[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
DixiesFinest wrote:
Its heritage. A symbol of a people who said “fuck off” to a federal government that was imposing taxation on them, taxation that crippled their economy. A symbol of a people who said that a government cannot tell people how they should live their lives if those in power have not walked a mile in their shoes. After all, what does a new yorker know about farming in the Deep South?
Well I think the problem is the fact of what the backbone of Southern economy(and politics) was at the time. Negative connotations will always be attached to that particular flag because of that fact. [/quote]
I never thought about it that way, but the federal government certainly had no problem taxing that economy, slavery and all.
And once again, the civil war was not fought over slavery. Attaching the flag to this issue is a stupid stereotype, one where you will be able to find and support your dislike for it.
[/quote]
This is unequivocally wrong, and a product of revisionist history. The Civil War was absolutely over slavery, and would have never occurred had slavery not existed.
On top of this, something like 618,000 Americans died during the conflict; 250,000 of these were Southerners who died in a vain attempt to preserve a way of life. For many of them, that flag was the last thing they saw before they died.
To say that there is not “an issue” attached to the flag and what it represents is recklessly ignorant.
It should be said the American Civil War was not specifically fought to free the slaves, rather it was fought over the issue of states rights, of which the Confederate States believed slavery was one such right. Hows that sound?
Second, your Vietnam comparison is stupid. You have to remember that because the north won, we are all still US citizens. There the southerners with their confederate flags were not, and are not foreigners. And also that as a US citizen, didn’t I win the war too? There are no confederate citizens to own the loss.
[/quote]
You’re stretching here, and I’m not sure why. This is some kind of backward ass logic.
You are comlpetely wrong. “Taxation without representation?” Wrong war homey.
What tax did they impose that infuriated the South? Because as I recall, many southerners declared that if the Republican candidate in 1860 won the election, they would seek secession because they believed the Republicans were the party of the abolitionists. Lincoln’s election cemented the war on no other basis whatsoever.
And to compare the North to Great Britain during the Revolution is incredibly wrong, and doesn’t make any kind of sense. It also degrades the common bonds of America that we had even during the war, especially those from the Border States.
You are so wrong I can’t even believe you wrote it.
There were many that were extrememly racist. This isn’t exactly a hidden fact.
To say that they were on one side or not is a half truth at best.
By 1860, 92 percent of Deleware’s blacks were free. Although technically still legal, the state had really ended that practive.
KY, MD, MO and WV all had soldiers fight on both sides of the war. Lincoln’s wife was from Kentucky, and something like four of her brothers were Confederate soldiers. Stonewall Jackson was technically born in West Virgina as well.
Maryland would have succeeded had Lincoln not suspended the writ of habeas corpus and arrested everyone.
The crisis quickly took and turn for the worst and the President filled the Maryland’s capital with federal troops and military authorities. They made several arrests including the Baltimore marshal of police George P. Kane, Baltimore Mayor William Brown, and, on September 17, nine members of the Maryland legislature and the chief clerk of the Maryland Senate. The members of the Maryland legislature were arrested for fear that, if allowed to attend the legislative session, they would vote for secession from the Union.
The state song itself was written in response to the “northern agression” and “Spurns the Northern scum.”
With friends like that, who needs enemies, huh?
No border state was particularly more prone to have its citizens fight on one side or another- hence the “brother against brother” line.
He freed the slaves in the South only because he did not want to send the border states into teh arms of the Confederacy. This is reasonable.
On top of that, they were in the midst of the most brutal war in the history of the world- he knew they weren’t coming back. Give me a break.
Besides this, what the fuck is your point?
By Northern slaves, you mean the border states I assume? Get your terminology right or don’t talk about shit you don’t know about.
And there was a reason for this, as stated above.
Someone failed logic class.
I love when people complain that the Federal Government was “bullying” the South. These are the same people who owned and degraded an entire race of people simply because of the color of their skin.
So it’s OK for the South to “bully” blacks (which is putting it lightly), but not OK for the Federal Government to not be ok with that?
