Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Excellent post Sir, but you will not persuade them with facts.
Actually that was a fairly accurate post, there was always fear that letting the States break up would send an invitation to European countries to invade.
But that was in the 1800s, today it stands for something much different. There will always be the historical side to it, but anyone who knows anything about history is that winners write history and the South lost, therefore they take on the notion that the Civil War was always about slavery.
It also doesn't help the southern flag when it is being championed by white supremacist groups, no matter how much history is behind the flag, it will be attached to racism because racism has attached itself to that flag.
The legacy of white supremacy, though, still lives on in the psyches of the confederate losers. To let go of their beloved flag would be to let go of them good ol'days. When the white man did what he wanted....cotton was king.....and the black man knew his place. Sovereign state rights are seen thru revisionist eyes. The Confederate States of America was for slave owner rights. They can twist it and turn it as much as they wish, but that duck is still quacking the same as it was in the late 1800's.
As were the revolutionaries in the US/British conflict. But in both cases, it wasn't the only thing they were fighting for.
This is one of the very striking parts of the pro-Confederate arguments. They claim they disapprove of slavery, and that it should have been ended, but they never say how long they think the slaves should have waited for the eventual end of slavery.
By the same token they seem to take the view that the civil rights laws of the 1960's were unjustified and that eventually merchants, schools, government agencies, and the like would have come around to accepting blacks as customers without being forced. Again, no idea how long this was supposed to take.
I guess it's always easier to endure somebody else's suffering.
You do realize that the emancipation proclamation didn't free slaves in the non-seceding states, right? So not all northerners were motivated to free their slaves right away either.
Slavery is an abomination, but the confederacy wasn't only about slavery.
This is one of the very striking parts of the pro-Confederate arguments. They claim they disapprove of slavery, and that it should have been ended, but they never say how long they think the slaves should have waited for the eventual end of slavery.
By the same token they seem to take the view that the civil rights laws of the 1960's were unjustified and that eventually merchants, schools, government agencies, and the like would have come around to accepting blacks as customers without being forced. Again, no idea how long this was supposed to take.
I guess it's always easier to endure somebody else's suffering.
Spot on.
Any help for the blacks is seen as "meddling" and being pushed by outside agitators. After all, the south was gonna EVENTUALLY get around to doing the right thing. And of course, the country should've given them more time to see the light.
That's why I simply don't trust southern conservatives and why I could never live in the south under their governance. They say far too many things that give them away.
BTW...any southern apologists care to tell Jack and I when exactly was slavery and Jim Crow gonna end without federal pressure?
Dumb idea, but not my business. I don't live there.
I'm black and don't find it offensive at all. I just laugh at it and keep it moving. If you wanna be a proud loser, that's not my problem.
Actually keeping the confederate flag around might serve as a reminder to current secessionists of what happens to secessionists who take up arms against the United States.
You do realize that the emancipation proclamation didn't free slaves in the non-seceding states, right? So not all northerners were motivated to free their slaves right away either.
Slavery is an abomination, but the confederacy wasn't only about slavery.
Of course I do, but we're not talking about the North.
Nobody has asked me what I think about racism in the North before and during the Civil War, but that's entirely irrelevant to the debate: the southern states who tried to secede did so in order to preserve slavery. We know that because that's what they told us and the world when they voted to secede. No honest person could deny that.
Now, to prove you consider slavery an abomination, answer me this: how long should slaves have been expected to wait for slavery to die out?
And if you think the solution should have been to buy the slaves from the masters, how much should the slaves have been paid?
Red necks and racists have made the Confederate battle flag into a symbol of evil. I used to fly it along with the Union flag as I loved the history of it. But I took it down because it has been co opted by the racist extremists just like the Nazis co opted the swastika and old Sanskrit symbol of peace. Thanks you idiots.
The most deadly war America has ever fought in was the Civil War. Most people in the south today would have some relative or another that fought in the Civil War(whether they know it or not).
If the colonies lost the war with Britain, and the descendants of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc. Were flying the original American flag as a way to remember both history of this country, and their relatives. Would you still object?
I know people want to demonize the south when it comes to the Civil War. And while the south was certainly imperfect. If you think Lincolns north was anything to admire, you have a complete misunderstanding of history.
