States rights vs federalism iirc. salvery was brought in as justification later on to garner popular support.
This is revisionist crap. This claim is repeatedly beaten down throughout the 46 previous pages.
I was taught that the slavery was the revisionist crap, but to each his own.
"To each his own" my ass. There is a truth out there and the evidence points towards it. This isn't something you can just have an opinion on.
I was taught that too, but as it turns out the states, at several points, pretty clearly stated that slavery was the root of the issue, and that they rebelled primarily because their slaves were about to be taken.
States rights vs federalism iirc. salvery was brought in as justification later on to garner popular support.
This is revisionist crap. This claim is repeatedly beaten down throughout the 46 previous pages.
I was taught that the slavery was the revisionist crap, but to each his own.
Where were you taught that slavery was "revisionist crap?" Because that's an interpretation that doesn't get taught in too many places. Especially not in places of higher learning.
Also, I have a tough time writing off these interpretations in a "to each his own" manner because I can see one as being harmful to impressionable people.
1. Who says any of us are fans of the Southern Baptist Convention?
2. The Confederate flag stands for nothing else.
Ok you seriously don't even know what you're talking about. Don't come into forums acting like you're knowledgeable, because you're not. If you read up on ANY history of the Confederate flag, you'd realize it was made for a much different reason, and stood for something completely different than slavery.
Funny how you accuse me of "coming into forums acting like I'm knowledgeable" when I've been engaged with this discussion from page 1, and you are the one who just came waltzing in assuming that we haven't discussed the points you raise. Which we have. Read the thread.
You missed my point completely. A flag or symbol representing something because of the actions of the people using it, isn't the same as it's history and meaning of creation. I'm now done.
This flag represents German pride and proud German men who died for their country, while also symbolizing the sacred attributes of the swastika.
The actions of the people don't matter that used it, I am free to give it my own meaning and I do no wrong if I display it from my flagpole.
I like all the slighted attacks against my schooling and whatnot thrown into your responses. Regardless if my knowledge of the subject is lacking.
I would classify "Slavery is revisionist history" a bit more then lacking on the subject, especially if you hadn't bothered to check anything out later. And this isn't a slighted attack either. If you were taught that slavery didn't actually happen, I'm sorry but in that particular issue, your education sucked monkey balls. And "to each his own" doesn't really apply when we are talking about history. I'm sure there are schools where they teach that Jesus was one of the guys who signed the Declaration of Independence, but that doesn't make it right just because it is your an opinion.
I like all the slighted attacks against my schooling and whatnot thrown into your responses. Regardless if my knowledge of the subject is lacking.
I would classify "Slavery is revisionist history" a bit more then lacking on the subject, especially if you hadn't bothered to check anything out later. And this isn't a slighted attack either. If you were taught that slavery didn't actually happen, I'm sorry but in that particular issue, your education sucked monkey balls. And "to each his own" doesn't really apply when we are talking about history. I'm sure there are schools where they teach that Jesus was one of the guys who signed the Declaration of Independence, but that doesn't make it right just because it is your an opinion.
@ itunes: Fair enough. I'll admit that I didn't take any US history courses in college since I didnt take my core classes before I dropped and entered the workforce. The argument that I was taught was that while slavery was the core of the issue, it was the fact that the states held the right to allow slavery and the federal government stepping in and abolishing it and basically obliterating the southern economy/society forced them to form their own government. slavery was definately an issue, and was the major linchpin of the conflict, but the overarching ideal was more state vs federal.
if im not expressing this right its because im being distracted at work, but i admit that I didnt read the entire thread and this has probably been beaten to death and refuted.
TK-42-1 on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
Yes.
The issue was the states' rights to engage in mass disenfranchisement of a part of the population to benefit a very few wealthy landowners.
Damn gubmint coming in an enforcing the principles of the Declaration of Independence!
