Confederate Flag: Pride or Bigotry?

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

without slavery, there’s no war.

[/quote]

Might I remind you that without the United States there is no war. Without the American Revolution there is no war. Without the ratification of the constitution, there is no war. Heck you could even get as asinine as saying without humanity there is no war. So by your logic, all of those are sole causes for the war. Your logic astounds.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

No, I’m denying them because they’re not based in fact, like most of the bullshit you post.

As is your complete and utter lack of knowledge about this subject. Go back to your dream world.
[/quote]

While your arguments are, logical, eloquent, and full of enlightening facts, I was hoping you could be more specific about what part(s) I fabricated.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

without slavery, there’s no war.

Might I remind you that without the United States there is no war. Without the American Revolution there is no war. Without the ratification of the constitution, there is no war. Heck you could even get as asinine as saying without humanity there is no war. So by your logic, all of those are sole causes for the war. Your logic astounds.

Wow you fucking genius, congratulations you dimwit. Without America, there’s no Civil War. Christ, stop the fucking presses and put it on the front page that Einstein’s been re-fucking-born. [/quote]
Wow. Really? I was illustrating to you how your logic is stupid. My whole point was that the associations I was making were that of a dimwit. And it was in fact your logic.

I mean really? I’m having a hard time believing you can’t understand this one.

Being from the south I have no problem with the flag (I have a few shirts and and actual flag myself) but only as a symbol of Southern Pride. Now the State of South Carolina had a big issue a few years ago when it was moved to another govt building (if you look back when the flag was first put up it was during the Civil Rights movement) so in that situation I believe it should be taken down because it was put up for discrimination.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

What do all these things all this things had in common? First, these issues were all pretty strictly divided geographically between north and south. Second, the south lost every one.

The fact is that in the development and establishment of the nation the southern states were constantly overruled by the northern ones. Washington DC was located where it is to try and help appease the southern states to avoid a breakup of the union (slavery was in NO WAY a prominent issue at this point).

[/quote]

Just because you lost doesn’t mean the game was rigged. I.e. Just because the South didn’t get its way doesn’t mean that it had less than its fair share of representation in the US government.

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=63650

Active duty military personnel posting on white supremacy websites, proudly flying the confederate battle flags.

from the article:

On the newsaxon.org website, which Potok termed â??a racist version of Facebook run by the National Socialist Movement,â?? many participants list their branch of service, base location and hometown on colorful pages festooned with Nazi art and Confederate battle flags. Some say they have served or will soon be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Several include pictures of themselves in camouflage combat uniforms.

One participant under the username â??WhitePride85,â?? who said he is a 24-year-old staff sergeant from Madison, Wis., wrote: â??I have been in the Army for over 5 years now … I am a SSGT … I have been in Iraq and Kuwait … I love and will do anything to keep our master race marching. I have been a skinhead forever.â??

Icons will always mean different things to different people. But once something has gained such a “reputation” it’s very difficult, and maybe not likely, for the general public to interpret them in any other way.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

I am more politically sympathetic to the constitutional interpretation (and hence more limited role of federal authority) of the like of Madison as opposed to someone like Hamilton.[/quote]

There is much to address in your lengthy list of errors, but a foundational point you should be aware of - Madison opposed secession.

The Civil War was not a “big government” versus “small government” fight - as has been repeated over and over, the Slave Power wanted to use extensive federal powers to expand slavery, at the expense of individual states deciding for themselves. This was their aim in 1860 - [b]compel[/b] states by way of [b]federal law[/b] to accept slavery, even if [b]they didn’t want to[/b].

This historical fact - which has never been addressed by the worthless brigade of half-literate neo-Confederates round these parts - cannot be ignored. Try addressing it rather than clinging to your convenient fiction.

Mississippi Declaration of Secession

Some of you need to think a bit harder about what you’re trying to defend, why you’re trying to defend it, and the facts you’re trying to defend it with.

[quote]valiance. wrote:
Mississippi Declaration of Secession

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp

quote]

To be fair, I have it on good authority from Thomas Di-Lie-Renzo, the League of the South lackey over at Lew Rockwell, that Charles Edward Hooker, secessionist commissioner from Mississippi, did, in fact, run out of ink in his pen before he could write, ‘I was just kidding about the above stuff. It’s over tariffs.’

“Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit.”

Abraham Lincoln
January 12, 1848.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit.”

Abraham Lincoln
January 12, 1848. [/quote]

Lincoln had always carefully qualified his support of the right of revolution by insisting that it was a moral - rather than legal - right and must be employed for a morally justifiable cause. Without such a cause, he didn’t believe revolution was a right; it was a wicked exercise in power.