2+2 must equal 435,004 in your world.
Yes, it was. Look at all this country has accomplished. On top of that, they started a war to set other men free. What more noble cause is there in this world?
You clearly have no clue what you’re talking about.
There was nothing in the Constitution saying that states couldn’t legally seperate. I’m not sure if you know this, but there’s a “North” Dakota and a “South” Dakota. Freaky, isn’t it? There’s certainly nothing in the constitution that says you can legally secede.
Why teh fuck would you want West Virginia?
What the fuck does “responsible” mean in your strange world?
When you enslave a race of people and effectively demolish their identity as people while trading them as property, you’re right, you obviously aren’t capable of responsible self-government.
[quote]SSC wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Wall of text consisting of a bunch of shit I learned in third grade.
Cool story bro.
I knew this was going to happen once it got moved into PWI/“Libertarian” Frontierland.
This was an opinion thread in GAL. I stated my opinion.
Good job being really, really fucking cool on teh webz.
If you have anything else to discuss, please PM. I don’t spend time in this forum.[/quote]
You mock an entire state of people many of which are my friends, claim a bunch of things that are entirely out of line with history, and then chastise me for being childish.
No, most of what I stated is not taught in school, and if it were a â??3rd gradeâ?? lesson, why are so many people ignorant of it?
Yes, what you stated was opinion, as was my opinion that you are an idiot. The difference of course being that I supported my opinion with facts. Instead of using facts, you attack me, characterizing my though and opinion with that of a 3rd grader.
So, childish ignorant opinion contradicted by the facts entitles you to protection from discussion? Why? Why would you post if you donâ??t want to be part of the discussion? You want people to read what you write accept it and not respond? If so, why didnâ??t you do that for my post?
At least address some points to refute me. If itâ??s 3rd grader stuff it shouldnâ??t be hard. I mean heck make something up to address the points if you donâ??t actually have any knowledge on your own.
No wonder you donâ??t come in here often, facts and intelligent arguments seem to befuddle you.
[quote]orion wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
DixiesFinest wrote:
Its heritage. A symbol of a people who said “fuck off” to a federal government that was imposing taxation on them, taxation that crippled their economy. A symbol of a people who said that a government cannot tell people how they should live their lives if those in power have not walked a mile in their shoes. After all, what does a new yorker know about farming in the Deep South?
Well I think the problem is the fact of what the backbone of Southern economy(and politics) was at the time. Negative connotations will always be attached to that particular flag because of that fact.
I never thought about it that way, but the federal government certainly had no problem taxing that economy, slavery and all.
[/quote]
Apparently, a lot of people in this very thread never thought of it that way.
Second, your Vietnam comparison is stupid. You have to remember that because the north won, we are all still US citizens. There the southerners with their confederate flags were not, and are not foreigners. And also that as a US citizen, didn’t I win the war too? There are no confederate citizens to own the loss.
You’re stretching here, and I’m not sure why. This is some kind of backward ass logic.
[/quote]
Yes and no. I agree that it is ironic, I just have some trouble with people telling me my side lost when I am in fact an American citizen. Mostly just an interesting thought.
Tariff abominations for start? But yes mostly tariffs in general to drive southern purchasing to the industrial north. As you remember the revolutionary war centered around import taxes. Tea anyone?
You also forgot to mention Lincoln was elected without 1 southern electoral vote. That doesnâ??t sound like fair representation. Maybe that had something to do with it too.
All southern states had troops fight on both sides (including slaves). Just like the revolutionary war.
I realize that everyone was pretty much racist during the revolutionary war, which is my point. The British werenâ??t good guys during the first war, the north werenâ??t good guys during the civil war (speaking on racial equality lines).
This I agree with, what I disagree with is whether or not it is a good thing for the president to be able to prevent people from self governance, locking political adversaries in jail for years with no charges much less trials.
The boarder states remained part of the union, why donâ??t they count as union states?
I mentioned most states had soldiers on both sides.
