Confederate flag? Yes or no?

[arnold layne]

I've never been 'to the South' but it's pretty clear that people do feel connected to it still as a region and, why not? History has the identity, but reasons probably change - I doubt 'The South' want to be 'Slave Owners' anymore but they still feel connected to 'The South' - And why not? it's their flag.

History Channel has taught me that, before the Civil War, 'The South' sounded like everyone else - but during that bloody war that raised the Rebel flag, the Southern Accent was born - according to How The States Got Their Shapes.

Yeah the American South is quite different than the American North.

A lot of the stereotypes are true.

[downzy]

Confederate Constitution left the door open for slavery to be abolished if the States so chose. They even freed slaves during the war and kept fighting. On top of the top Generals like Lee were vocal opponents of the practice, not sure how much clearer it can be made that slavery was not the issue. Also there were white slaves and white indentured servants than black slaves and just as many black slave owners in the Deep Southern states of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi as white owners. But of course we no longer want to learn history.

What the left is doing now is extremely infantile. Blaming the south for slavery is a bit like blaming democracy for slavery+denying equal rights to women and children (remember Greek democracy?) It's beyond stupid, and the only goal here is political promotion based on false propaganda. Do not engage liberals in debate, because they do not debate - they lie and defame.

Outlaw whatever you want, I'll remain a rebel in my heart until the day I die defending the freedoms of men to reject Federal governance, big government and the idea that men can't govern themselves.

Stay strong Dixie!

One of President Lincoln's favorite songs, just saying.

Fuck off with your revisionist bullshit. There's no denying that Lincoln, though he fought to end the institution of slavery in the United States, was also a noted bigot and held deeply racist views on current and former slaves. It is also true that many in the North benefited financially from the existence to slavery.

But to suggest that the Civil War was fought for reasons other than Southern states' right to defend slavery is rubbish. As noted in one of the articles I posted earlier:

The Northern population's mounting hostility to slavery during the 1850sand especially to its continuing spread within the U.S.led southern states to leave the Union and initiate the Civil War. The first state to secede, South Carolina, explicitly did so to safeguard "the right of property in slaves" against attempts by "the non-slaveholding States" to judge "the propriety of our domestic institutions" and to deny "the rights of property" in human beings. Slave states bolted from the Union and formed the Confederacy, as South Carolina announced, because of "the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery." The Confederacy's founders agreed with the influential Charleston newspaper, the Mercury, that Lincolns election foretold the extinction of slavery throughout the old Union.

In 1861 Confederate president Jefferson Davis reminded his congress that because the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable to southern prosperity. With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperiled by the election to the presidency of an antislavery man like Abraham Lincoln, he declared, the people of the Southern States were driven . . . to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced. The Confederacy's vice president, Alexander Stephens, also acknowledged that disputes about "the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization" between North and South constituted "the immediate cause" of secession. "Our new Government," he exulted, was founded "upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." The new slaveholders' republic fashioned itself a constitution that reflected secession's central purpose. In most ways a carbon copy of the U. S. Constitution, the South's version distinguished itself by guaranteeing that no law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves would ever be enacted by a Confederate government.

Explain something to me, your issue is with the confederate flag representing slavery, right? Well even after it was abolished, under the stars and stripes, black folks didn't exactly have a good time of it, what is it about a flag representing atrocity AND something else that absolves the atrocious aspect? I mean America was built on slavery, prospered because of it and continued the oppression of black people under its name for centuries afterwards, so why does one get off and the other not?

As I addressed in an earlier post, all flags carry with them the sins and the good deeds of a nation. Undoubtedly the flag of the United States casts a long shadow, under which good and bad acts were committed. The causes, histories, and purposes are varied, complex, and nuanced in both depth and scope when any given national flag is flown. The difference is that the Confederate flag is fairly specific to one cause. It represented the side that fought for slavery. It's symbolic meaning and associations is fairly limited to its long history with the institution of slavery and white supremacy. While many atrocities were committed under the American flag, to define the stars and stripes by those atrocities would be to omit the many instances of progress committed under it.

As Jon Stewart remarked earlier this week, the heritage of only one flag is one that fought against the United States for the preservation of slavery. Stewart added, "they fought for the South against the United States because of slavery. That's the heritage you're defending. I'm sure your soldier ancestors had other redeeming qualities, but this is the thing that they're known for. Itd be like saying you support flying the Nazi flag because youre proud of their robust anti-smoking agenda. But that wasnt really their thing.

So basically you're let off if thats not ALL you represent? Is that how life works?

One is singular in purpose, the other is not. I'm not sure the trouble here.

[Black Sabbath]

It's been a rough week for rednecks everywhere.

Y'know, if someone was saying shit like 'well the n!ggers certainly had a rough week, what with Charlestown and all' that wouldnt be okay and thats like the umpteenth time you've made mention of rednecks, its kinda dull of you, just saying.

I said the word like twice, maybe three times?

Besides, those two words are not in the same category. Most "rednecks" take pride in calling themselves that and the word is slapped on merchandise with the confederate flag saying something like "REDNECK AND PROUND". So I don't think it has the same bearings as the "N" word at all.

[Len Cnut]

Confederate Constitution left the door open for slavery to be abolished if the States so chose. They even freed slaves during the war and kept fighting. On top of the top Generals like Lee were vocal opponents of the practice, not sure how much clearer it can be made that slavery was not the issue. Also there were white slaves and white indentured servants than black slaves and just as many black slave owners in the Deep Southern states of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi as white owners. But of course we no longer want to learn history.

What the left is doing now is extremely infantile. Blaming the south for slavery is a bit like blaming democracy for slavery+denying equal rights to women and children (remember Greek democracy?) It's beyond stupid, and the only goal here is political promotion based on false propaganda. Do not engage liberals in debate, because they do not debate - they lie and defame.

Outlaw whatever you want, I'll remain a rebel in my heart until the day I die defending the freedoms of men to reject Federal governance, big government and the idea that men can't govern themselves.

Stay strong Dixie!

One of President Lincoln's favorite songs, just saying.

Fuck off with your revisionist bullshit. There's no denying that Lincoln, though he fought to end the institution of slavery in the United States, was also a noted bigot and held deeply racist views on current and former slaves. It is also true that many in the North benefited financially from the existence to slavery.

