Remake The Confederate Flag

[Mott the Hoople]

1) The cause of the Civil War was the CSA attack on Ft Sumter.

2) Yes, the Civil War is incorrectly named, since the south was not attempting to take control of DC.

As for secession, which is a related event, but still a separate one:

3) States rights were never a question. The south was not being threatened with overt, immediate abolition. In fact, Congress was passing though a proposed amendment which would have guaranteed slavery's legality in the existing slave states. This did not satisfy the south, however, because of the belief that slavery needed to spread or it would die. The amendment also couldn't prevent a long-term outcome of the west being settled free, and forming a 3/4 majority coalition to one day abolish slavery was offensive to the south.

4) Then and now, no one has ever really been able to explain what matters the federal government was cutting into, and preventing the states from managing. Back then, the federal government did very little, and it remained that way for decades after the war.

Exactly and then there's the little fact that the seceding States specifically list the threat of the abolition of slavery as their primary reason for seceding in their respective articles of secession.

Any argument that the Civil War was not started by the Southern States, that slavery was not the primary cause and that it was not an act of treason are irrational arguments that ignore the cold hard facts.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Well lets see...an army of traitors attacked the United States. Killed American soldiers and civilians and destroyed their property so they could keep another people enslaved. Again, your rationalizing. They were both traitors to their nation and an enemy army that had to be subdued by force of arms. Those are facts. Not opinions or rationalizations. It amazes me the disconnect that to this day Southerners cannot equate what their ancestors did as either grossly immoral (and slavery was a hideous crime against humanity) or treason. It was, factually, both. Own it.

So do you think that the deaths of over 700,000 was worth it? It is not as if slavery was really abolished, the Jim Crow laws were slavery in all but name anyway.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Are you also for a redesign of the American Flag also; because slavery existed under it, for way longer then any Southern flag.

What? You don't like the Hello Kitty Battle Flag?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

And you seem to be laboring under the pretense that the residents of the Northern States weren't racists.

Only Catholics.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

LOL

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Oh that's even better. I'll have to show this to my niece! It's the "Hello Kitty, Gay Pride Southern Battle Flag". Who could possibly be offended by this?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

So do you think that the deaths of over 700,000 was worth it? It is not as if slavery was really abolished, the Jim Crow laws were slavery in all but name anyway.

That's a rhetorical question Tom but to answer your question slavery in the South was not truly eliminated until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with WWII being the primary cause of the death of Jim Crow. African Americans came back from service in WWII fighting the Nazi's and Imperial Japan only to find that they were little more than slaves in the South under Jim Crow law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is also the primary event that caused the dissolution of the "Solid South" Democratic Constituency to leave the Democratic party to switch whole sale to the Republican party when Nixon, then Reagan appealed overtly to their racist beliefs.

 

[cancel2 2022]

That's a rhetorical question Tom but to answer your question slavery in the South was not truly eliminated until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with WWII being the primary cause of the death of Jim Crow. African Americans came back from service in WWII fighting the Nazi's and Imperial Japan only to find that they were little more than slaves in the South under Jim Crow law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is also the primary event that caused the dissolution of the "Solid South" Democratic Constituency to leave the Democratic party to switch whole sale to the Republican party when Nixon, then Reagan appealed overtly to their racist beliefs.

That is a non answer, I know the history well enough. I just want to know if you feel that the loss of so many lives and the hatred that it engendered even now, was worth the exceedingly small gains for black emancipation. My view is that the South should have been allowed to secede.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That is a non answer, I know the history well enough. I just want to know if you feel that the loss of so many lives and the hatred that it engendered even now, was worth the exceedingly small gains for black emancipation. My view is that the South should have been allowed to secede.

It's a non-answer because the question is a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious.

Yes it was worth it. We are a great nation, a world power and have a very high standard of living and Blacks are far better off now, including in the South, than they were during the Jim Crow era and immeasurably better off then when enslaved.

We often joke that we should have permitted the South to secede because it was then, as it is now, a lead anchor around this nations neck, as well as, an economic, intellectual and cultural backwater (with the exception of Texas which was jack booted into modernity by the discovery of oil there).

That however was not a practical option for several reasons.

#1. The Southern States had a moral and ethical obligation to a sacred covenant in which they were a signatory and that they betrayed. The United States had a right to enforce that covenant.
#2. The U.S. people, both collectively and as individuals had property rights that we're violated when the Southern States seceded. The U.S. had a right to protect those property rights.
#3. Most importantly though is that if we had permitted secession than the European powers would have attempted to do what they were doing elsewhere during the colonial era of the 19th century. Primarily Great Britain due to it's need for U.S. cotton for its textile industry would have played their "Divide and Conquer" game to assure a favorable market for the cotton produced by those States. The Southern Confederacy, due to it's own inability to govern affectively as a "Confederacy" would have dissolved into a bunch of small, banana republic (or should I say cotton republic) third world States that would have been just ripe for European colonialization which would have happened except that the U.S. Northern States would have never permitted it. It would have meant war with the European Colonial powers, primarily Great Britain and though that would have cost the U.S. dearly, it was not a war that Great Britain could have won.