It doesnâ??t change the ironic fact that confederate slaves were freed before the states that remained with the union.
Also at the time of the proclamation the confederacy was all but dead, Lincoln arrested the sympathetic politicians, there was no danger of losing more states to a sinking ship.
On the other hand there was some really good strategic motivation for the proclamation, neither of which has to do with moral objections.
it shut down the southern economy because slaves started running off
it put an end to British intervention in the war on the side of the confederacy because it turned the north into emancipators on the international stage
Maybe those had something to do with it too. I mean being in the middle of a bloody war and being able to disrupt your opponents economy and smash international support of your adversary with a piece of paper is a pretty good accidental benefit otherwise.
Maybe you should go read some of Licolnâ??s writings on blacks if you think degrading a race was relegated to the south.
So if someone is racist, itâ??s okay for them to be subject to an oppressive government?
But once again your logic dictates that the war was about slaves to begin with. Logic fail? You are assuming the point we are arguing.
Anywhere between 0 and 4.
You have no idea what would have happened had they not started the war. Plus you are again assuming the point we are arguing.
I do like how you admit the north started it though. =0)
I have thought that some of the racial animosity and segregation my have evaporated more quickly had people not been held at the end of a gun. Itâ??s possible.
Iâ??m also not stating that nothing good came from the war, just that the north wasnâ??t the rosy picture painted in the history books.
Okayâ?¦
That was exactly my point. I wasnâ??t arguing Virginia should have invaded I was saying they were right to let west Virginia go.
[quote]
Maybe they still should. Violating the state constitution and all. Who’s with me on invading West Virginia for their treachery of secession?
Why teh fuck would you want West Virginia?
Even it costs a million lives, it’s worth it because those people obviously aren’t able to responsibly self govern.
What the fuck does “responsible” mean in your strange world?
When you enslave a race of people and effectively demolish their identity as people while trading them as property, you’re right, you obviously aren’t capable of responsible self-government. [/quote]
Funny how that argument began being made towards the end of the war as discussed with the proclamation.
[quote]linnrose wrote:
Being black, a native and life-long Tennessean, and a huge Lynrd Skynrd fan, I think I can weigh in on this. It seems to me that most who proudly, purposely display the Confederate flag long for a return to some part of the era it represents. They could be appreciative of the simpler time it seems to represent, or their motive could be more sinister. But, as in all things, you can’t use this to judge a person. Some of my best friends would think nothing of throwing on a Skynrd or Harlet t-shirt with a rebel flag on it, but that doesn’t make them bad people. [/quote]
Hold on a second.
Here we have a black guy who is not only a self proclaimed Skynrd fan, but has a Motorhead avatar? The original thrash metal band… from England?
Clearly you are one confused individual who’s views should be understood in that light. =]
I have been and have known people from all over this country and none of the ones I knew at least, who displayed various forms of the confederate flag did so to indicate anything having to do with race at all.
That doesn’t mean nobody would, but there are much more definitive ways to portray your proud bigotry at this late date than with that flag.
You’re stretching here, and I’m not sure why. This is some kind of backward ass logic.
Yes and no. I agree that it is ironic, I just have some trouble with people telling me my side lost when I am in fact an American citizen. Mostly just an interesting thought.
[/quote]
No, it’s a thought most people get past after third grade. Are you an American citizen? Yes. Why? Because “your side” got ground into submission. That’s all. The South lost- if you’re calling it “your side” then you lost too.
They are not comparable at all, and to say that they were anywhere near as important as slavery in starting the Civil War is being willfully ignorant.
Or maybe you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Bush won in 2004 without one electoral vote from the Northeast or the West Coast. That doesn’t mean that we can secede over it.
It’s called a representative democracy. This is the deal that the states originally agreed to when they ratified the Constitution. Learn some history.
Then you are talking about a separate issue entirely, one that has been debated for 150 years.
But regardless of whether you like it or not, it was constitutionally legal, and remains so.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. U.S. Constitution, Article One, Section Nine
Because they were slave holding states that had close economic and social ties with the South and were far from supportive of the Union cause. Hence the designation, “Border States.”