But to suggest that the Civil War was fought for reasons other than Southern states' right to defend slavery is rubbish. As noted in one of the articles I posted earlier:

The Northern population's mounting hostility to slavery during the 1850sand especially to its continuing spread within the U.S.led southern states to leave the Union and initiate the Civil War. The first state to secede, South Carolina, explicitly did so to safeguard "the right of property in slaves" against attempts by "the non-slaveholding States" to judge "the propriety of our domestic institutions" and to deny "the rights of property" in human beings. Slave states bolted from the Union and formed the Confederacy, as South Carolina announced, because of "the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery." The Confederacy's founders agreed with the influential Charleston newspaper, the Mercury, that Lincolns election foretold the extinction of slavery throughout the old Union.

In 1861 Confederate president Jefferson Davis reminded his congress that because the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable to southern prosperity. With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperiled by the election to the presidency of an antislavery man like Abraham Lincoln, he declared, the people of the Southern States were driven . . . to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced. The Confederacy's vice president, Alexander Stephens, also acknowledged that disputes about "the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization" between North and South constituted "the immediate cause" of secession. "Our new Government," he exulted, was founded "upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." The new slaveholders' republic fashioned itself a constitution that reflected secession's central purpose. In most ways a carbon copy of the U. S. Constitution, the South's version distinguished itself by guaranteeing that no law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves would ever be enacted by a Confederate government.

Explain something to me, your issue is with the confederate flag representing slavery, right? Well even after it was abolished, under the stars and stripes, black folks didn't exactly have a good time of it, what is it about a flag representing atrocity AND something else that absolves the atrocious aspect? I mean America was built on slavery, prospered because of it and continued the oppression of black people under its name for centuries afterwards, so why does one get off and the other not?

As I addressed in an earlier post, all flags carry with them the sins and the good deeds of a nation. Undoubtedly the flag of the United States casts a long shadow, under which good and bad acts were committed. The causes, histories, and purposes are varied, complex, and nuanced in both depth and scope when any given national flag is flown. The difference is that the Confederate flag is fairly specific to one cause. It represented the side that fought for slavery. It's symbolic meaning and associations is fairly limited to its long history with the institution of slavery and white supremacy. While many atrocities were committed under the American flag, to define the stars and stripes by those atrocities would be to omit the many instances of progress committed under it.

As Jon Stewart remarked earlier this week, the heritage of only one flag is one that fought against the United States for the preservation of slavery. Stewart added, "they fought for the South against the United States because of slavery. That's the heritage you're defending. I'm sure your soldier ancestors had other redeeming qualities, but this is the thing that they're known for. Itd be like saying you support flying the Nazi flag because youre proud of their robust anti-smoking agenda. But that wasnt really their thing.

So basically you're let off if thats not ALL you represent? Is that how life works?

One is singular in purpose, the other is not. I'm not sure the trouble here.

The trouble is you're making a point based on a sort of humanitarian principle i.e. slavery/oppressing your fellow man, things like that are an atrocity? Because of some sort of feeling for the people that were fucked over. How do you think the many people that were unjustly killed/oppressed etc under the auspices of the stars and stripes would feel about this idea? Thats not how humanitarianism works Downzy, this is you assigning a line of logic to something to justify one and condemn the other because it's easier and a cleaner cut, why does one set of atrocities get an easier ride because the flag represents other principles too? In fact it's almost worse in the case of the stars and stripes, no? 'They done atrocities...but it stood for a lot of good stuff as well!', surely in that case the good stuff is just hypocrisy then right, logically?

Do you get what I'm trying to say, I dunno if I'm being clear enough or not. Whats worse, a flag that represents an atrocity or a flag that claims to represent freedom, justice and equality whilst at the same time carrying out atrocities under its name? I'd say they're at least as bad as each other and, in a less charitable mood i'd say the latter is the worst because the latter is hypocritical in the extreme.

It's been a rough week for rednecks everywhere.

Y'know, if someone was saying shit like 'well the n!ggers certainly had a rough week, what with Charlestown and all' that wouldnt be okay and thats like the umpteenth time you've made mention of rednecks, its kinda dull of you, just saying.

I said the word like twice, maybe three times?

Besides, those two words are not in the same category. Most "rednecks" take pride in calling themselves that and the word is slapped on merchandise with the confederate flag saying something like "REDNECK AND PROUND". So I don't think it has the same bearings as the "N" word at all.

Black people call themselves the n word too, whats your point? It doesn't have 'the same' bearing, no, the instances are identical, just as if we were referring to the term kike or paki or whatever racist word you want to think of, they're all case specific, none of them are 'the same' but that doesn't mean the principle i was highlighting here is any less valid.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Black Sabbath]

Honestly, no, black people don't call themselves the "n" word like rednecks call themselves rednecks. "Redneck" can be used as a derogatory term, I'll give you that, but it's also a term that many take pride in using by the likes that I described.

I've yet to see a bumper sticker that says "n***** and proud!"

If you're offended I used the word, I apologize. I didn't mean any offense. The original post you quoted I was making a joke, but I stand by my other posts about the issue.

[Len Cnut]

Honestly, no, black people don't call themselves the "n" word like rednecks call themselves rednecks. "Redneck" can be used as a derogatory term, I'll give you that, but it's also a term that many take pride in using by the likes that I described.

I've yet to see a bumper sticker that says "n***** and proud!"

If you're offended I used the word, I apologize. I didn't mean any offense. The original post you quoted I was making a joke, but I stand by my other posts about the issue.

I dont give a fuck personally speaking, i was just highlighting an inconsistency in perspective. You may not have seen it on a bumper sticker but i dont think thats really a yardstick of much, i could point you out songs, speeches, literature that absolutely refer to it with pride. Edited June 28, 2015 by Len B'stard

[axlslash]

Gonna put some facts out there for ya: South Carolina began to fly the Battle Flag over its state house in 1962, when Congress began to debate the bill that became the Civil Rights Act. Sure, they said it was to celebrate their heritage and states rights, but they didn't want to celebrate those until the Feds wanted to protect black people again.

[wasted]

Yes. Daisy Duke forever.

[downzy]

Confederate Constitution left the door open for slavery to be abolished if the States so chose. They even freed slaves during the war and kept fighting. On top of the top Generals like Lee were vocal opponents of the practice, not sure how much clearer it can be made that slavery was not the issue. Also there were white slaves and white indentured servants than black slaves and just as many black slave owners in the Deep Southern states of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi as white owners. But of course we no longer want to learn history.

What the left is doing now is extremely infantile. Blaming the south for slavery is a bit like blaming democracy for slavery+denying equal rights to women and children (remember Greek democracy?) It's beyond stupid, and the only goal here is political promotion based on false propaganda. Do not engage liberals in debate, because they do not debate - they lie and defame.

