Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Confederate Heritage

1222325272832

Posts

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Actually I'm describing them attempting to make illegal something that had never been illegal before.
    Plenty of states banned slavery. That is why there were both free states and slave states. What you are saying would make desegregation oppression. It would also make making it illegal to accept bribes oppression. :P

    Couscous on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    It's still oppression when someone tries to force a change in your way of life
    You just described all government. Help, I'm being oppressed because they won't let me steal money from banks.
    Actually I'm describing them attempting to make illegal something that had never been illegal before. Justly oppressed, unjustly oppressed, it doesn't really matter as we can look back on it with an entirely different moral compass.
    I don't really think there's any such thing as "just oppression." I'm fairly sure that, by its very nature, oppression is unjust. I don't really think you can call "sorry, you have to stop owning people" oppression.

    Thanatos on
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    It's still oppression when someone tries to force a change in your way of life

    You just described all government. Help, I'm being oppressed because they won't let me steal money from banks.
    Actually I'm describing them attempting to make illegal something that had never been illegal before. Justly oppressed, unjustly oppressed, it doesn't really matter as we can look back on it with an entirely different moral compass.

    There is no such thing as "justly oppressed." Oppress:"To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority."


    Your coherence goes downhill from there

    edit
    Additionally, one can not "keep down" an aristocracy. One could "repress" such a caste, but the only oppression going on was being done to those actually on the bottom of the social scale. Anyone have a guess what group filled that roll in the Confederacy?

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Justly oppressed
    I love oxymorons too.
    # the state of being kept down by unjust use of force or authority: "after years of oppression they finally revolted"
    # The exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.

    Couscous on
  • Roland_tHTGRoland_tHTG Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »

    You're intentionally distorted the reasons for the Confederacy. Either you're a fucking moron or you're a terrible terrible person or more likely both.

    The United States of America was built on oppressing others, not rebellion from oppression.

    edit(cut huge quote tree)

    the indians think you must have mistyped that part.


    @Wonder_Hippie: of course it is, haven't you watched any movies lately?

    No. The United States of America was built on the concept of "All Men are Created Equal." In the course of the United States history the people the US and the US government did many bad things to Native Americans, but this was not the foundation or justification of the US.

    The Confederacy existed solely because of slavery.

    You know, I was going to reply "Founded on that concept, yes. But it was built on another guys land and taken by force." but by repeatedly reading that the Confederacy existed solely because of slavery has taken the blinds of my eyes and it's all so clear to me now.

    Actually I've got to get off to work and I'm hoping my interest in this thread is gone when I get back.

    Roland_tHTG on
    roland even though you are just living life until ragnarok

    us mortals have to deal
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    GA secession:
    The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government.
    What follows is a ton of bitching about shit that happened during the early part of the USA.

    After that:
    All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.

    The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party from its free enjoyment; therefore our right was good under the Constitution. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the Government from the beginning. Slavery was forbidden in the country northwest of the Ohio River by what is called the ordinance of 1787. That ordinance was adopted under the old confederation and by the assent of Virginia, who owned and ceded the country, and therefore this case must stand on its own special circumstances. The Government of the United States claimed territory by virtue of the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, acquired territory by cession from Georgia and North Carolina, by treaty from France, and by treaty from Spain. These acquisitions largely exceeded the original limits of the Republic. In all of these acquisitions the policy of the Government was uniform. It opened them to the settlement of all the citizens of all the States of the Union. They emigrated thither with their property of every kind (including slaves). All were equally protected by public authority in their persons and property until the inhabitants became sufficiently numerous and otherwise capable of bearing the burdens and performing the duties of self-government, when they were admitted into the Union upon equal terms with the other States, with whatever republican constitution they might adopt for themselves.

    Under this equally just and beneficent policy law and order, stability and progress, peace and prosperity marked every step of the progress of these new communities until they entered as great and prosperous commonwealths into the sisterhood of American States. In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.

    The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

    The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

    With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

    The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

    For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us. We offer the practice of our Government for the first thirty years of its existence in complete refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or proper to the execution of any other power in relation to the Territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people of the North, amounting to more than one-third, who united with the unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and, finally, we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive that we have never surrendered this right. The conduct of our adversaries admonishes us that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it.

