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.
LOL. You engage in nothing but unknowable speculation . I merely report facts, and let those facts lead to the obvious conclusion. I understand that upsets you, but making things up isn't much of a rebuttal from you. The North had 2-3 times the soldiers, lost more men, and even when they had twice the forces and the battle plans of Lee, were unable to rout the Rebs .
Those are just the facts, and don't rely upon silly speculation as you do.
Sorry, but everything I said was truthful. You know it too.
And even if it was true that the South was horribly outnumbered, whose fault is that? They were outnumbered ONLY in that they lost so many men in dumb battles like Gettysburg.
Moreover, they had 4 million black slaves...a huge resource that they declined to tap despite being warned by General Patrick Cleburne that conscripting these men and promising them and their families their freedom would guarantee a Southern victory. They loved slavery so much and we so wedded to the notion of white superiority that the Confederate leadership tabled the proposal.
Now out of 4 million slaves, how many of those were able bodied young men? Easily 300-400k...and that’s a conservative estimate.
So all of your southern apologist nonsense just doesn’t ring true.
It might've been easier to do so if they hadn't attempted & succeeded in enforcing slavery under another name against all of our American brothers & sisters immediately following their loss. Get real.
I'm not going to repeat myself here and feed your ignorance......the war wasn't about slavery. It was one side that wanted to be independent and be left alone and the other side that wanted to keep them in the Union by force.
Is not like living in the North was easy for blacks after the war.
Sorry, but everything I said was truthful. You know it too.
And even if it was true that the South was horribly outnumbered, whose fault is that? They were outnumbered ONLY in that they lost so many men in dumb battles like Gettysburg.
Moreover, they had 4 million black slaves...a huge resource that they declined to tap despite being warned by General Patrick Cleburne that conscripting these men and promising them and their families their freedom would guarantee a Southern victory. They loved slavery so much and we so wedded to the notion of white superiority that the Confederate leadership tabled the proposal.
Now out of 4 million slaves, how many of those were able bodied young men? Easily 300-400k...and that’s a conservative estimate.
So all of your southern apologist nonsense just doesn’t ring true.
They were outnumbered because the north had more than twice the population.
but we are not at war with them....they are our brothers and sisters......that's their heritage....get a clue.
And what about my heritage? That flag was a rallying symbol for people who thought that I didn't deserve the most basic of rights. That flag was created to embody that message. That heritage thought it wss so important to keep my heritage enslaved and deprived of basic humanity that they were willing to kill other Americans for it.
How many people still fly that flag? Not many I assume.
Sure, many people who fly that flag are racists. I am not going to deny that. But not everyone believes that flag should be considered as a racist symbol. Their opinion should be at least respected as well.
It's not just the people flying it. It's also the people defending that flag line it's some innocuous symbol that pc liberals suddenly they had a problem with...
It's not just the people flying it. It's also the people defending that flag line it's some innocuous symbol that pc liberals suddenly they had a problem with...
The battle flag of the army which supported the government that embraced race-based slavery is an uncomfortable symbol for some people. Some people cannot disassociate the battle flag from the racist goal that it was to embrace race-based slavery. But there are people who are indeed able to do that - there are those who are able to see the flag as a symbol of something else entirely.
Like I posted earlier, sure, I am not going to deny that many people defend that flag or fly that flag are racists,but not everybody sees that flag as a racist symbol.
It was a battle flag for the Confederate Army and for me that is what comes to mind. Like any symbol, the flag represents different things to different people.
I would say this though, it is a good idea not to fly that flag because it does offend a lot of people. So why fly it. But to say, everyone who flies that flag is a racist is at the very least, unfair and untrue.
There are major difference between a civil war where one side loses, then becomes part of that country again. It is not the same as fighting a foreign country that remained sovereign after defeat. It would be very disrespectful to the Southern states to still view them as the "enemy".
Disrespectful?
Please.
Southern states are not the enemy. CSA was the enemy.
Confederate flag is the flag of the enemy.
Put the flag away along with the other monuments and memorabilia and let's move on.
The battle flag of the army which supported the government that embraced race-based slavery is an uncomfortable symbol for some people. Some people cannot disassociate the battle flag from the racist goal that it was to embrace race-based slavery. But there are people who are indeed able to do that - there are those who are able to see the flag as a symbol of something else entirely.
Like I posted earlier, sure, I am not going to deny that many people defend that flag or fly that flag are racists,but not everybody sees that flag as a racist symbol.
It was a battle flag for the Confederate Army and for me that is what comes to mind. Like any symbol, the flag represents different things to different people.
I would say this though, it is a good idea not to fly that flag because it does offend a lot of people. So why fly it. But to say, everyone who flies that flag is a racist is at the very least, unfair and untrue.
I'm sure there are a lot of Germans who would love to focus oh the positives of what Hitler's rise to power meant for a war torn Germany. German currency rebounded, inflation dropped, nationalism and German industrialization was through the roof... You could write a thesis about all the amazing things that happened in Germany under Hitler's reign.
But at the end of the day leaving out the atrocities that were also committed under his reign shows the value that you put on the lives of those people. That someone would think that the negative impact of the swastika on those lives isn't worth mentioning along side all the positives shows what else they believe.
If you choose to back the Confederate flag and focus on only the positives of southern heritage, then what you're saying is that the heritage of the people who fought against them doesn't matter. That the heritage of the people who would have been enslaved by them doesn't matter. That the heritage of people who fought for equality for everyone doesn't matter.
Sorry, but everything I said was truthful. You know it too.
And even if it was true that the South was horribly outnumbered, whose fault is that? They were outnumbered ONLY in that they lost so many men in dumb battles like Gettysburg.
Moreover, they had 4 million black slaves...a huge resource that they declined to tap despite being warned by General Patrick Cleburne that conscripting these men and promising them and their families their freedom would guarantee a Southern victory. They loved slavery so much and we so wedded to the notion of white superiority that the Confederate leadership tabled the proposal.
Now out of 4 million slaves, how many of those were able bodied young men? Easily 300-400k...and that’s a conservative estimate.
So all of your southern apologist nonsense just doesn’t ring true.
I state only provable facts, not opinion. And it is stupid to claim they were outnumbered because they lost too many men. The North lost 50% more than the South, and still far outnumbered them. Go learn some history instead of your fantasy world. Were you aware , for example, that when Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation , his own Cabinet suggested he wait to give the speech until a later time, so that the speech didn't appear to be the last ditch desperation act of nation on the brink of defeat? He waited, and then when the Battle of Antietam was fought to a draw, even though the Union generals had Lee's battle plans and a far larger force, and the South retreated from Maryland , Lincoln gave the speech.
So no, not much you said is true. You don't seem to have much grip on actual fact if you think the reason the South was outnumbered is because they lost more men than the North. They didn't. The slaves coming to the northern side, yes, that is true. Did you know that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the South, and didn't free any slaves held in the Union? True fact. Smart move by Lincoln to get additional troops, but it shows that the desire to end slavery was not the northern point, as Lincoln didn't even bother freeing the ones actually under his control when he did the South's.
You really need to bone up on the actual history of the Civil War if you are going to try and debate it intelligently.
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.