Outlaw whatever you want, I'll remain a rebel in my heart until the day I die defending the freedoms of men to reject Federal governance, big government and the idea that men can't govern themselves.

Stay strong Dixie!

One of President Lincoln's favorite songs, just saying.

Fuck off with your revisionist bullshit. There's no denying that Lincoln, though he fought to end the institution of slavery in the United States, was also a noted bigot and held deeply racist views on current and former slaves. It is also true that many in the North benefited financially from the existence to slavery.

But to suggest that the Civil War was fought for reasons other than Southern states' right to defend slavery is rubbish. As noted in one of the articles I posted earlier:

The Northern population's mounting hostility to slavery during the 1850sand especially to its continuing spread within the U.S.led southern states to leave the Union and initiate the Civil War. The first state to secede, South Carolina, explicitly did so to safeguard "the right of property in slaves" against attempts by "the non-slaveholding States" to judge "the propriety of our domestic institutions" and to deny "the rights of property" in human beings. Slave states bolted from the Union and formed the Confederacy, as South Carolina announced, because of "the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery." The Confederacy's founders agreed with the influential Charleston newspaper, the Mercury, that Lincolns election foretold the extinction of slavery throughout the old Union.

In 1861 Confederate president Jefferson Davis reminded his congress that because the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable to southern prosperity. With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperiled by the election to the presidency of an antislavery man like Abraham Lincoln, he declared, the people of the Southern States were driven . . . to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced. The Confederacy's vice president, Alexander Stephens, also acknowledged that disputes about "the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization" between North and South constituted "the immediate cause" of secession. "Our new Government," he exulted, was founded "upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." The new slaveholders' republic fashioned itself a constitution that reflected secession's central purpose. In most ways a carbon copy of the U. S. Constitution, the South's version distinguished itself by guaranteeing that no law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves would ever be enacted by a Confederate government.

Explain something to me, your issue is with the confederate flag representing slavery, right? Well even after it was abolished, under the stars and stripes, black folks didn't exactly have a good time of it, what is it about a flag representing atrocity AND something else that absolves the atrocious aspect? I mean America was built on slavery, prospered because of it and continued the oppression of black people under its name for centuries afterwards, so why does one get off and the other not?

As I addressed in an earlier post, all flags carry with them the sins and the good deeds of a nation. Undoubtedly the flag of the United States casts a long shadow, under which good and bad acts were committed. The causes, histories, and purposes are varied, complex, and nuanced in both depth and scope when any given national flag is flown. The difference is that the Confederate flag is fairly specific to one cause. It represented the side that fought for slavery. It's symbolic meaning and associations is fairly limited to its long history with the institution of slavery and white supremacy. While many atrocities were committed under the American flag, to define the stars and stripes by those atrocities would be to omit the many instances of progress committed under it.

As Jon Stewart remarked earlier this week, the heritage of only one flag is one that fought against the United States for the preservation of slavery. Stewart added, "they fought for the South against the United States because of slavery. That's the heritage you're defending. I'm sure your soldier ancestors had other redeeming qualities, but this is the thing that they're known for. Itd be like saying you support flying the Nazi flag because youre proud of their robust anti-smoking agenda. But that wasnt really their thing.

So basically you're let off if thats not ALL you represent? Is that how life works?

One is singular in purpose, the other is not. I'm not sure the trouble here.

The trouble is you're making a point based on a sort of humanitarian principle i.e. slavery/oppressing your fellow man, things like that are an atrocity? Because of some sort of feeling for the people that were fucked over. How do you think the many people that were unjustly killed/oppressed etc under the auspices of the stars and stripes would feel about this idea? Thats not how humanitarianism works Downzy, this is you assigning a line of logic to something to justify one and condemn the other because it's easier and a cleaner cut, why does one set of atrocities get an easier ride because the flag represents other principles too? In fact it's almost worse in the case of the stars and stripes, no? 'They done atrocities...but it stood for a lot of good stuff as well!', surely in that case the good stuff is just hypocrisy then right, logically?

Do you get what I'm trying to say, I dunno if I'm being clear enough or not. Whats worse, a flag that represents an atrocity or a flag that claims to represent freedom, justice and equality whilst at the same time carrying out atrocities under its name? I'd say they're at least as bad as each other and, in a less charitable mood i'd say the latter is the worst because the latter is hypocritical in the extreme.

I get what you're trying to say; that there's an arbitrariness to my logic (selective imagining what a flag/symbol stands to represent). It's why the American flag is burned in many parts of the world. Locations that are repeatedly bombed by US drones is likely to view the American flag with hostility, much in the same manner that an African American looks upon the Confederate flag flying on the state capital. I get that and I understand the relativity you're attempting to point out. There has been a tremendous amount of black oppression and subjugation within America without the Confederate flag.

However, I think a symbol or flag that's limited to one defined ethos is not equal to one that covers history, actions, and principles more broadly. The American flag represents the ideals of freedom, justice and equality. Does that mean it becomes tainted because the country itself has at times failed to live up to those ideals? No, not at all. It's a matter of what a flag or symbol says or expresses, what it strives to represent. The Confederate flag is the symbol of a people who fought for their freedoms to enslave others. That's what it represented during the Civil War, and that's what it represents to those who still live with the indignity of their slave forebears. The Stars and Stripes, like most other flags, represents the ideals of the nation. It is fair to critique the U.S. for failing to live up to those ideals, but to suggest that a flag that expresses freedom for all is morally akin to a flag that expresses slavery for some is absurd.

[Len Cnut]

Confederate Constitution left the door open for slavery to be abolished if the States so chose. They even freed slaves during the war and kept fighting. On top of the top Generals like Lee were vocal opponents of the practice, not sure how much clearer it can be made that slavery was not the issue. Also there were white slaves and white indentured servants than black slaves and just as many black slave owners in the Deep Southern states of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi as white owners. But of course we no longer want to learn history.

What the left is doing now is extremely infantile. Blaming the south for slavery is a bit like blaming democracy for slavery+denying equal rights to women and children (remember Greek democracy?) It's beyond stupid, and the only goal here is political promotion based on false propaganda. Do not engage liberals in debate, because they do not debate - they lie and defame.

Outlaw whatever you want, I'll remain a rebel in my heart until the day I die defending the freedoms of men to reject Federal governance, big government and the idea that men can't govern themselves.

Stay strong Dixie!

One of President Lincoln's favorite songs, just saying.

Fuck off with your revisionist bullshit. There's no denying that Lincoln, though he fought to end the institution of slavery in the United States, was also a noted bigot and held deeply racist views on current and former slaves. It is also true that many in the North benefited financially from the existence to slavery.