    The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.

    A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.

    The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquillity of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations.

    These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them. For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.

    These are the same men who say the Union shall be preserved.

    Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.
    The whole thing is a bunch of paranoid bullshit. The other reasons given, protectionism and the government aiding the business, almost no one thinks is a good reason to rebel either.

    South Carolina:
    The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

    The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

    These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

    We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

    For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

    This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

    On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

    The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

    Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

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

    That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

    The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

    The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

    The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

    It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

    It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

    It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

    It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

    It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

    It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

    It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

    It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

    It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

    It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

    It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

    It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

    It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

    Couscous on
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

    Oh god, I don't know whether to laugh or cry or hit something.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • ElkiElki learned nothing, and forgotten nothing Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2009
    Elki wrote: »
    "That flag" is the most popular symbol of the Confederacy. Does anyone here want to dispute that point?

    I could argue that point, but, as was brought up in a post earlier (that I just don't feel like looking for atm) since I was born and raised IN the south, and you likely weren't, we view things differently and it wouldn't solve a thing, nor would either of us think any differently about the situation anyway.

    I live in the south, but wasn't born here. All my black friends who lived here all their lives don't feel any differently about it than I do, so I won't be buying "you Yankee just don't get it" BS.

    Elki on
    cUDCKQq.jpg
  • ElkiElki learned nothing, and forgotten nothing Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2009
    Who uses the symbol of the ugliest part of their heritage to "show pride" in where they live? What the fuck goes on in your head when you do that?

    Elki on
    cUDCKQq.jpg
  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    They can just up and leave. Hell, 4 years ago the country was awash in people saying they were moving to Canada because they didn't like how an election turned out. A thousand years ago, aside from a small handful, none of the countries that exist today existed. Through wars or disease or natural disaster, countries come and go. Who are you to say this should be stopped, just because you like it how it is?
    This is a good point. The citizens in the south were free to get the fuck out if they wanted. What they weren't allowed to do was take the land and resources of the federal government with them when they left. So yeah... that doesn't really work either.
    You seem to think that people must request, and be granted, the right to resist their government. That's not how it works. Whether right or wrong, when you have exhausted (or believe you've exhausted, or are just tired of trying to exhaust) all legal and peaceful means of resistance but your grievances still exist, your choice is either to accept that you will never succeed, or resist by force. This is all the south did. As such, at the moment they voted for secession, the laws of the country they were seceding from no longer applied to them in their own, new country. The country they were seceding from, of course, thought otherwise.

    The thing is, they were never actually separated from the United States. That's what the war was for, to establish their separation. Once they were brought back into the fold, we would've been within our rights to try the leaders for treason.
    To the Union, they weren't. To themselves, as soon as the articles were signed, they were. The war was because the Union didn't recognize the separation, as it rightly shouldn't have, since under its laws it was illegal. And several CSA leaders were indicted for treason, but blanket immunity was granted and none were ever tried.


    Just as a side note here, the first time there was any ruling, in a legislative or judicial sense, on whether or not secession was legal was in 1869. The secession was neither illegal or legal (as there was no constitutional mechanism for it), but simply a blank area that had never been properly addressed at all. Similarly, the status of ownership of federal property on state land had never been addressed.

    In international law, the general rule has always been that if a plebiscite votes to secede they should be allowed, but that holds no actual teeth.

    Waging a war against the US is properly definable as treason, though, and as all the confederates were US citizens regardless of citizenship of the state or CSA, that could certainly stick.

    Edit: Texas is a special case, though, as a relatively decent argument could be made that Texas was never actually legally annexed at all. As Texas was a seperate nation, annexation according to international law should be done with a treaty of annexation agreed to by both parties. This was never done, congress just passed a bill of annexation the same as would be done for an unclaimed territory, and Texas passed their own bill to be annexed.

    This is important because a treaty of annexation under the laws of the US would require a 2/3 majority in congress, wheras a territorial annexation simply required 50%+1.