Of course Lincoln, his cabinet and Congress were perfectly aware that to permit secession would be to invite invasion of the South by the European colonial powers. So it was thus never a consideration.

So the reality is that the South has always been our semi-retarded little brother that we are forced to take care of at great cost. However letting them go so that they could become a chaotic, anarchic, third world, libertarian paradise in our own backyard would present an even greater cost. So there you have it.

 

[Norah]

Well lets see...an army of traitors attacked the United States. Killed American soldiers and civilians and destroyed their property so they could keep another people enslaved. Again, your rationalizing. They were both traitors to their nation and an enemy army that had to be subdued by force of arms. Those are facts. Not opinions or rationalizations. It amazes me the disconnect that to this day Southerners cannot equate what their ancestors did as either grossly immoral (and slavery was a hideous crime against humanity) or treason. It was, factually, both. Own it.

Actually I would argue that they were doing what is expected of them as Americans, based on our own declaration of independence, if they felt that the federal government was abusing or harming them. To say or imply that there was no provocation from the US government before the South Carolina militia attacked Fort Sumter would be wrong in my opinion. When it comes to slavery I dont deny that it existed and that it was important to the economy and culture of the southern states. Slavery is and was clearly wrong, but during that time it would have been catastrophic to nearly all of the southern states to have slavery abolished which in many of their minds would have made them second class citizens to the wealthier north. I dont know what could have happened to have avoided the war or to make slavery less impactful to the southern economy but at that time it was just different and I dont think we should ignore the tensions that already existed between the two cultures of the north and the south at that time. It was literally like two countries under one flag prior to the war. Again though, slavery is and was wrong and it's a part of our history that we cant change, but that doesn't mean that the rest of our states history has to be a shame all or nothing mentality.

 

[cancel2 2022]

It's a non-answer because the question is a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious.

Yes it was worth it. We are a great nation, a world power and have a very high standard of living and Blacks are far better off now, including in the South, than they were during the Jim Crow era and immeasurably better off then when enslaved.

We often joke that we should have permitted the South to secede because it was then, as it is now, a lead anchor around this nations neck, as well as, an economic, intellectual and cultural backwater (with the exception of Texas which was jack booted into modernity by the discovery of oil there).

That however was not a practical option for several reasons.

#1. The Southern States had a moral and ethical obligation to a sacred covenant in which they were a signatory and that they betrayed. The United States had a right to enforce that covenant.
#2. The U.S. people, both collectively and as individuals had property rights that we're violated when the Southern States seceded. The U.S. had a right to protect those property rights.
#3. Most importantly though is that if we had permitted secession than the European powers would have attempted to do what they were doing elsewhere during the colonial era of the 19th century. Primarily Great Britain due to it's need for U.S. cotton for its textile industry would have played their "Divide and Conquer" game to assure a favorable market for the cotton produced by those States. The Southern Confederacy, due to it's own inability to govern affectively as a "Confederacy" would have dissolved into a bunch of small, banana republic (or should I say cotton republic) third world States that would have been just ripe for European colonialization which would have happened except that the U.S. Northern States would have never permitted it. It would have meant war with the European Colonial powers, primarily Great Britain and though that would have cost the U.S. dearly, it was not a war that Great Britain could have won.

Of course Lincoln, his cabinet and Congress were perfectly aware that to permit secession would be to invite invasion of the South by the European colonial powers. So it was thus never a consideration.

So the reality is that the South has always been our semi-retarded little brother that we are forced to take care of at great cost. However letting them go so that they could become a chaotic, anarchic, third world, libertarian paradise in our own backyard would present an even greater cost. So there you have it.

Yes it is perfectly possible the South would have formed an alliance with us, I don't see that as a bad thing at all. The South being dependent on cotton exports would have been forced to abandon slavery by the Brits.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Yes it is perfectly possible the South would have formed an alliance with us, I don't see that as a bad thing at all. The South being dependent on cotton exports would have been forced to abandon slavery by the Brits.

Yes and be a backward undeveloped third world shit hole administered by the Crown to this day. The Northern States wouldn't have permitted it.

 

[Darth Omar]

That is a non answer, I know the history well enough. I just want to know if you feel that the loss of so many lives and the hatred that it engendered even now, was worth the exceedingly small gains for black emancipation. My view is that the South should have been allowed to secede.

That's an interesting thought. My guess is slavery would have eventually petered out without the war. The institution wasn't all that popular even in the south and only managed to exist because the slave owners held most of the money; and hence, most of the political power. There wasn't much in the way of manufacturing in the south so most people, black and white, were poor.

What's ironic, most of the current racial tension exists in the northern urban areas even though the north won the Civil War.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Yes and be a backward undeveloped third world shit hole administered by the Crown to this day. The Northern States wouldn't have permitted it.