But to suggest that the Civil War was fought for reasons other than Southern states' right to defend slavery is rubbish. As noted in one of the articles I posted earlier:

The Northern population's mounting hostility to slavery during the 1850sand especially to its continuing spread within the U.S.led southern states to leave the Union and initiate the Civil War. The first state to secede, South Carolina, explicitly did so to safeguard "the right of property in slaves" against attempts by "the non-slaveholding States" to judge "the propriety of our domestic institutions" and to deny "the rights of property" in human beings. Slave states bolted from the Union and formed the Confederacy, as South Carolina announced, because of "the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery." The Confederacy's founders agreed with the influential Charleston newspaper, the Mercury, that Lincolns election foretold the extinction of slavery throughout the old Union.

In 1861 Confederate president Jefferson Davis reminded his congress that because the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable to southern prosperity. With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperiled by the election to the presidency of an antislavery man like Abraham Lincoln, he declared, the people of the Southern States were driven . . . to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced. The Confederacy's vice president, Alexander Stephens, also acknowledged that disputes about "the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization" between North and South constituted "the immediate cause" of secession. "Our new Government," he exulted, was founded "upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." The new slaveholders' republic fashioned itself a constitution that reflected secession's central purpose. In most ways a carbon copy of the U. S. Constitution, the South's version distinguished itself by guaranteeing that no law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves would ever be enacted by a Confederate government.

Explain something to me, your issue is with the confederate flag representing slavery, right? Well even after it was abolished, under the stars and stripes, black folks didn't exactly have a good time of it, what is it about a flag representing atrocity AND something else that absolves the atrocious aspect? I mean America was built on slavery, prospered because of it and continued the oppression of black people under its name for centuries afterwards, so why does one get off and the other not?

As I addressed in an earlier post, all flags carry with them the sins and the good deeds of a nation. Undoubtedly the flag of the United States casts a long shadow, under which good and bad acts were committed. The causes, histories, and purposes are varied, complex, and nuanced in both depth and scope when any given national flag is flown. The difference is that the Confederate flag is fairly specific to one cause. It represented the side that fought for slavery. It's symbolic meaning and associations is fairly limited to its long history with the institution of slavery and white supremacy. While many atrocities were committed under the American flag, to define the stars and stripes by those atrocities would be to omit the many instances of progress committed under it.

As Jon Stewart remarked earlier this week, the heritage of only one flag is one that fought against the United States for the preservation of slavery. Stewart added, "they fought for the South against the United States because of slavery. That's the heritage you're defending. I'm sure your soldier ancestors had other redeeming qualities, but this is the thing that they're known for. Itd be like saying you support flying the Nazi flag because youre proud of their robust anti-smoking agenda. But that wasnt really their thing.

So basically you're let off if thats not ALL you represent? Is that how life works?

One is singular in purpose, the other is not. I'm not sure the trouble here.

The trouble is you're making a point based on a sort of humanitarian principle i.e. slavery/oppressing your fellow man, things like that are an atrocity? Because of some sort of feeling for the people that were fucked over. How do you think the many people that were unjustly killed/oppressed etc under the auspices of the stars and stripes would feel about this idea? Thats not how humanitarianism works Downzy, this is you assigning a line of logic to something to justify one and condemn the other because it's easier and a cleaner cut, why does one set of atrocities get an easier ride because the flag represents other principles too? In fact it's almost worse in the case of the stars and stripes, no? 'They done atrocities...but it stood for a lot of good stuff as well!', surely in that case the good stuff is just hypocrisy then right, logically?

Do you get what I'm trying to say, I dunno if I'm being clear enough or not. Whats worse, a flag that represents an atrocity or a flag that claims to represent freedom, justice and equality whilst at the same time carrying out atrocities under its name? I'd say they're at least as bad as each other and, in a less charitable mood i'd say the latter is the worst because the latter is hypocritical in the extreme.

However, I think a symbol or flag that's limited to one defined ethos is not equal to one that covers history, actions, and principles more broadly. The American flag represents the ideals of freedom, justice and equality. Does that mean it becomes tainted because the country itself has at times failed to live up to those ideals? No, not at all. It's a matter of what a flag or symbol says or expresses, what it strives to represent. The Confederate flag is the symbol of a people who fought for their freedoms to enslave others. That's what it represented during the Civil War, and that's what it represents to those who still live with the indignity of their slave forebears. The Stars and Stripes, like most other flags, represents the ideals of the nation. It is fair to critique the U.S. for failing to live up to those ideals, but to suggest that a flag that expresses freedom for all is morally akin to a flag that expresses slavery for some is absurd.

So...what level of oppression is enough do you think, whats the demarkation point where you go 'OK, we've gone far enough with atrocity so this flags no longer one of the good guys. YOU say it represents freedom justice and equality, American people say it represents freedom, justice and equality...what do you think black people in the 60s thought it represented? Or the 50s, 40s, 30s, 20s and so forth?

For a flag that existed for centuries it sure took a long time to allow black people to shit on the same toilets as white people, thats a little more than a moral lapse we're talking about here, or a minor inconsistency, for the centuries that flag has existed black people have had equal rights since...what, 60 odd years? But they were just striving for freedom, justice and equality that whole time? All those racist government, senates, courts, police forces, the entire power structure, they were just striving that whole time? Get it straight, America wasn't striving for shit, it's the black people that were striving and it's through that striving that they got their rights, it wasn't just given to them nor was it just a really long process on the part of a 100% willing and cooperative power structure, they fought AGAINST the winds of change, not for them. They fought against em and they fought hard and they fought for centuries right the way down the wire.

But that huge chunk of history just kinda gets re-framed as...what, inequities that are insufficient for broader condemnation? You can't be all heart and soul and caring and humanitarian on the one hand...and then switch into this clinical quantifier that suddenly starts weighing up which pile of dead bodies is more worth making a point for, thats not how it works. It's either wrong or it's not and if it's wrong then it's wrong regardless of whether a bunch of people claim it to represent something else.

What you are engaging in here is akin to moral cowardice, you got the stones to condemn one cuz there ain't hardly nothing backing it anymore and it's unsettling to look at America (or the stars and stripes) with those sorts of eyes because thats where you draw your wagons around. Ask the Irish how they feel about the Union Jack too while we're at it...and great chunks of Africa. Come to that, how much of slavery had to do with England? But thats alright cuz there's a broader history attached right? Tell that to the poor fuckers that got their knackers trampled.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Len B'stard

[classicrawker]

jmo...........

displaying in government or public places like public schools I say no

private citizens displays I feel is a persons business and Government should not interfere

[downzy]

@ Len

It's not about meeting a threshold, it's a matter of principles, goals, and intent. And please save your moral cowardice attack, utter fucking none sense. One flag strove to save the union and end the institution of slavery within its boarder. The other flag represents the side that sought to destroy the union on the sole basis of saving the institution of slavery. You're making way more of this than need be.