    Jealous Deva on
  • valiancevaliance Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Elki wrote: »
    Who uses the symbol of the ugliest part of their heritage to "show pride" in where they live? What the fuck goes on in your head when you do that?

    This. I'm all for not judging people from 1860 by modern standards, but in 2009 we need to be past this.

    comic2-1424.png

    valiance on
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Actually the ownership of slaves was considered abhorent by a great many people in 1860, thats why Abe Lincon and the republican party won the election. The idea that blacks where inferior to whites was however not and has only really changed in the last 50 years.

    Of course judging people who fly the Confederate flag today, by todays values is perfectly all right. You fly a flag used by racists and traitors and guess what? By todays standards you are either Ignorant or racist or both.

    Kipling217 on
    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Actually the ownership of slaves was considered abhorent by a great many people in 1860, thats why Abe Lincon and the republican party won the election. The idea that blacks where inferior to whites was however not and has only really changed in the last 50 years.

    Of course judging people who fly the Confederate flag today, by todays values is perfectly all right. You fly a flag used by racists and traitors and guess what? By todays standards you are either Ignorant or racist or both.
    Abigail Adams was a fucking abolitionist. The anti-slavery movement goes back way farther than the Civil War, and to pretend that the South "couldn't have known any better" is fucking bullshit.

    Thanatos on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Actually the ownership of slaves was considered abhorent by a great many people in 1860, thats why Abe Lincon and the republican party won the election. The idea that blacks where inferior to whites was however not and has only really changed in the last 50 years.

    Of course judging people who fly the Confederate flag today, by todays values is perfectly all right. You fly a flag used by racists and traitors and guess what? By todays standards you are either Ignorant or racist or both.
    Abigail Adams was a fucking abolitionist. The anti-slavery movement goes back way farther than the Civil War, and to pretend that the South "couldn't have known any better" is fucking bullshit.

    Jefferson, Paine, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and Washington were also against slavery.

    Couscous on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Also, there was an expiration date put on the goddamn slave trade in the fucking Constitution. You can't tell me that the Southern states didn't know this was coming down the line when they signed up.

    Thanatos on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    when it came to abolitionism Jefferson was all talk and no walk.
    They say he treated his slaves rather well, though.

    Edit: Sally Hemmings in particular.

    Hachface on
  • valiancevaliance Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    Edit: Sally Hemmings in particular.

    :winky:

    valiance on
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    when it came to abolitionism Jefferson was all talk and no walk.
    John Locke was the same way. Jefferson had a massive intellect but there was always a bit of dilettante about him
    Hachface wrote: »
    They say he treated his slaves rather well, though.

    :winky:

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Jefferson could have been a drunk child raping thief and his magnificent contribution would not be lessened one jot.

    Or one tittle.

    Speaker on
    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • DuffelDuffel jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Abigail Adams was a fucking abolitionist. The anti-slavery movement goes back way farther than the Civil War, and to pretend that the South "couldn't have known any better" is fucking bullshit.
    There's an abolitionist movement anywhere slavery exists.

    However, I think you're underestimating the power of received cultural knowledge. If any of us on this board had been born as a white southerner in the first half of the nineteenth century we would have likely had the exact same views everyone else had in that time and place - the same way that we, today, believe that all people are inherently equal and deserving of the same human rights. We believe these things because they have been taught to us. It's no more natural for a human to believe in racial equality than it is for them to believe in inequality. For that matter, even categories like "white" and "black" are entirely cultural. In Africa, where everyone would be considered "black" by US standards, they have their own ethnic subcategories, which often clash violently on ethnic differences - the same way different 'races' of whites clashed violently in europe since about 8,000 BC or so.

    This is not to say, of course, that maltreatment of slaves was in any way permissable, or that the Union was unjustified in attempting to end this system. But in an agricultural society, mostly illiterate, where the average person might have travelled 30 miles away from their home in their lifetime, it was probably impossible for those people to have enlightened views on race because somebody who lives 1200 miles away has already figured it out.

    Duffel on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Jefferson liked eating and the idiotic lifestyle he and most stupid planters had.

    There is a difference between thinking that blacks are inferior to whites and thinking that slavery is moral. You don't need to believe they are equal to think "Oh shit, we are enslaving people." As for education, pretty much all of the planers who owned most of the slaves were well educated.

