Confederate Flag: Good Riddence

Post Reply New Topic

There was compensation, but given how much of a change it was you have to expect that. The point is they achieved emancipation.

The British slave trade is often mentioned in isolation, excluding all the other European colonial forces.

The US may not imported as many slaves, but that doesn't they didn't trade the revenue from American slave breading program could easily give the British slave trade a run for its money literal.

Whether or not slavery in America would have ended on it's own, the fact remains, the Confederacy started the war to preserve slavery and white supremacy. It was the slave owners themselves who had fired the first shot, not the Union. So the point really isn't if slavery would be phased out, but that there were people willing to kill for it's continuation.

^^^
And I should add, the Confederate constitution forbade any state in their country from making slavery illegal. So much for the notion that slavery would have just been allowed to fade away in Dixie.

taxes, probably mostly from their colonies.

slave owners were rich few, how do you explain all the non slave owners who fought for states rights.

also if russia claimed an island in us waters and the us said no thats ours, then russian sent in more troops to build up troop placement on the island. the us responds by attacking the island. who started the war? was it russia who took an island in the us's territory water , or was it the us who attacked to defend their borders? teh south left the union legally. the island was in the heart of the south. when the south left legally all union forts in its borders should have been withdrawn. instead of doing that the union sent more troops in to build up. quite frankly the us has done as the south did many times before and after that and every time it was said the other side started the war. yes the south fired the first shots but it was to defend their border. the south lost and slaverly was wrong but I can't stand revisinging history to proprganda the winner. the union started the war, the union wanted the war, they wanted the south back in the uinion there was never a "oh lets just let them be" it was aways a " you son of B***h you can't leave we'll bring you back with force" but to just march down and attack would looked bad, so they forced the south's hand. just like when we sent troops over the mexican border and they got shot and we used that for war, just like how we wanted war with japan so waited, but waited for them to attack first. politics. if it hadn't been for politics I'm sure union troops would marched into the south the minute the states left.

just like who started ww1? it wasn't eh central powers, they weren't the evil side. they were attacked by the serbs, who backed by the Russians started ww1. have a group group from Canada's government assassinate the president and watch the us invade. but again central powers lost the war, so were painted as the bad guys who started it all.

there's history and there's political history. one is real and one is changed to suite the victory



yes and drugs are illegal too. and so is immigration oh and gay marriage was illegal. yep laws never change, they stuck in stone forever. many in the south new slaverly coulndt' last they just weren't ready to get rid of it. given 20-30 years it would have likely ended, just not in the 3 months some in the north wanted. you can not move away from such a huge and vita but failling system quickly, you have to gradeually move from it or face the whole thing falling apart. the north was already devoluped with factories so ending slavely quickly wouldn't have hurt them but doing so in the south which had 1/4 the factories or less then the north would have had horrible effects like it did.

just like we cant' up and stop all coal produciton right now this minute and move everyone to nuclear. or stop all gas and go electric cars. how many people would be without cars and starve due to the move? I can't buy an electric car. many millions and millions can't we but 20 year or more old gas cars because thats all we can afford. so if tomorrow the gov banned gas. i'd be screwed. do we need to move away from gas and coal yes but it can't be done quickly.

England did it slowly and paid people for each slave. the us didn't have the money to do so. the money allowed the slavers to fund new ways of doing things. I wish slavery would never have happen but it did. wish we nevere used coal and gas, but we did. you have to deal with the reality of things. I don't think we can quite understand it being so many hundred years separated from that culture, time and society.

we are judging people long dead by our society standards. I imagine people in the future will look back not so fondly on us and our society standards.

I'm not even getting into this debate. I'm going to say this and then not check back because there is no point in it, I've tried talking to Yankees about this and they can't understand it.

You are talking out of your ass. Learn about the subject from both sides. I suppose you completely discredit the black Southerners who fly the flag too, huh?

Why wouldn't i? Being black doesn't prevent someone from being a stupid as*hole.

Take Kanye for example.