Women couldnt vote for 50 more years. thats half the population right there. Regardless of the impact on the individual humans, which I am in no way advocating, it was still an issue of their "right" to act in the way that the majority of franchised citizens wished to act. The same way some states are islamic theocracies even tho they subjugate women and act harshly towards 'sinners.' I don't agree with their ideals, but if the people dont want to live that way they can revolt the same way the south did.
@ itunes: Fair enough. I'll admit that I didn't take any US history courses in college since I didnt take my core classes before I dropped and entered the workforce. The argument that I was taught was that while slavery was the core of the issue, it was the fact that the states held the right to allow slavery and the federal government stepping in and abolishing it and basically obliterating the southern economy/society forced them to form their own government. slavery was definately an issue, and was the major linchpin of the conflict, but the overarching ideal was more state vs federal.
if im not expressing this right its because im being distracted at work, but i admit that I didnt read the entire thread and this has probably been beaten to death and refuted.
To be fair, the harsh response is partially about the vehemence some posters have had defending not only the Confederate flag but the Confederacy itself in this thread. Your description isn't completely wrong (if skewed in a common way, as the federal government didn't intend to shut down slavery in the South, but also didn't intend to let them expand it indefinitely into Free Territories) but the emphasis was placed wrongly. The issue of state's rights was invented after the war as a legalistic explanation of the Confederacy. In reality, the core issue was slavery and a rejection of the idea that all men are created equal. As that's a shitty reason, revisionist history had begun before Reconstruction was even done, and perpetuated by some of the former Confederate leaders. But we still have a great deal of their writings and speeches during the war and their later rationalizations held little sway at the actual time of the war.
@ itunes: Fair enough. I'll admit that I didn't take any US history courses in college since I didnt take my core classes before I dropped and entered the workforce. The argument that I was taught was that while slavery was the core of the issue, it was the fact that the states held the right to allow slavery and the federal government stepping in and abolishing it and basically obliterating the southern economy/society forced them to form their own government. slavery was definately an issue, and was the major linchpin of the conflict, but the overarching ideal was more state vs federal.
if im not expressing this right its because im being distracted at work, but i admit that I didnt read the entire thread and this has probably been beaten to death and refuted.
To be fair, the harsh response is partially about the vehemence some posters have had defending not only the Confederate flag but the Confederacy itself in this thread. Your description isn't completely wrong (if skewed in a common way, as the federal government didn't intend to shut down slavery in the South, but also didn't intend to let them expand it indefinitely into Free Territories) but the emphasis was placed wrongly. The issue of state's rights was invented after the war as a legalistic explanation of the Confederacy. In reality, the core issue was slavery and a rejection of the idea that all men are created equal. As that's a shitty reason, revisionist history had begun before Reconstruction was even done, and perpetuated by some of the former Confederate leaders. But we still have a great deal of their writings and speeches during the war and their later rationalizations held little sway at the actual time of the war.
again, fair enough. I probably shouldnt have wandered into the thread before reading it.
I like all the slighted attacks against my schooling and whatnot thrown into your responses. Regardless if my knowledge of the subject is lacking.
I would classify "Slavery is revisionist history" a bit more then lacking on the subject, especially if you hadn't bothered to check anything out later. And this isn't a slighted attack either. If you were taught that slavery didn't actually happen, I'm sorry but in that particular issue, your education sucked monkey balls. And "to each his own" doesn't really apply when we are talking about history. I'm sure there are schools where they teach that Jesus was one of the guys who signed the Declaration of Independence, but that doesn't make it right just because it is your an opinion.
The issue is also further complicated that people have been flying the flag for 150 years since slavery ended, and regardless of for what reason they did that, people have grown up with it representing everything about their lifestyle since then. For people who did not grow up with it, it has only that historical context. For people who did, it might also have the more current context of their communities.
Not trying to justify its use here, just saying it's understandable that people will have widely differing opinions on what it means. Hell, just the existence of Dukes of Hazard skews it a lot.
The issue is also further complicated that people have been flying the flag for 150 years since slavery ended, and regardless of for what reason they did that, people have grown up with it representing everything about their lifestyle since then. For people who did not grow up with it, it has only that historical context. For people who did, it might also have the more current context of their communities.