The truth is, if Lincoln and his generals fought the same kind of war today as they did during the Civil War. They would be tried as war criminals. They operated on a system of total war. Sherman destroyed everything as he marched his army through the south. He burned farms, homes, destroyed railroads, bridges, communications lines, everything. Basically he turned much of Georgia into a deserted wasteland. As most understand, he burned Atlanta. Later his army would really destroy South Carolina, especially Columbia. Which they blamed for causing the war to begin with.
The truth is, Lincoln wasn't overly interested in actually freeing the slaves. Freeing the slaves had nothing to do with caring for the slaves. But rather, the country was being torn apart by the slave question, and Lincoln believed the only way to keep the union together, would be to end the fight over slavery once and for all. And the best solution towards the end of the war, was to take a position of completely abolishing slavery.
But you have to understand, he knew that blacks would be a contentious issue even after freed. And the way he hoped to solve the slavery issue, was not only to abolish slavery, but to export all of the slaves out of the country. In his mind, that would solve all the divisive issues in this country, which was causing the disunion to begin with.
The problem Lincoln faced was, the issue wasn't really as black and white as people want to believe. It wasn't really an issue of north vs south, as to believe that all Northerners supported Lincoln and all Southerners supported the Confederacy. But rather, it was a complicated situation, where many northern states, especially states like Pennsylvania and the "Northwest states" of that time period. Weren't very loyal to the federal government. But were in a precarious position, somewhat like Maryland.
The problem Maryland had was, Washington DC was between Virginia and Maryland. Maryland was a traditional slave-state, and it would have seceded with the confederacy. Which is why Lincoln sent the military into legislature and arrested anyone believed to support secession. Because had Maryland seceded, Washington DC would have been basically in a foreign country.
The problem Lincoln faced was, the primary abolitionists were in the New England states. But many of the Midwestern states relied heavily on the Mississippi river for trade. And were not strong abolitionists. Many Midwestern states had threatened to secede from the federal union as well. To create a Midwestern bloc of states. Pennsylvania, especially Philadelphia had a very strong secessionist movement. Many Pennsylvanians hated New England, and had strong economic and political ties with Virginia and the south.
The problem Lincoln face was, there was basically disunion going in all directions. And he was trying to find a way to keep the country together. And the reason he arrested the legislature of Maryland, was because he couldn't lose Maryland. And then he arrested journalists and politicians in the north who were confederate sympathizers, obviously because he was afraid that those journalists and political figures were a threat to the union. Basically, because those were journalists who were critical of Lincoln, and the abuses of the federal government.
Had Lincoln not arrested all the people that he did. The whole country would have fallen apart in 1861. Probably into three or four different nations. Lincoln didn't want that.
So the question is, if you were Lincoln and you have a country whose regions don't particularly like each other. And it looks as if the whole country is going to fall apart. What do you do?
While I can understand the reality in this country in 1861. I still don't believe that I would have become a despot. I don't think I could have ordered my generals to wage total war on the southern states. I don't see why people are so obsessed with a forcing together people who don't want to be together.
The same thing happens today. If someone mentions Texas Seceding, you'll see people from the north talking about invading Texas, putting them in their place. Many times accompanied by a picture of Sherman's army burning Atlanta.
Anyway, I think the misunderstanding about the south is really because people generally havn't been to the south. I mean, I'm from Oklahoma, but Oklahoma history is not really southern history. It wasn't till I spent some time in Georgia, hearing about "The war of northern aggression". That I ever started looking into it.
Most people just read what they teach in schools. Which is a pretty clear-cut, war over slavery, the south needed to lose because slavery is immoral. And Lincoln was the great emancipator of blacks, a great and honorable man. But its simply not true.
And none of this has anything to do with the meaning of the Confederate flag.
This is one of the very striking parts of the pro-Confederate arguments. They claim they disapprove of slavery, and that it should have been ended, but they never say how long they think the slaves should have waited for the eventual end of slavery.
By the same token they seem to take the view that the civil rights laws of the 1960's were unjustified and that eventually merchants, schools, government agencies, and the like would have come around to accepting blacks as customers without being forced. Again, no idea how long this was supposed to take.
I guess it's always easier to endure somebody else's suffering.
You do realize that the emancipation proclamation didn't free slaves in the non-seceding states, right? So not all northerners were motivated to free their slaves right away either.
Slavery is an abomination, but the confederacy wasn't only about slavery.
Uh yea...it kinda was.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