[AxlisOld]

[Len Cnut]

@ Len

It's not about meeting a threshold, it's a matter of principles, goals, and intent. And please save your moral cowardice attack, utter fucking none sense. One flag strove to save the union and end the institution of slavery within its boarder. The other flag represents the side that sought to destroy the union on the sole basis of saving the institution of slavery. You're making way more of this than need be.

Bollocks, you're seeing exactly what you want to see to cover over the ugliness of one symbol that you feel comfortable with whilst condemning another that you don't, it is precisely moral cowardice. What are you saying, that after the Civil War and the establishing of THE America what we had was an essentially just and principled set up that was slowly working towards and for the principles of freedom justice and equality? Thats rubbish and you know it's rubbish, they fought AGAINST equality for centuries after, the entire structure, the courts, the government, the police forces, the lot. I'm not making way more of it, you're deliberately simplifying it to escape the ugliness of the reality. The fact is you haven't even approached addressing the specifics of what I'm saying because you can't, choosing instead to stick to that pale party line of 'well one represents a wholly bad thing and one just did bad whilst actually standing for good', you're way too intelligent to not see how thats bollocks. To be honest it just looks like someone aligning themselves with a particular contemporary political stance with little interest in the reality.

What you've done with the quoted text is re-frame the argument as being specifically to do with the civil war only, so as to avoid the basis of my point which is to do with what went on under the stars and stripes since the civil war, which is odd because you earlier agreed with what i was saying to a point, did the moral cowardice comment annoy you that much?

Edited June 28, 2015 by Len B'stard

[downzy]

@ Len

It's not about meeting a threshold, it's a matter of principles, goals, and intent. And please save your moral cowardice attack, utter fucking none sense. One flag strove to save the union and end the institution of slavery within its boarder. The other flag represents the side that sought to destroy the union on the sole basis of saving the institution of slavery. You're making way more of this than need be.

Bollocks, you're seeing exactly what you want to see to cover over the ugliness of one symbol that you feel comfortable with whilst condemning another that you don't, it is precisely moral cowardice. What are you saying, that after the Civil War and the establishing of THE America what we had was an essentially just and principled set up that was slowly working towards and for the principles of freedom justice and equality? Thats rubbish and you know it's rubbish, they fought AGAINST equality for centuries after, the entire structure, the courts, the government, the police forces, the lot. I'm not making way more of it, you're deliberately simplifying it to escape the ugliness of the reality. The fact is you haven't even approached addressing the specifics of what I'm saying because you can't, choosing instead to stick to that pale party line of 'well one represents a wholly bad thing and one just did bad whilst actually standing for good', you're way too intelligent to not see how thats bollocks. To be honest it just looks like someone aligning themselves with a particular contemporary political stance with little interest in the reality.

What you've done with the quoted text is re-frame the argument as being specifically to do with the civil war only, so as to avoid the basis of my point which is to do with what went on under the stars and stripes since the civil war, which is odd because you earlier agreed with what i was saying to a point, did the moral cowardice comment annoy you that much?

Look, before you accuse me of moral cowardice, you better having a better fucking idea as to who you're talking about. I'm the guy who consistently argues on here that America is still a heavily racialized nation that has not lived up to the ideals established in its founding documents. I'm also some who has studied these subjects extensively, perhaps better than anyone who regularly visits this forum. So the notion that I'm somehow blind to the racial injustices since the end of the Civil War is fucking nonsense. Jim Crow, segregation, mass incarceration: I'm well versed in the ugliness that defines America's post Civil War existence. I'm not avoiding any of it.

What you seem to be unwillingly or incapable of grasping is that there is a distinct difference between a flag that represents an ideal but not a reality. There exists no separation between the principles and the reality of the Confederate flag and the antebellum South and the manifestation said ideals. The south fought for the continuation of slavery and the subjugation of black people. This reality was the manifestation of what the flag represents. The U.S. flag speaks to ideals that it has not always lived up to. The flag was not solely flown by those who supported institutions of repression; for many it represents their pathway from repression. It was the flag of those who operated the Underground Railroad, that supported the civil rights movement, who cheered Brown v Board of education, who celebrated the rise of fair housing laws, that fights against sentencing laws that unfairly punish African Americans. The flag represents an ideal that the country continually works at and towards. Why you choose to ignore this aspect of the flag and its meaning is beyond me.

[Len Cnut]

@ Len

It's not about meeting a threshold, it's a matter of principles, goals, and intent. And please save your moral cowardice attack, utter fucking none sense. One flag strove to save the union and end the institution of slavery within its boarder. The other flag represents the side that sought to destroy the union on the sole basis of saving the institution of slavery. You're making way more of this than need be.

Bollocks, you're seeing exactly what you want to see to cover over the ugliness of one symbol that you feel comfortable with whilst condemning another that you don't, it is precisely moral cowardice. What are you saying, that after the Civil War and the establishing of THE America what we had was an essentially just and principled set up that was slowly working towards and for the principles of freedom justice and equality? Thats rubbish and you know it's rubbish, they fought AGAINST equality for centuries after, the entire structure, the courts, the government, the police forces, the lot. I'm not making way more of it, you're deliberately simplifying it to escape the ugliness of the reality. The fact is you haven't even approached addressing the specifics of what I'm saying because you can't, choosing instead to stick to that pale party line of 'well one represents a wholly bad thing and one just did bad whilst actually standing for good', you're way too intelligent to not see how thats bollocks. To be honest it just looks like someone aligning themselves with a particular contemporary political stance with little interest in the reality.

What you've done with the quoted text is re-frame the argument as being specifically to do with the civil war only, so as to avoid the basis of my point which is to do with what went on under the stars and stripes since the civil war, which is odd because you earlier agreed with what i was saying to a point, did the moral cowardice comment annoy you that much?

Look, before you accuse me of moral cowardice, you better having a better fucking idea as to who you're talking about. I'm the guy who consistently argues on here that America is still a heavily racialized nation that has not lived up to the ideals established in its founding documents. I'm also some who has studied these subjects extensively, perhaps better than anyone who regularly visits this forum. So the notion that I'm somehow blind to the racial injustices since the end of the Civil War is fucking nonsense. Jim Crow, segregation, mass incarceration: I'm well versed in the ugliness that defines America's post Civil War existence. I'm not avoiding any of it.