    Couscous on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    From the very start, American slaveholders were well aware of the contradiction between chattel slavery and the founding notions of liberty and equality. That's why so many southern states were reluctant to join the revolution, and why the northern states had to bend over backwards to please them when the new nation was being formed. The South was always afraid of abolition because they were aware of how repugnant many, many people found it.

    Hachface on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Last I checked the constitution was originally written with a slavery ban, but they pulled it out in order to ensure the cooperation of the slave-holding regions.


    http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_ccon.html#slavery
    The problem of slavery

    There is no gentle way to put it. The enslavement of blacks in America was of great concern to the men at the convention. Some genuinely felt that the black man was as much "man" as the white man. But this was a minority view. Southern delegates had one thing in mind when it came to slavery: to keep it going to prop up the Southern economy. Indeed, many of the largest slave holders in the United States were at the Convention. Most Northern delegates did not like slavery, but that does not mean they cared for blacks either. Many felt that the larger the black populations in the South grew, the larger the threat that that population would revolt against their masters and march north to exact revenge on the people who bought the goods they had been driven to tend.

    For some, slavery itself was at least tolerable, but the slave trade, the importation of new people from Africa, was deplorable. Some felt it was deplorable because trafficking in human lives is simply deplorable. Others felt it deplorable because it diminished the value of their surplus slaves in the slave market.

    First we will address the capitation (counting) of slaves in the Constitution. On June 11, Roger Sherman suggested that representation be based on a count of all free men. The South wanted their slaves counted as whole persons, but that would never happen. James Wilson wanted to get the issue out of the way quickly, and asked the Convention to adopt the same standard as that in the Articles: slaves would count as three-fifths persons. This issue would rise again on July 9, when some began to realize that the South could increase their representation in the Congress by simply importing new slaves. Recall, too, that everyone expected the extreme Southern states to grow in white population as well, over the next few decades. The notion was frightening to many from the North, and Northern states banded together on July 11 to completely remove slaves from the population counts.

    In the end, both side got something they wanted. Through what some have theorized was a complicated bargain between Northern and Southern delegates to the Convention and Northern and Southern representatives to the Congress, taxation and representation were tied together (the Congress comes into the story, because on July 12, the day after the compromise was reached, the Northwest Ordinance was passed, detailing the carving up of the north western wilderness of North America, and granting the South fugitive slave rules). The deal allowed the South to keep the three-fifths count for representation that had been used under the Articles for calculation of state levies, as long as they also had a three-fifths count for calculation of taxes.

    As for the slave trade, for quite some time in the Convention, it was debated hotly. The states of the deep south wanted it maintained; the North and the middle south was opposed. But alliances between states kept some of the Northern states voting with the deep south, and any prohibition in new slave imports or import taxes were defeated. As the Convention progressed, though, it became clear to the South and her allies that some compromise would be needed. In exchange for a prohibition on export taxes, the South agreed to allowing the slave trade to continue for just 20 more years, and for imported slaves to be taxable. As a side note, the very day that the slave trade could constitutionally be prohibited, it was: on January 1, 1808.


    --

    As for "lol you'd have been a slaver lol" that's frankly a useless argument, as 1) we wouldn't be the same people, 2) you really don't fucking know, considering there are people who are defending the Confederacy in the year 200-fucking-9, some of us may very well be chemically inclined to hate this shit, 3) it doesn't mean a goddamn thing, 90% of everything is crap, and that includes the entire human species for its entire history. The Founding Fathers were a bunch of shitbags. WE may in fact be shitbags but are not aware of it due to our perspective.

    Incenjucar on
    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Matthasaproblem, how about you stop dodging this one?

    If I, would tomorrow go and put the following flag into the flagpole outside, and said that it symbolizes pride in my German heritage (which I don't have, but let's assume for the purposes of this discussion that I have), it would be completely okay.

    180px-Flag_of_Germany_1933.svg.png

    When my Jewish neighbors would complain about it, I would simply say that I have the right to display any symbol I want. Also that I'm not racist, I simply feel that this symbol is the best in describing my German Pride.