Not trying to justify its use here, just saying it's understandable that people will have widely differing opinions on what it means. Hell, just the existence of Dukes of Hazard skews it a lot.
That reminded me of something that happened when I was about 11 or 12. The school my brothers were going to was Robert E Lee High and they had a confederate flag painted on the side of the gym since they were the 'Rebels'. There was apparently a protest against it by the black population of the school and it ended up with a scuffle and they changed it to some kind of red/gray design that had no connection to the previous flag. At the time I didn't understand since to me it was just a flag that was tied into the whole image of the school and it didn't represent slavery to me, just a period of time involving the person the school was named for.
The issue is also further complicated that people have been flying the flag for 150 years since slavery ended, and regardless of for what reason they did that, people have grown up with it representing everything about their lifestyle since then. For people who did not grow up with it, it has only that historical context. For people who did, it might also have the more current context of their communities.
Not trying to justify its use here, just saying it's understandable that people will have widely differing opinions on what it means. Hell, just the existence of Dukes of Hazard skews it a lot.
So it would be fine if people started using it as a flag of surrender and admiting defeat in honor of Lee and the Confederacy?
Women couldnt vote for 50 more years. thats half the population right there. Regardless of the impact on the individual humans, which I am in no way advocating, it was still an issue of their "right" to act in the way that the majority of franchised citizens wished to act. The same way some states are islamic theocracies even tho they subjugate women and act harshly towards 'sinners.' I don't agree with their ideals, but if the people dont want to live that way they can revolt the same way the south did.
hurr?
Revolution and secession are acceptable when you are doing it because the current government are violating your rights.
You don't get to revolt against your government because you want to disenfranchise a segment of your population, because you don't have a right to do so.
You're comparing people who revolted so they could keep black people from having legal rights to people revolting because their religious freedoms are being curtailed. Islamic theocracies don't have the right to effect the restrictions they often do on their people any more than the Confederacy had a right to deprive black people of their rights, and people trying to overthrow such a theocracy are not at all equitable to people trying to overthrow the Union so they can keep slaves.
It's all a matter of context depending on what timeframe you are in. At times in our past theocracies were the law of the land and people that didn't follow were heretics and were punished. So, in our moral perspective it was wrong to persecute them, but from theirs it was the only way.
And the South didnt want to overthrow the Union, they just didn't want to be a part of it anymore, and that was their perogative, regardless of the moral standpoint of the parties involved. But yeah, I've said what I wanted to say in here.
It's all a matter of context depending on what timeframe you are in. At times in our past theocracies were the law of the land and people that didn't follow were heretics and were punished. So, in our moral perspective it was wrong to persecute them, but from theirs it was the only way.
Celebrating the Inquisition would make you look like an asshole, too.
It's all a matter of context depending on what timeframe you are in. At times in our past theocracies were the law of the land and people that didn't follow were heretics and were punished. So, in our moral perspective it was wrong to persecute them, but from theirs it was the only way.
And the South didnt want to overthrow the Union, they just didn't want to be a part of it anymore, and that was their perogative, regardless of the moral standpoint of the parties involved. But yeah, I've said what I wanted to say in here.
Except that during that time there was plenty of abolishing of slavery going on, and not only in America. No matter what way you look at it, they were still racist, backwards and oppressors.
It's all a matter of context depending on what timeframe you are in. At times in our past theocracies were the law of the land and people that didn't follow were heretics and were punished. So, in our moral perspective it was wrong to persecute them, but from theirs it was the only way.
And the South didnt want to overthrow the Union, they just didn't want to be a part of it anymore, and that was their perogative, regardless of the moral standpoint of the parties involved. But yeah, I've said what I wanted to say in here.
A slave state cannot exist next to a free state. That was the big problem. If a slave could run 5 miles and be a free man in the next state, there is no way you could keep slaves. That is why the South pushed through legislation to force free states to return runaway slaves to their owners in the South. The Free States exercised their State Rights to say fuck you to the Slave States and refused to enforce this law. Seeing that the Federal government wouldn't step in and force the Free States' hand to help enforce slavery, they took their ball and went home.