This has nothing to do with anything relevant to this thread in any way. And the Union states had abolished slavery before the Civil War began.
Absolutely false. The Confederacy was alive and well in September of 1862. The Battle of Antietam was the closest thing to a “victory” on the Eastern front that Lincoln could find off of which to issue the Proclamation.
Following that, Lee won his most impressive and decisive victories at Fredricksburg on December 13, 1862, and at Chancellorsville in the first week of May, 1863. Vicksburg was still impregnable, and support for Lincoln was waning heavily.
I don’t know where you’re getting this- you’re making up history.
Slaves didn’t start running off because they heard they were free- they’d been running off for years before that. Lincoln’s message had to be enforced at the point of a bayonet because it had no teeth on it’s own. So this is wrong.
Wrong also. The Union victories at the Battles of Gettysburg and Vicksburg effectively ended the Confederacy’s hopes for foreign intervention.
To the rest of the world, the war was over slavery. So it could be said that even if the British did want to intervene, they could not do so at any time. 1860 was no different then 1863 by that logic.
Except it did none of these things.
That’s a strawman- I never said that it was limited to the South. But then, northern states weren’t complaining about being bullied. The word “hypocrites” only applies to one side in that war.
This is another strawman- there is a difference between words and actions. A racist is one thing- a slaveholder another. The racist has no real power over anyone else, except possibly by convincing others with his rhetoric. The slaveholder holds real power over the lives of others.
This sentence must belong in some other thread, cause I don’t know what the fuck you’re saying.
The number of working brain cells left in your head?
Actually, my mistake- the South started the war. And yes, I am, because it’s based in historical fact, not some delusional ramblings I read from the sons of confederate veterans and other Southern apologists.
I corrected myself. You’ll believe anything huh?
This is why you lift heavy stuff and don’t write policy. Stick to it.
As opposed to the fucking slaveholding antebellum south? The north was a fucking picnic compared to the society based on oppression.
Maybe you should turn the history book right side up next time.
You’re proving it over and over again.
Virginia didn’t have a choice. States are allowed to split. They are not allowed to leave the country. There is a massive distinction between the two.
My God. I can’t believe they let people like you vote.
In this part of the world, the confederate flag stands for rockabilly, southern rock, southern comfort, american cars, and a rebellious attitude. It has nothing to do with race relations.
[quote]Irish Pride wrote:
So I was just at Sheetz getting my late night $4 sub and there was a guy there in full cowboy gear including a confederate flag belt --note that I live right outside Pittsburgh.
So that got me thinking what other people think about the confederate flag and its meaning. Does it offend you?
I personally think its just another racist symbol. Im a strong believer in freedom of speech but I still feel that the confederate flag is a pretty blatant symbol of bigotry. Now I have always lived in Pittsburgh so I am obviously biased and ignorant of the “southern pride” connotation but Im just stating my view.[/quote]
The Confederate Flag could be taken as the truly last flag of a free United States. It represents the idea that the states were sovereign countries and that withdrawing from the ‘perpetual’ Union was actually a right they had; until Lincoln came smashing down upon them with thousands of troops.
Ah well…if you want to have a continental empire and milk the South (through tariffs) to build your empire…well, what the fuck…
You’re stretching here, and I’m not sure why. This is some kind of backward ass logic.
Yes and no. I agree that it is ironic, I just have some trouble with people telling me my side lost when I am in fact an American citizen. Mostly just an interesting thought.
No, it’s a thought most people get past after third grade. Are you an American citizen? Yes. Why? Because “your side” got ground into submission. That’s all. The South lost- if you’re calling it “your side” then you lost too.
[/quote]
Sympathizing with certain political motivations of a side in a war doesn’t make it “my side”, nor does it mean I condone everything they did. Maybe because I’m currently geographically located in the south? What makes it my side? Ancestry? If my ancestors were in Brittan during the revolutionary war, was that my side? If my parents protested the war in Vietnam, was my side the Viet Cong?