    According to you, I wouldn't be either

    A) Anti-semite
    B) Racist
    C) Ignorant
    D) Asshole

    Am I correct?

    DarkCrawler on
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against the Irish) Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Getting a different perspective can be a truly fascinating experience on your own country's history. The section in Japanese middle school history books that talked about the American revolution was very interesting, as it stated one of the points of the Declaration of Independence was to show the European powers that the colonies actually meant business, and if they came to our aid they wouldn't be stuck in the awkward situation of the war ending with them having sided against Britain and the colonies, although having flexed their muscles, still being a part of it. That's not an interpretation I was ever exposed to in my textbooks growing up.

    I never saw the civil war mentioned, although in retrospect, I bet it would be fascinating to see how it's treated, but in the school library I did stumble across a book that had the biography of Jesus, Nichirin, Ghandi, and Lincoln. That was interesting, but for a whole different reason than perspective.
    julypics001.jpg
    julypics004.jpg
    julypics002.jpg
    Boom baby!
    julypics003.jpg

    Gabriel_Pitt on
    squigsig_zpsyo1fqhao.jpg
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Hahaha. :lol:

    Oh, Japan.

    DarkCrawler on
  • FCDFCD Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I love that they give Wilkes Booth a knife as well. Just to make sure he finishes the job. :lol:

    FCD on
    "If anyone tried to steal your WAX LIPS, you would eat their eyeballs and deliver an angry lecture into their empty sockets." Hearts Boxcars, The Midnight Crew
  • RingoRingo Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Elki wrote: »
    Who uses the symbol of the ugliest part of their heritage to "show pride" in where they live? What the fuck goes on in your head when you do that?
    It's the only symbol that's ever represented the South as a whole. If it didn't have such negative connotations it would be everywhere in the southern states. I'm still not sure what it is, if anything I'd have to put my money on collective loathing for Yankees and their discourteous ways, but there is a very cohesive pride in southern life, and a great desire to show that you adhere to it.

    If we were buddhists we'd all shave our heads.

    Ringo on
    ceres wrote: »
    I'm just going to go ahead and lock this thread before I feel any worse about humanity.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG now featured at the Exigency Forum
  • ElkiElki learned nothing, and forgotten nothing Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2009
    Ringo wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Who uses the symbol of the ugliest part of their heritage to "show pride" in where they live? What the fuck goes on in your head when you do that?
    It's the only symbol that's ever represented the South as a whole. If it didn't have such negative connotations it would be everywhere in the southern states. I'm still not sure what it is, if anything I'd have to put my money on collective loathing for Yankees and their discourteous ways, but there is a very cohesive pride in southern life, and a great desire to show that you adhere to it.

    If we were buddhists we'd all shave our heads.

    Do black southerners count?

    Elki on
    cUDCKQq.jpg
  • RingoRingo Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I've seen black southerners fly the Confederate flag, so I'm gonna say yes?

    Ringo on
    ceres wrote: »
    I'm just going to go ahead and lock this thread before I feel any worse about humanity.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG now featured at the Exigency Forum
  • ElkiElki learned nothing, and forgotten nothing Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2009
    Well, I don't know what to say to that.

    Elki on
    cUDCKQq.jpg
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Ringo wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Who uses the symbol of the ugliest part of their heritage to "show pride" in where they live? What the fuck goes on in your head when you do that?
    It's the only symbol that's ever represented the South as a whole. If it didn't have such negative connotations it would be everywhere in the southern states. I'm still not sure what it is, if anything I'd have to put my money on collective loathing for Yankees and their discourteous ways, but there is a very cohesive pride in southern life, and a great desire to show that you adhere to it.

    If we were buddhists we'd all shave our heads.

    The Bonnie Blue Flag doesn't count?

    DarkCrawler on
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User
    edited February 2009
    Ringo wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Who uses the symbol of the ugliest part of their heritage to "show pride" in where they live? What the fuck goes on in your head when you do that?
    It's the only symbol that's ever represented the South as a whole. If it didn't have such negative connotations it would be everywhere in the southern states. I'm still not sure what it is, if anything I'd have to put my money on collective loathing for Yankees and their discourteous ways, but there is a very cohesive pride in southern life, and a great desire to show that you adhere to it.