However, this didn't accomplish their wish of having slaves returned to them if they escaped to the North. I'm not sure if anyone knows of any historical plans that the Confederacy had, but it seems likely that they hoped to pressure the Union into some kind of agreement through force.
MalaysianShrew on
Never trust a big butt and a smile.
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
It's all a matter of context depending on what timeframe you are in. At times in our past theocracies were the law of the land and people that didn't follow were heretics and were punished. So, in our moral perspective it was wrong to persecute them, but from theirs it was the only way.
And the South didnt want to overthrow the Union, they just didn't want to be a part of it anymore, and that was their perogative, regardless of the moral standpoint of the parties involved. But yeah, I've said what I wanted to say in here.
Yeah. And they were both wrong.
And yes, the South wanted to overthrow the union in the territory they inhabited. They wanted to opt out of the contract they had ratified so they could continue to justify slavery to themselves. They don't get to do that. The Federal Government shall guarantee a Republican form of government...
Basically what I am saying is that it is legitimate to demand self-determination if you must do so in order to maintain your rights. Whether they thought they had the right to enslave people is irrelevant: they did not and therefore the revolution was illegitimate.
You missed my point completely. A flag or symbol representing something because of the actions of the people using it, isn't the same as it's history and meaning of creation. I'm now done.
This flag represents German pride and proud German men who died for their country, while also symbolizing the sacred attributes of the swastika.
The actions of the people don't matter that used it, I am free to give it my own meaning and I do no wrong if I display it from my flagpole.
I'm now done.
You really shouldn't embed giant swastikas. I'm sure we have some German forumers, and it's still illegal to display that image over there.
JHunz on
Gamertag: JHunz. R.I.P. Mygamercard.net
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited February 2009
I was told by my Toby Keith friend that the only reason he wears something with a Confederate flag is to show that he's a rebel, like James Dean or somesuch.
I say we just don't use it for a hundred years then whip it out and see if it can obtain a new image.
You missed my point completely. A flag or symbol representing something because of the actions of the people using it, isn't the same as it's history and meaning of creation. I'm now done.
This flag represents German pride and proud German men who died for their country, while also symbolizing the sacred attributes of the swastika.
The actions of the people don't matter that used it, I am free to give it my own meaning and I do no wrong if I display it from my flagpole.
I'm now done.
You really shouldn't embed giant swastikas. I'm sure we have some German forumers, and it's still illegal to display that image over there.
Sorry, didn't realize that. I'll go edit it out.
DarkCrawler on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
You missed my point completely. A flag or symbol representing something because of the actions of the people using it, isn't the same as it's history and meaning of creation. I'm now done.
This flag represents German pride and proud German men who died for their country, while also symbolizing the sacred attributes of the swastika.
The actions of the people don't matter that used it, I am free to give it my own meaning and I do no wrong if I display it from my flagpole.
I'm now done.
You really shouldn't embed giant swastikas. I'm sure we have some German forumers, and it's still illegal to display that image over there.
You missed my point completely. A flag or symbol representing something because of the actions of the people using it, isn't the same as it's history and meaning of creation. I'm now done.
This flag represents German pride and proud German men who died for their country, while also symbolizing the sacred attributes of the swastika.
The actions of the people don't matter that used it, I am free to give it my own meaning and I do no wrong if I display it from my flagpole.
I'm now done.
You really shouldn't embed giant swastikas. I'm sure we have some German forumers, and it's still illegal to display that image over there.
I was told by my Toby Keith friend that the only reason he wears something with a Confederate flag is to show that he's a rebel, like James Dean or somesuch.
I like all the slighted attacks against my schooling and whatnot thrown into your responses. Regardless if my knowledge of the subject is lacking.
"Hey, guys, two plus two makes five."
"Uh, no, two plus two equals four."
"Huh. I was taught that two plus two makes five. I guess to each his own."
"Where were you taught that? Because that's not the case."