What you seem to be unwillingly or incapable of grasping is that there is a distinct difference between a flag that represents an ideal but not a reality. There exists no separation between the principles and the reality of the Confederate flag and the antebellum South and the manifestation said ideals. The south fought for the continuation of slavery and the subjugation of black people. This reality was the manifestation of what the flag represents. The U.S. flag speaks to ideals that it has not always lived up to. The flag was not solely flown by those who supported institutions of repression; for many it represents their pathway from repression. It was the flag of those who operated the Underground Railroad, that supported the civil rights movement, who cheered Brown v Board of education, who celebrated the rise of fair housing laws, that fights against sentencing laws that unfairly punish African Americans. The flag represents an ideal that the country continually works at and towards. Why you choose to ignore this aspect of the flag and its meaning is beyond me.

But I haven't chosen to ignore that at all, you've only just bought it up so allow me to address it. The way you are approaching this argument is that the institutions of repression are this standalone thing and then you have the people bearing the flag to either support them or standing under the flag to fight against them, which is skewed. The fact is the flag REPRESENTED the institutions of repression. The fact that there were a few good people (and they were, relative to the opposition, very fucking few by the way) fought against what America represented at that time does not mean that the institutions, the government and the people of America, for centuries, stood for that shit.

In fact you said it yourself at the end of the first paragraph 'the ugliness that DEFINES America post civil war existence' and thats exactly the point i was making, it was defined by that shit because thats what it was about. The fact that a few good men and women were against that shit and stood against it makes them the exception, makes them the people that went 'hang on a minute, this is fucked up, this is not what we claim to stand for', there is simply not enough weight there for you to rightly claim that those people are the standard bearers and representatives of that flag over above the monumental avalanche of opposition which was in fact the standard of the day in terms of the socio-political climate of America for CENTURIES.

[Val22]

The main reason I say no to this flag is because it represents a time in US history where the US was separated and at war.

Do you realize how many men we lost in this war? It was brother against brother because we were all one nation.

Yeah, if you want to display it in your house go ahead, but I don't feel it should hold any special meaning now.

America is one nation and one flag is all that's needed.

Yes, I agree the north has a different view from the south on many things. I've seen the Confederate flag on bumper stickers and even a whole flag in the window of someone's pickup, but I don't feel the south should use to it to represent "southern" pride. it was a dark time in America and if we can ease a little of that memory by taking down something that is so obviously wrong, do it.

I think the whole politically correct things are getting crazy now.

Unfortunately, there has been slavery from the beginning of time in different countries. Northern people had slaves back in those days too. Washington and Jefferson included. it was something in America's past, and I want to know how long do we have to talk about it.

The Native Americans are treated like shit, yet no one seems to care about their rights. The Jewish people all over the world have been killed, condemned for centuries, yet they handle it with dignity and pride and continue to try to change things.

I think people need to use their heads and if we respected each other better, then I think better changes could happen.

Living in Texas for over 20 years now, being born in New York, I see a big difference in their beliefs. I think if Texas could become their own country, they would. They have so much has said it many times.

The north and the south has different ways of looking at things and I don't think they will change. South people have a lot of pride, but this Confederate flag should not represent them in anyway. We are all part of the US now, one flag, one nation, one people.

[downzy]

@ Len

It's not about meeting a threshold, it's a matter of principles, goals, and intent. And please save your moral cowardice attack, utter fucking none sense. One flag strove to save the union and end the institution of slavery within its boarder. The other flag represents the side that sought to destroy the union on the sole basis of saving the institution of slavery. You're making way more of this than need be.

Bollocks, you're seeing exactly what you want to see to cover over the ugliness of one symbol that you feel comfortable with whilst condemning another that you don't, it is precisely moral cowardice. What are you saying, that after the Civil War and the establishing of THE America what we had was an essentially just and principled set up that was slowly working towards and for the principles of freedom justice and equality? Thats rubbish and you know it's rubbish, they fought AGAINST equality for centuries after, the entire structure, the courts, the government, the police forces, the lot. I'm not making way more of it, you're deliberately simplifying it to escape the ugliness of the reality. The fact is you haven't even approached addressing the specifics of what I'm saying because you can't, choosing instead to stick to that pale party line of 'well one represents a wholly bad thing and one just did bad whilst actually standing for good', you're way too intelligent to not see how thats bollocks. To be honest it just looks like someone aligning themselves with a particular contemporary political stance with little interest in the reality.

What you've done with the quoted text is re-frame the argument as being specifically to do with the civil war only, so as to avoid the basis of my point which is to do with what went on under the stars and stripes since the civil war, which is odd because you earlier agreed with what i was saying to a point, did the moral cowardice comment annoy you that much?

Look, before you accuse me of moral cowardice, you better having a better fucking idea as to who you're talking about. I'm the guy who consistently argues on here that America is still a heavily racialized nation that has not lived up to the ideals established in its founding documents. I'm also some who has studied these subjects extensively, perhaps better than anyone who regularly visits this forum. So the notion that I'm somehow blind to the racial injustices since the end of the Civil War is fucking nonsense. Jim Crow, segregation, mass incarceration: I'm well versed in the ugliness that defines America's post Civil War existence. I'm not avoiding any of it.

What you seem to be unwillingly or incapable of grasping is that there is a distinct difference between a flag that represents an ideal but not a reality. There exists no separation between the principles and the reality of the Confederate flag and the antebellum South and the manifestation said ideals. The south fought for the continuation of slavery and the subjugation of black people. This reality was the manifestation of what the flag represents. The U.S. flag speaks to ideals that it has not always lived up to. The flag was not solely flown by those who supported institutions of repression; for many it represents their pathway from repression. It was the flag of those who operated the Underground Railroad, that supported the civil rights movement, who cheered Brown v Board of education, who celebrated the rise of fair housing laws, that fights against sentencing laws that unfairly punish African Americans. The flag represents an ideal that the country continually works at and towards. Why you choose to ignore this aspect of the flag and its meaning is beyond me.

But I haven't chosen to ignore that at all, you've only just bought it up so allow me to address it. The way you are approaching this argument is that the institutions of repression are this standalone thing and then you have the people bearing the flag to either support them or standing under the flag to fight against them, which is skewed. The fact is the flag REPRESENTED the institutions of repression. The fact that there were a few good people (and they were, relative to the opposition, very fucking few by the way) fought against what America represented at that time does not mean that the institutions, the government and the people of America, for centuries, stood for that shit.