What was the morally justifiable cause of Southern secession?

[quote]pushharder wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

I don’t have the patience to argue with you. You are neither educated on the matter nor intelligent in the least, and no matter what I say, you won’t read it- you’ll just ramble on with your half witted theories.

I am done. It’s clear here who knows what they’re talking about and who is the sad victim of Southern apologists. Time for you to go back to your reenactor’s camp where they’re still fighting this one.

First of all, you don’t know me, yet you insist on constantly attacking my character rather than addressing my points. I think that reflects more negatively on you than me.

Irish’s method of debate has always been the domain of the man with a weak argument and a big mouth.

Don’t you have some geology to rewrite somewhere old man?

Learn from this rather than spurn it and you will do well. I’m serious. I don’t think you’re a bad guy and you are probably smarter than your online personna allows. When you “vomit” epithets, insincerities, malevolence, hate, knee jerkisms, etc. almost every single time you post you lose the credibility you so earnestly crave.

Thanks for the lesson on internet ethics. I’ll be sure to keep that in mind next time I’m confronted with mind-boggling stupidity.

It goes way beyond internet ethics. It’s a lesson for life in general. When you act this way you’re not even remotely Harry Truman-esque which I speculate you must fancy yourself; you’re just a punk who would never talk that way to many, many people in person. And that makes you disingenuous at best.

And if you heartily disagree with my assessment that you would never talk that way in person then my aforementioned airline ticket offer still stands.[/quote]

Quality post push! Nothing like an internet offer to fight and an internet lesson on ethics…especially from a man who makes “kneepad” jokes. Keepin’ the high ground, keepin’ the high ground.

[quote]valiance. wrote:
Mississippi Declaration of Secession

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature,[ none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

[/quote]

Wow. I hadn’t read that. Good post.

I really do not see how you can say that the Rebel flag represents something, when what it “represents” is how a person sees/feels/thinks it represents. There is no picture dictionary with the Rebel flag and the fucking word slavery next to it. So, some dip shit uses it as a flag while he tries to act cool by calling out racists terms and score some ass.

I have had it all my life in my front yard, and so as most of my neighbors, even black folks. Get over it, most people do not care except for the Yankees who still will themselves as having the moral high ground because they won. Yet, they still had segregation just like the rest of America until the 60’s, and still do to some degree. Surprisingly, if you go up to places like New York, New Jersey and even Connecticut, the South is far more tolerant of black folks than the North seems to be. You can still go into neighborhoods in the North will you won’t find a black person until you cross over a certain street into a different neighborhood.

Well, they do mention other things leading up to the war.

â??Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all. â??

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
“Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit.”

Abraham Lincoln
January 12, 1848.

So, being as your point about taxation being the bigger issue with slavery taking the backseat are crushed, now you’re going to point to the fact that Lincoln once said revolutions are OK?

Again, Lincoln’s opinions are not the Constitution- and that’s what presidents are sworn to uphold. So your strawman does nothing.

You have failed epically in the this thread.[/quote]

You (plural) were constantly pushing that they didn’t have the right to withdraw from the union. They absolutely did. Period. I didn’t start that contention. And you are saying I don’t have a right to interject on what the other side brought up?

I went to school in Kentucky. Some of my friends had rebel flags, boots, tight jeans, cowboy hats, and big belt buckles. Most of the guys that had those things grew up on farms. Being from St. Louis I was quick to judge those people as redneck racists. During my time in college I decided to have an open mind to different cultures and ways of life. I got to know those guys and while they may not be best friends with a black person they had a respect for black culture and black people in general.

Those “rednecks” were raised in jeans, boots, etc… Why would they change just because someone else doesn’t understand it. I don’t see “gangstas” pulling up their pants and wearing their hats straight just because most white people dont understand why they do it.

All I’m saying is that 9 times out of 10 when you look past the things that could divide people and just get to know the person Rebel flags, Saggy pants, dockers and loafers, realy don’t matter.

Things are just different in the south. There is a mutual understanding that rebel flags represent a culture just like saggy pants represent a culture.

If one of my friends were to come visit me here I would advise against wearing a rebel flag because people here don’t understand the meaning behind it. Most people in the St. Louis area would view it as, at best stupid and at worst racist. I wouldn’t be ashamed to be seen with him but I would be a little fearfull to walk around on the streets with a guy wearing a rebel flag. People in St. Louis have been shot over less (one man was shot over a hamberger).