"Hey, don't be attacking my schooling! My knowledge in the subject is lacking!"
There were atleast 4 posts containing well worded responses explaining why i'm wrong that didn't attempt to belittle me or make some snide remark. Shame you couldnt contain your vitriol.
I was told by my Toby Keith friend that the only reason he wears something with a Confederate flag is to show that he's a rebel, like James Dean or somesuch.
Real rebels wear their own symbols.
I'm rebelling against rebellion by abiding by my work's business casual dress code (except for sneakers).
I like all the slighted attacks against my schooling and whatnot thrown into your responses. Regardless if my knowledge of the subject is lacking.
"Hey, guys, two plus two makes five."
"Uh, no, two plus two equals four."
"Huh. I was taught that two plus two makes five. I guess to each his own."
"Where were you taught that? Because that's not the case."
"Hey, don't be attacking my schooling! My knowledge in the subject is lacking!"
There were atleast 4 posts containing well worded responses explaining why i'm wrong that didn't attempt to belittle me or make some snide remark. Shame you couldnt contain your vitriol.
I was told by my Toby Keith friend that the only reason he wears something with a Confederate flag is to show that he's a rebel, like James Dean or somesuch.
Real rebels wear their own symbols.
I'm rebelling against rebellion by abiding by my work's business casual dress code (except for sneakers).
Reminds me of that Right wing band from the Terrible Tunes thread.
Their website said something like "they are bringing a new kind of rebellion to rock n' roll....it's called Conservatism"
Posts
This is revisionist crap. This claim is repeatedly beaten down throughout the 46 previous pages.
Bullshit.
I was taught that the slavery was the revisionist crap, but to each his own.
So was I. Then again I was taught it as the "War of Northern Aggression" as well.
"To each his own" my ass. There is a truth out there and the evidence points towards it. This isn't something you can just have an opinion on.
I was taught that too, but as it turns out the states, at several points, pretty clearly stated that slavery was the root of the issue, and that they rebelled primarily because their slaves were about to be taken.
Yes, the Fugitive Slave Act was SUCH a state's rights bill. :P
Also, I have a tough time writing off these interpretations in a "to each his own" manner because I can see one as being harmful to impressionable people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crittenden_Compromise#Summary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment
Funny how you accuse me of "coming into forums acting like I'm knowledgeable" when I've been engaged with this discussion from page 1, and you are the one who just came waltzing in assuming that we haven't discussed the points you raise. Which we have. Read the thread.
This flag represents German pride and proud German men who died for their country, while also symbolizing the sacred attributes of the swastika.
The actions of the people don't matter that used it, I am free to give it my own meaning and I do no wrong if I display it from my flagpole.
I'm now done.
Just that I don't normally see that version taught in many schools, and especially not after the high-school level.
I would classify "Slavery is revisionist history" a bit more then lacking on the subject, especially if you hadn't bothered to check anything out later. And this isn't a slighted attack either. If you were taught that slavery didn't actually happen, I'm sorry but in that particular issue, your education sucked monkey balls. And "to each his own" doesn't really apply when we are talking about history. I'm sure there are schools where they teach that Jesus was one of the guys who signed the Declaration of Independence, but that doesn't make it right just because it is your an opinion.
if im not expressing this right its because im being distracted at work, but i admit that I didnt read the entire thread and this has probably been beaten to death and refuted.
The issue was the states' rights to engage in mass disenfranchisement of a part of the population to benefit a very few wealthy landowners.
Damn gubmint coming in an enforcing the principles of the Declaration of Independence!
To be fair, the harsh response is partially about the vehemence some posters have had defending not only the Confederate flag but the Confederacy itself in this thread. Your description isn't completely wrong (if skewed in a common way, as the federal government didn't intend to shut down slavery in the South, but also didn't intend to let them expand it indefinitely into Free Territories) but the emphasis was placed wrongly. The issue of state's rights was invented after the war as a legalistic explanation of the Confederacy. In reality, the core issue was slavery and a rejection of the idea that all men are created equal. As that's a shitty reason, revisionist history had begun before Reconstruction was even done, and perpetuated by some of the former Confederate leaders. But we still have a great deal of their writings and speeches during the war and their later rationalizations held little sway at the actual time of the war.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
again, fair enough. I probably shouldnt have wandered into the thread before reading it.