That’s funny since they almost started a war and actually lead to the mobilization of a national army to confront a state.
To claim motivations behind the civil war and the revolutionary war are really that different is ignorant. Even if you chalk up slavery as a key issue, the reasoning of lack of representation is the same.
Why not? If the people there really felt unrepresented by the federal government?
It would be nice either way. =0)
Kind of like the charters legally binding the states?
I agree.
They were still on “your” team. Accept that. Just because you don’t like what they stood for doesn’t mean they become not part of the union.
Not true. Most had.
Yes, the propaganda did incite slaves to free themselves. They had been running off doesn’t mean it didn’t incite the ones still there. I don’t even think this is historically debated.
From wiki:
"as Lincoln hoped, the Proclamation turned foreign popular opinion in favor of the Union for its new commitment to end slavery. That shift ended the Confederacy’s hopes of gaining official recognition, particularly from the United Kingdom. If Britain or France, both of which had already abolished slavery, were to support the Confederacy, they would be supporting slavery.
Prior to Lincoln’s decree, Britain’s actions had favored the Confederacy, especially in its construction of warships such as the CSS Alabama and CSS Florida. As Henry Adams noted, “The Emancipation Proclamation has done more for us than all our former victories and all our diplomacy.” Giuseppe Garibaldi hailed Lincoln as “the heir of the aspirations of John Brown”. Alan Van Dyke, a representative for workers from Manchester, England, wrote to Lincoln saying, “We joyfully honor you for many decisive steps toward practically exemplifying your belief in the words of your great founders: ‘All men are created free and equal.’” The Emancipation Proclamation served to ease tensions with Europe over the North’s determination to defeat the South at all costs. The Trent Affair particularly had caused severe tensions with Great Britain.
But maybe Henry Adams and British representatives at the time didn’t know what you do. It is historically pretty clear it did have the effect of diminishing international support for the confederacy. Making up stuff?
They had been receiving British aid throughout the war, stopping it would have been a change, so your 1860 vs 1863 doesn’t make logical sense.
Yes, it did.
Maybe they weren’t complaining because they weren’t being bullied. Once again, the revolutionaries fought for freedom while denying freedom to their slaves. They where obviously hypocrites who should have just taken the unfair treatment from Brittan. Damn them!
[/quote]
So if someone is racist, it’s okay for them to be subject to an oppressive government?
This is another strawman- there is a difference between words and actions. A racist is one thing- a slaveholder another. The racist has no real power over anyone else, except possibly by convincing others with his rhetoric. The slaveholder holds real power over the lives of others.
[/quote]
A vote is real power over others. Racists vote. Should we not allow them to? And see reference to revolutionary war above.
“So it’s OK for the South to “bully” blacks (which is putting it lightly), but not OK for the Federal Government to not be ok with that”
I was responding to this statement. You are assuming by this logic the conflict is over slavery. Something I’m disputing.
Yup, aught to make it easy to stump me.
That’s a good way to prove your point. Attribute fictional sources to the opponent and attack their credibility. That’s a good liberal. ;0)
I think you make the mistake of assuming your Freudian slip lead to my belief.
You don’t think holding people to gunpoint and forcing legislation of certain morality is going to lead to animosity and hostility to said actions whether good or bad? I do.
Oh, now morality is justified through comparison with worse places? That’s something a child tries to do. Yeah and we all look great compared to the Nazis, but that doesn’t change right or wrong. Justification of morality through comparison is something someone does when they know what they are defending is wrong.
Yeah man, the tariffs never happened.
Why not. Why is it okay for a people to violate a contract with a state, but not with the federal government?
Why don’t you lecture west Virginians on representative democracy within their state?
Why was it okay for the states to violate their contracts with Brittan?
You lack consistency.
Why doesn’t that apply to the revolutionary war?
[quote]
Funny how that argument began being made towards the end of the war as discussed with the proclamation.