    If we were buddhists we'd all shave our heads.

    Here's your problem. You're thinking of "the South" as one cohesive unit. Why? Why isn't Virginia more closely associated with Maryland than Georgia? Or West Virginia, for that matter? Why is Tennessee a "Southern" state, while Kentucky is an "Appalachian" state? Why is Texas part of "the South" where New Mexico isn't?

    Geographically, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You've got places that actually get pretty cold in the winter grouped in with Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana. Nor does it make sense economically or politically. The South includes heavily forested states, states with plains, states with a rural, agriculture-based economy, states with urban populations and trade and tourism based economies, rich states, poor states, etc. It only makes sense in one context - slavery and the Civil War. That's where you draw the lines. That's what defines you.

    It's not regional pride - it's Confederate pride.

    Maybe lots of people don't think of it that way, but just ask them where they think the South begins and ends, and why it's deserving of recognition as a coherent geographical unit. It all comes back to the Confederacy.

    Matrijs on
  • RingoRingo Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I'm not quite sure what you want me to do about that? Yes, you're right - it all comes back to the Confederacy and the shared heritage all the former slave states hold together. Which is why I said that I would guess the strongest tie between the varying states and regions is a general dislike for our northern brethren and their way of life. Of course, your whole geographic reasoning doesn't mean a damn thing. The state of North Carolina has both the Appalachians and beach front property with the piedmont in between, yet this doesn't stop them from saying in any part of the state that the sky is Carolina Blue.

    Ringo on
    ceres wrote: »
    I'm just going to go ahead and lock this thread before I feel any worse about humanity.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG now featured at the Exigency Forum
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Ringo wrote: »
    Which is why I said that I would guess the strongest tie between the varying states and regions is a general dislike for our northern brethren and their way of life.
    The North's "way of life"?

    To me, that continues to sound like "we, 'The South', by which I mean the states in the CSA, are still pissed that the Union wouldn't allow us to keep using black people as farm equipment. abloo abloo abloo. Of course we're going to be dicks to the north, they oppressed us by out-voting us!"

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • ElitistbElitistb Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Although not really "southern" per se, I live in Oklahoma.

    And I can say I'm not proud of Oklahomans. I've lived here all my life, but man these people are a bunch of backward fucks a lot of the time.

    Elitistb on
    steam_sig.png
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Ringo wrote: »
    I've seen black southerners fly the Confederate flag, so I'm gonna say yes?

    Was it the real flag, or the recolored one?
    nusouthshirt1.gif

    Though there is this guy: http://www.ashevilletribune.com/archives/blackleader.htm

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Ringo wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Who uses the symbol of the ugliest part of their heritage to "show pride" in where they live? What the fuck goes on in your head when you do that?
    It's the only symbol that's ever represented the South as a whole. If it didn't have such negative connotations it would be everywhere in the southern states. I'm still not sure what it is, if anything I'd have to put my money on collective loathing for Yankees and their discourteous ways, but there is a very cohesive pride in southern life, and a great desire to show that you adhere to it.

    If we were buddhists we'd all shave our heads.

    It's funny, no other part of the country requires a flag. What is it about the South that requires a specific heritage?

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Ringo wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Who uses the symbol of the ugliest part of their heritage to "show pride" in where they live? What the fuck goes on in your head when you do that?
    It's the only symbol that's ever represented the South as a whole. If it didn't have such negative connotations it would be everywhere in the southern states. I'm still not sure what it is, if anything I'd have to put my money on collective loathing for Yankees and their discourteous ways, but there is a very cohesive pride in southern life, and a great desire to show that you adhere to it.

    If we were buddhists we'd all shave our heads.

    It's funny, no other part of the country requires a flag. What is it about the South that requires a specific heritage?

    A history of general antipathy towards non-whites?

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    man i don't give a fuck who seceded from who. you don't fly the rebel flag in 2009 and get off scott free from the consequences of doing so

    it's a racist symbol

    MikeMan on
    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
Sign In or Register to comment.