The south did not leave the Union legally, as there is no legal means for any state to do that.
And as far as Fort Sumter was concerned, it was a federal facility, owned and operated by the US government regardless of where it's locate geographically. That the south laid siege to it was itself an act of war.
As for the Union wanting war - not really, they were negotiating with the Confederacy all through the conflict, even going to the extent of promising not to free any slaves. It was the Confederate leadership - comprised of the wealthy planter class - who believed Lincoln's election would spell the doom for their cash cow of slavery (which ironically is what ultimately happened - due to their own actions), and so decided to instigate armed rebellion to keep slavery alive.
And sure, most of the men fighting for the Confederacy didn't own slaves. It's also true that the Confederate government instituted a draft, and so it's impossible to know how many chose to fight for the south, and how many only did because they faced execution or prison if they did not. There was in fact a high degree of desertion in the Confederate army, and some of those men were like Newton Knight, who formed a guerrilla army composed of other deserters and escaped slaves to carry on warfare against the Confederate government in Mississippi. Many other white southerners joined the Union army out of conscience and loyalty. Then there were those hard line poor southerners who were fighting for the cause of white supremacy, as they feared with the end of slavery, they might not have blacks just a step lower than them on the social ladder to look down on.

there was before the civil war, the civil war is what caused there to not be one now. before it the constitution was a a thing the states willingly cam into and could willing leave.

what are you kidding me they left so all waters and land in their states were not federal property anymore. can russian invade any eastern European nation to retake its old soviet era forts? or is it when those nations left soviet union that those forts that are in thier borders left with them and there for no longer belonged to the russia.

you just want to paint the south as a bunch of evil people who had it coming. thats hardly ever how real history works.
the north could do no harm and was just an inocent child, the south was the devil and had to be slain for the good of all man kind.

wonder if all the talk fo laws to get rid of slavery made them scared? slavery was at the time a states right it was not the only state right at issue. but it ws one of the main ones. which was for states to decide themselves what they wanted to do. you need to understand that this was a states rights vs federal control thing too. at the time many still believed the united states was just that. a group of simi independent states that worked together. they called them self not us citizens but Missourians, new Englanders, Virginians. it took the civil war and ww1 to bring us all together and people to call them us citizens except Texas who many there still refer to themselves as Texans. mean look at how the military was mad up. it wasn't one big mixed army it was a bunch of units from each state flying that states flag, who worked together under a federal general. even then you had different army regions. the main of the south being from Virginia.
people back then weren't Americans yet in the sense we are today.

completely different times, its inappropriate to talk about it using today's society standards and laws on books today.

I thought the people flying the Confederate Flag were meant to be the intolerant ones. It's hilarious watching you fighting to rid yourself of your right to free speech, all in the name of... what exactly?

Ah, yes; the progressive hypocrisy.
On the average they are at least every bit as intolerant, hateful, and violent as those they so vehemently oppose for being.............intolerant, hateful, and violent.

Are you talking about the constitution, or the articles of confederation? Because the articles of confederation proved to be so unworkable with such a weak centralized government that the constitution replaced it. And I have no knowledge of the constitution allowing states to just come and go as they please.
In regard to your example of Russia claiming authority over former military installations in former East Block nations - there is in fact a considerable difference. Those East Block nations had always been separate countries, whereas rebelling American states were just that - American. And while the Kremlin had recognized the breaking away allies from Soviet rule, Washington DC had no reason to recognize American states attempting to break away, as they were always part of this country.
As for states rights being a cause of the war - as you yourself had conceded that the main argument was about slavery as a state right, I think it can be reasonably argued that that reason is simply indefensible on moral grounds.
As for regionalism to the extent of putting state ahead of country - Yes, that was the case, especially in the older states, but that hardly makes it right. In the American far west, where my dad's side of the family has deep roots in, regionalism never really took root because the states and territories were much younger, and comprised of people from all over the country looking for a new place to reinvent themselves. With this came a sense that that they were Americans first and foremost. A big part of that sentiment also was based in the fact that a great many of westerners of the 19th and early 20th centuries - popularly known as the Old west - had lived in more than one state and territory. Case in point: my family on my dad's side had lived in four different states in one lifetime, those being South Dakota, Oregon, California, and finally Washington. Even today in my home state of Washington, it's very, very common for residents here to have been born elsewhere, and came to the Pacific Northwest looking for, as people in old west times, to find someplace better.

Yeah, it's a myth that any state ever encorporated into the USA ever was granted a right of secession.

Even texas never did, though it was given the right to break into 5 states of the united states of america.

How is intolerance of the despicable a sin, or somehow inconsistent with progressive thought?

Said by you, of people whose only 'failing' is to disagree with you.

There is a word for this.

You know what that word is.