My God. I can’t believe they let people like you vote. [/quote]
If people who display rebel flags are racist, does this mean people who wear apparel that says “thug life” mug people and steal purses from old ladies?.. isnt that what a thug is?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
DixiesFinest wrote:
Its heritage. A symbol of a people who said “fuck off” to a federal government that was imposing taxation on them, taxation that crippled their economy. A symbol of a people who said that a government cannot tell people how they should live their lives if those in power have not walked a mile in their shoes. After all, what does a new yorker know about farming in the Deep South?
Well I think the problem is the fact of what the backbone of Southern economy(and politics) was at the time. Negative connotations will always be attached to that particular flag because of that fact.
I never thought about it that way, but the federal government certainly had no problem taxing that economy, slavery and all.
Apparently, a lot of people in this very thread never thought of it that way.[/quote]
I understand that for someone who is black the Confederation probably is and was about slavery and that the idea of states rights is hard to embrace if it includes slavery, but that is as more a problem for black people in Americas south than me.
The other issue is that the Union seemed to have no problem to disproportionally tax the profits made from slave labor and yet is said to have fought a war against it?
Had they received their cut they would have continued to accept it.
[quote]Papa Nick wrote:
If people who display rebel flags are racist, does this mean people who wear apparel that says “thug life” mug people and steal purses from old ladies?.. isnt that what a thug is?[/quote]
No a thug is someone who worships Kali and kills for her by ritually strangling people.
Sympathizing with certain political motivations of a side in a war doesn’t make it “my side”, nor does it mean I condone everything they did. Maybe because I’m currently geographically located in the south? What makes it my side? Ancestry? If my ancestors were in Brittan during the revolutionary war, was that my side? If my parents protested the war in Vietnam, was my side the Viet Cong?
[/quote]
WHAT THE FUCK? AREN’T YOU THE ONE THAT SAID “MY SIDE LOST?”
How in fucking christ should I know what your batshit brain is thinking when you said that?
Doesn’t matter. South Carolina had a history of doing antagonistic things like that. Again, it did not directly cause the war that came later. Slavery did.
WHAT FUCKING LACK OF REPRESENTATION?
Were there not Southerners in Congress dually elected by the people? Were there not debates on the issues? Were there not votes on said issues? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WHERE WAS THE LACK OF OF REPRESENTATION?
Tell me when they banned Southerners from Congress, or didn’t let them hold elections to govern themselves. Tell me when.
You can put in all the gay smiley faces you want, it doesn’t change the fact that you’re wrong.
STATES HAVE NO RIGHT TO SECEDE. They are not nations joined into NATO or the Warsaw Pact, they are states that agreed to follow and listen to the Constitution of the United States, which DOES NOT say that a state can leave if it ain’t feelin’ the love. There is no two ways about this.
THEN WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU DON’T?
Are you on fucking acid, or are you just severely lacking in reading comprehension. English isn’t your first language, is it?
I’m not even going to address the rest of this, your post is complete garbage that is not based in any historical fact.
I’m done with you, you are beyond stupid in a way that I can’t even wrap my head around.
Tariffs were not the catalyst of the Southern secession in 1861. Slavery was.
While modern neo-Confederate revisionists love to whine that the Civil War was instigated by “big gummint”, the Slave Power wanted a platform that included federal legislation that would have forced federal territories to recognize slave ownership, which would have been the…wait for it…larget expansion of federal government prior to the New Deal.
Because the Slave Power couldn’t get it, they split the party, and handed the Republicans the electoral victory in 1860. The Slave Power only championed “states’ rights” when it helped them - and they championed expanding federal power likewise…when it helped them.
The Southern states seceded, and there was no constitutional right to do so. As such, the Southern states were in rebellion. The federal government enforced the law against the insurrectionists.
And, to the OP - the flag is a bit of both. I think it doesn’t have to be a symbol of racism, but unfortunately occasionally is because the bearer of the flag wants to be.
Again, it doesn’t have to be - the pre-war South is defined by much more than the “peculiar institution”.