In fact you said it yourself at the end of the first paragraph 'the ugliness that DEFINES America post civil war existence' and thats exactly the point i was making, it was defined by that shit because thats what it was about. The fact that a few good men and women were against that shit and stood against it makes them the exception, makes them the people that went 'hang on a minute, this is fucked up, this is not what we claim to stand for', there is simply not enough weight there for you to rightly claim that those people are the standard bearers and representatives of that flag over above the monumental avalanche of opposition which was in fact the standard of the day in terms of the socio-political climate of America for CENTURIES.

No, and this is where you're making a false equivalency. The U.S. flag does not REPRESENT the institutions of repressions in the same manner that the Confederate flag. The South rose up for the sole purpose of continuing slavery. The Confederate flag became the symbol of that fight. To say that they're one in the same is false.

Surely, there were institutions of repression that operated under the U.S. flag. No denying that. But those who perpetrated and executed such systems under the guise of the U.S. flag did so at the expense of the ideals it has long represented. It's fair to critique the U.S. for such wanton and hypocritical actions when it expresses such lofty ideals (as it still falls short in many areas), but it's an entirely other matter to put the stars and stripes and the flag of the confederacy on the same moral ground.

Furthermore, to suggest that it's only a few people who counter the inherent racism within the institution is wrong (it is one of the reasons why the North beat the South; far more Northern soldiers). The fast majority of citizens within the Antebellum South disagreed with Jim Crow laws. The reason they lasted as long as they did was a result of the few in power who prevented change. The issue with the political machines of control and oppression is that they're often hidden from the vast majority. Once those systems reveal themselves, as they did in the 1950s and 1960s, most eventually turn on them. It's what's happening today with respect to mass incarceration and police brutality. Progress maybe slow, but it's still occurring.

[Ace Nova]

Agreed, if you want to display it privately, whatever fine. IMO it's in very poor taste, but that's your call.

Pretty much the way I feel about the issue. People have a right to display whatever they feel like under freedom of speech....that's on them. You also have a right to think they are complete jackasses in doing so. To each, their own.

[Mansin Humanity]

Agreed, if you want to display it privately, whatever fine. IMO it's in very poor taste, but that's your call.

Pretty much the way I feel about the issue. People have a right to display whatever they feel like under freedom of speech....that's on them. You also have a right to think they are complete jackasses in doing so. To each, their own.

Yeah, came to say pretty much exactly this. No place for a loser's flag on any government buildings, but if you want to broadcast to the world that you're (most likely) a bigot, go for it.

[Len Cnut]

No, and this is where you're making a false equivalency. The U.S. flag does not REPRESENT the institutions of repressions in the same manner that the Confederate flag.

Is any manner of representing institutions of repression a good one?

The Confederate flag became the symbol of that fight. To say that they're one in the same is false.

I didn't say they were one and the same, what I am saying is that there is enough in the way of atrocity under each one surely, if we're gonna start throwing stones, to justify this sort of an attack and exclusivity in the way in which, as you tell me, the confederate flag represents oppression is not not reason enough for the stars and stripes to get a pass, when considering what went on under it after slavery.

Surely, there were institutions of repression that operated under the U.S. flag. No denying that. But those who perpetrated and executed such systems under the guise of the U.S. flag did so at the expense of the ideals it has long represented.

Long represented in the eyes of whom? I mean we're talking pre-slavery right? What ideals are these and what acts are they exemplified by? This singling out of this one group in American history and attacking this flag as being culpable for fucked up shit is just the political posturing of the day, an easy to marginalise group to have a pop at and ignore equivalent bullshit done under the auspices of another flag cuz it's convenient.

It's fair to critique the U.S. for such wanton and hypocritical actions when it expresses such lofty ideals (as it still falls short in many areas), but it's an entirely other matter to put the stars and stripes and the flag of the confederacy on the same moral ground.

I'm not the first person to level a similar indictment and I won't be the last and y'know what, some of the other people who have made a similar moral indictment have been some of the very same people who were subject to it's oppression...and they are many, as in over decade after decade. When those wanton and hypocritical actions include the oppression of generations upon generations of a race i think 'critique' is kind of a soft word. I wonder what the innocent men that got lynched, flames lickin' around their arse, in a country where they are treated like animals thought about what moral ground the flag stood on, as they smelt their bollocks cooking before he died.

Furthermore, to suggest that it's only a few people who counter the inherent racism within the institution is wrong (it is one of the reasons why the North beat the South; far more Northern soldiers). The fast majority of citizens within the Antebellum South disagreed with Jim Crow laws. The reason they lasted as long as they did was a result of the few in power who prevented change.

Really? I don't even know where to begin to address that. So all those years post slavery, those centuries, it was just a few people in the drivers seat fuckin' it up for an otherwise idyllic America. Well they must've been a busy bunch of few people in power, riding around the country lynching black people for eyeballing white women and burning em and blowing up churches and raping women and all the awful things that happened across those decades upon decades that are difficult to sum up in a neat little paragraph on an internet forum. And while this inexhaustible bionic few were going around doing all this 99.9% of America were all just 'we all love each other!'.

Suffice to say i don't suppose to mattered to the ones on the sharp end of a kicking why it lasted so long, fact is that it did.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Len B'stard

[shades]

I'm also some who has studied these subjects extensively, perhaps better than anyone who regularly visits this forum. So the notion that I'm somehow blind to the racial injustices since the end of the Civil War is fucking nonsense. Jim Crow, segregation, mass incarceration: I'm well versed in the ugliness

oh here we go with that "I'm smarter than anyone on here schtick again".

Do you ever get over yourself or is it a life long love affair?

anyway, "on topic"

The south was fighting for a lot more than keeping slaves.

And on that note of "keeping slaves", as inhumane as even the sound of that word infers, it didn't have the same meaning as it would today.

Times were different, and truth be told slaves were part of the family on a greater percentage of the plantations than they were this beaten, spit

on stereotype that your obvious "studies" on the subject have warped your sense of reality to come to believe.

of course slavery was wrong "duhhh", and of course slavery was partly the reason for the formation of the confederacy. But it was hardly the entirety.

The North imposed their tyranny on the south, "shut up and grow your cotton so we can sell it to England and use the wealth to build the industrial machine in the North" The railroads, factories and progress in general was being directed to the Northern part of the country and very little monies were being invested in the South.