First time for everything.
Not trying to justify its use here, just saying it's understandable that people will have widely differing opinions on what it means. Hell, just the existence of Dukes of Hazard skews it a lot.
That reminded me of something that happened when I was about 11 or 12. The school my brothers were going to was Robert E Lee High and they had a confederate flag painted on the side of the gym since they were the 'Rebels'. There was apparently a protest against it by the black population of the school and it ended up with a scuffle and they changed it to some kind of red/gray design that had no connection to the previous flag. At the time I didn't understand since to me it was just a flag that was tied into the whole image of the school and it didn't represent slavery to me, just a period of time involving the person the school was named for.
So it would be fine if people started using it as a flag of surrender and admiting defeat in honor of Lee and the Confederacy?
hurr?
Revolution and secession are acceptable when you are doing it because the current government are violating your rights.
You don't get to revolt against your government because you want to disenfranchise a segment of your population, because you don't have a right to do so.
You're comparing people who revolted so they could keep black people from having legal rights to people revolting because their religious freedoms are being curtailed. Islamic theocracies don't have the right to effect the restrictions they often do on their people any more than the Confederacy had a right to deprive black people of their rights, and people trying to overthrow such a theocracy are not at all equitable to people trying to overthrow the Union so they can keep slaves.
And the South didnt want to overthrow the Union, they just didn't want to be a part of it anymore, and that was their perogative, regardless of the moral standpoint of the parties involved. But yeah, I've said what I wanted to say in here.
Except that during that time there was plenty of abolishing of slavery going on, and not only in America. No matter what way you look at it, they were still racist, backwards and oppressors.
A slave state cannot exist next to a free state. That was the big problem. If a slave could run 5 miles and be a free man in the next state, there is no way you could keep slaves. That is why the South pushed through legislation to force free states to return runaway slaves to their owners in the South. The Free States exercised their State Rights to say fuck you to the Slave States and refused to enforce this law. Seeing that the Federal government wouldn't step in and force the Free States' hand to help enforce slavery, they took their ball and went home.
However, this didn't accomplish their wish of having slaves returned to them if they escaped to the North. I'm not sure if anyone knows of any historical plans that the Confederacy had, but it seems likely that they hoped to pressure the Union into some kind of agreement through force.
Yeah. And they were both wrong.
And yes, the South wanted to overthrow the union in the territory they inhabited. They wanted to opt out of the contract they had ratified so they could continue to justify slavery to themselves. They don't get to do that. The Federal Government shall guarantee a Republican form of government...
Basically what I am saying is that it is legitimate to demand self-determination if you must do so in order to maintain your rights. Whether they thought they had the right to enslave people is irrelevant: they did not and therefore the revolution was illegitimate.
I say we just don't use it for a hundred years then whip it out and see if it can obtain a new image.
"Hey, guys, two plus two makes five."
"Uh, no, two plus two equals four."
"Huh. I was taught that two plus two makes five. I guess to each his own."
"Where were you taught that? Because that's not the case."
"Hey, don't be attacking my schooling! My knowledge in the subject is lacking!"
Sorry, didn't realize that. I'll go edit it out.
Wait, I can get Germans in trouble with a jpg?
I'm spamming every German mail address there is!
Springtime, for Hitler, and Germany...
There were atleast 4 posts containing well worded responses explaining why i'm wrong that didn't attempt to belittle me or make some snide remark. Shame you couldnt contain your vitriol.
I'm rebelling against rebellion by abiding by my work's business casual dress code (except for sneakers).
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Oh my god, he called you out. How rude.
Reminds me of that Right wing band from the Terrible Tunes thread.
Their website said something like "they are bringing a new kind of rebellion to rock n' roll....it's called Conservatism"