor success of the North on a strategic level gave Lincoln some breathing room, and a way to hurt the South. The South would have feared uprisings in the black communities (note that Lincoln even specifically urged the blacks to not revolt, but I'd assume that only put the fear into their minds moreso), and so on. [B]P.S.[/B] Lincoln wasn't a radical abolitionist, sure, but he did want to free slaves. He stated multiple times that he believes in freedom for all. He just knew it wasn't extremely feasible in the beginning. I think it was always on his mind, however, especially as he was constantly harassed with letters and the like from abolitionist supporters.
Oh wait it was Antietam that was when the point of the war was "officially" changed to be ending slavery? I did only get a 4 (equivalent of a high B) on the AP Test :v:
Yes. Antietam took place on the 17th of September, 1862, and the pre-cursor to the emancipation proclamation (more like the forewarning of it, rather) was announced on the 22nd. [editline]6th December 2011[/editline] We should resurrect Lincoln and chat with him on his choices. A 4 is fine by the way. I only remember this point of history particularly well since I found all the interactions interesting. One example I liked was how Abraham wrote to McClellan about his battle plans and was like, "BRO THESE KINDA SUCK WHAT U DOIN?" and McClellan didn't listen to Lincoln. Guess what happened? McClellan's forces suffered a horrible loss and his retreat was blocked off because he took a curvy diagonal path into the South, rather than just going straight down to where his target was, which was something that Lincoln pointed out specifically in his letter.
Flags
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.