The South wanted to secede from the union if that were to be the case, form their own government, use their own tax monies to build a future beyond working the fields.

and who knows what would have happened in regards to slavery, there is a train of thought that in good time slaves would have became their own people in short order without a half a million Americans losing their lives in the battle. Educating themselves would lead to the pursuit of happiness and they were starting to stand up for themselves in that regard. I have read stories that there had already been a movement toward that very end on the part of many "owners", many slaves were treated quite well, and brought into the families as equals, trusted with the care of white children, as midwives, and choosing their own work schedules. They worked all day and were clothed fed and housed. With wages the way they were in that day even living "free" wasn't a much better life than that for many white people. And like someone in this thread said earlier, exactly what did the north offer the suddenly "freed" slaves except a continued miserable existence as second class citizens relocated.

Brought them into their business ventures and into elected office to decide policy? yeaaa right.

I'm not in anyway condoning slavery, or that Lincoln was wrong to declare it illegal, but it's not like the North looked the other way when the ships landed and unloaded them to be sold.

Go read another book you goof, I grew up in the south and when I was in grade school it was known as the great war of northern aggression, hows that?

There's a lot more to the history of this country than the indoctrinated liberal academia study you have been brainwashed with.

How about Shermans march to the sea?, totally humane and necessary to you huh?

The confederate flag only represents hate to a few sick, warped individuals that view it as their symbol of racism, and to liberals like you that wish to use it as a political tool and wave it around in a worse light that the actual redneck bigots themselves.

To a lot of people it represents independence, standing up and even fighting for what a people thought was right for them and their families well being.

So knock off the "i know better that you do" shit and grow up.

Have you EVER been wrong about Anything? check yourself.

Edited June 29, 2015 by shades

[OmarBradley]

I'm also some who has studied these subjects extensively, perhaps better than anyone who regularly visits this forum. So the notion that I'm somehow blind to the racial injustices since the end of the Civil War is fucking nonsense. Jim Crow, segregation, mass incarceration: I'm well versed in the ugliness

oh here we go with that "I'm smarter than anyone on here schtick again".

Do you ever get over yourself or is it a life long love affair?

anyway, "on topic"

The south was fighting for a lot more than keeping slaves.

And on that note of "keeping slaves", as inhumane as even the sound of that word infers, it didn't have the same meaning as it would today.

Times were different, and truth be told slaves were part of the family on a greater percentage of the plantations than they were this beaten, spit

on stereotype that your obvious "studies" on the subject have warped your sense of reality to come to believe.

of course slavery was wrong "duhhh", and of course slavery was partly the reason for the formation of the confederacy. But it was hardly the entirety.

The North imposed their tyranny on the south, "shut up and grow your cotton so we can sell it to England and use the wealth to build the industrial machine in the North" The railroads, factories and progress in general was being directed to the Northern part of the country and very little monies were being invested in the South.

The South wanted to secede from the union if that were to be the case, form their own government, use their own tax monies to build a future beyond working the fields.

and who knows what would have happened in regards to slavery, there is a train of thought that in good time slaves would have became their own people in short order without a half a million Americans losing their lives in the battle. Educating themselves would lead to the pursuit of happiness and they were starting to stand up for themselves in that regard. I have read stories that there had already been a movement toward that very end on the part of many "owners", many slaves were treated quite well, and brought into the families as equals, trusted with the care of white children, as midwives, and choosing their own work schedules. They worked all day and were clothed fed and housed. With wages the way they were in that day even living "free" wasn't a much better life than that for many white people. And like someone in this thread said earlier, exactly what did the north offer the suddenly "freed" slaves except a continued miserable existence as second class citizens relocated.

Brought them into their business ventures and into elected office to decide policy? yeaaa right.

I'm not in anyway condoning slavery, or that Lincoln was wrong to declare it illegal, but it's not like the North looked the other way when the ships landed and unloaded them to be sold.

Go read another book you goof, I grew up in the south and when I was in grade school it was known as the great war of northern aggression, hows that?

There's a lot more to the history of this country than the indoctrinated liberal academia study you have been brainwashed with.

How about Shermans march to the sea?, totally humane and necessary to you huh?

The confederate flag only represents hate to a few sick, warped individuals that view it as their symbol of racism, and to liberals like you that wish to use it as a political tool and wave it around in a worse light that the actual redneck bigots themselves.

To a lot of people it represents independence, standing up and even fighting for what a people thought was right for them and their families well being.

So knock off the "i know better that you do" shit and grow up.

Have you EVER been wrong about Anything? check yourself.

Jeez man.

The southern economy was based on slavery. It was the superseding reason for secession. All other major issues that can be used to defend secession can fairly easily be traced back to slavery.

This section here:

The North imposed their tyranny on the south, "shut up and grow your cotton so we can sell it to England and use the wealth to build the industrial machine in the North" The railroads, factories and progress in general was being directed to the Northern part of the country and very little monies were being invested in the South.

You asked me pages ago where I got my information from, I told you, then you ignored me as you're prone to do when someone actually tries to address your points. Where are you getting this info from?

It reeks of revisionism. Slavery drove economic progress in the south, and when it became clear to the federal government that America no longer wanted to look like a medieval caste society, that economy was threatened.

No one said the north was innocent. I see in your assertion this mangled view that the north was always a bully to the south, and the southerners with their traditional styles and economy were the underdog. It's a view that gets a lot of traction, but it's shenanigans. It was 18 fucking 60, no one had a track record of progressivism that we would commend today. As far as the treatment that ex-slaves received after slavery, yeah it still sucked. But here we are, 150 years later, and it's a lot fucking better. Do you think it would have still improved by such a degree had slavery endured and continued for 40 more years in the south?

And another great argument from you, "oh but some owners treated slaves well." Seriously man, that's not even the issue. The issue is that the notion of slavery itself is inherently opposed to morality, civility, and humanity. The defense that some were treated OK is such a dumb defense, I expect better from you.

Edited June 29, 2015 by OmarBradley

[shades]

read what I wrote again , real slow, and without your liberal posturing, on guard reactionism making your fingers type before you even try to let it sink in.

[downzy]

I'm also some who has studied these subjects extensively, perhaps better than anyone who regularly visits this forum. So the notion that I'm somehow blind to the racial injustices since the end of the Civil War is fucking nonsense. Jim Crow, segregation, mass incarceration: I'm well versed in the ugliness

oh here we go with that "I'm smarter than anyone on here schtick again".

Do you ever get over yourself or is it a life long love affair?

So knock off the "i know better that you do" shit and grow up.

Have you EVER been wrong about Anything? check yourself.

Last warning: making your point and move the fuck on. Any more of this petty sniping bullshit and you're gone. I'm fucking tired of your bullshit and inability to make a point without personal attacks.

Don't like it? Then fuck off.

As for the rest of your "dissertation," I'll address that later.