Yes because of course that is what happened to Canada and Australia. The North was so civilised that they decimated the Indian nations using the US army as a proxy for the railway barons. You are letting prejudice control how you view the South, I maintain that the Brits would have built the infrastructure needed like they did in Australia, Canada, South Africa and India to name a few.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Actually I would argue that they were doing what is expected of them as Americans, based on our own declaration of independence, if they felt that the federal government was abusing or harming them. To say or imply that there was no provocation from the US government before the South Carolina militia attacked Fort Sumter would be wrong in my opinion. When it comes to slavery I dont deny that it existed and that it was important to the economy and culture of the southern states. Slavery is and was clearly wrong, but during that time it would have been catastrophic to nearly all of the southern states to have slavery abolished which in many of their minds would have made them second class citizens to the wealthier north. I dont know what could have happened to have avoided the war or to make slavery less impactful to the southern economy but at that time it was just different and I dont think we should ignore the tensions that already existed between the two cultures of the north and the south at that time. It was literally like two countries under one flag prior to the war. Again though, slavery is and was wrong and it's a part of our history that we cant change, but that doesn't mean that the rest of our states history has to be a shame all or nothing mentality.

What was that provocation? The Southern States new that if that slavery was only permitted to the States only in which it currently existed and was prohibited from spreading to the territories that this peculiar institution would die on the vine. When you consider that the vast majority of Southern GDP was invested in human property the elimination of slavery in the Southern States would have been the greatest transfer of wealth in human history at that time. Those who had their wealth invested in slavery were not going to give that up without a fight even though that institution was the primary cause of the South's lack of economic development. So you are correct that the South would not have given this up without a fight and fight they did for an immoral cause that they were doomed to lose. To preserve an archaic institution that was the primary cause of the South economic plight and it's undeveloped, third world agrarian economy was unconscionable and only really represented the interest of the wealthy Plantation/land owner aristocracy of the South. It certainly didn't represent the best interest economically, culturally or politically of the vast majority of those who lived in the South.

So what was a viable solution to the problem? It was the one that Lincoln proposed. Lincoln's proposal was to have the Government (i.e. the U.S. Tax Payers) pay them fair market value for their property (i.e. slaves). The total cost of Lincoln's proposition would have cost about 2 to 3 months of war expenditures of the North. The Plantation/Landowner aristocracy virulently opposed this as they new it meant the end of the Southern Plantation Cotton aristocracy and the economic and political stranglehold they had on the South. It was one of the greatest short sighted mistakes ever made by a society in human history that cost this nation an incalculable amount in blood and treasure. So to rationalize the South's treason based on protecting a dying socio-economic system is a flawed arguments as viable solutions were available that would have prevented the bloodshed. Instead the South chose war as their means of preserving slavery. That choice assured the immediate end of the Southern Plantation system instead of its eventual demise.

 

[Damocles]

Oh that's even better. I'll have to show this to my niece! It's the "Hello Kitty, Gay Pride Southern Battle Flag". Who could possibly be offended by this?

Kanye?

 

[Minister of Truth]

Actually I would argue that they were doing what is expected of them as Americans, based on our own declaration of independence, if they felt that the federal government was abusing or harming them. To say or imply that there was no provocation from the US government before the South Carolina militia attacked Fort Sumter would be wrong in my opinion. When it comes to slavery I dont deny that it existed and that it was important to the economy and culture of the southern states. Slavery is and was clearly wrong, but during that time it would have been catastrophic to nearly all of the southern states to have slavery abolished which in many of their minds would have made them second class citizens to the wealthier north. I dont know what could have happened to have avoided the war or to make slavery less impactful to the southern economy but at that time it was just different and I dont think we should ignore the tensions that already existed between the two cultures of the north and the south at that time. It was literally like two countries under one flag prior to the war. Again though, slavery is and was wrong and it's a part of our history that we cant change, but that doesn't mean that the rest of our states history has to be a shame all or nothing mentality.

Slavery was never going to be abolished in the short-term, except by secession and war. That seems to be the fact that modern apologists forget when they look back at the world of 1860. The North was conceding slavery in the short-term in order to appease the south. What modern people also don't understand is that the legality of slavery was never enough - the south refused to be talked to about the future of slavery and found the subject of abolition morally offensive. They also believed that slavery would collapse if it couldn't spread west. That is really why they moved for secession. Having it protected for the succeeding few decades was not the problem.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Slavery was never going to be abolished in the short-term, except by secession and war. That seems to be the fact that modern apologists forget when they look back at the world of 1860. The North was conceding slavery in the short-term in order to appease the south. What modern people also don't understand is that the legality of slavery was never enough - the south refused to be talked to about the future of slavery and found the subject of abolition morally offensive. They also believed that slavery would collapse if it couldn't spread west. That is really why they moved for secession. Having it protected for the succeeding few decades was not the problem.

Talking about slaves, did you think that the Chinese in California building the railways were free men? I was given to understand that they were indentured slaves for the most part. Did the British use slaves in Canada?

 

[Rune]

Look, I understand what it means to be proud of where you're from. Unfortunately in the South their flag is a symbol of the worst elements of their culture. Gap tooth racist yokels. So my niece, who is into photo shop, designed a new Confederate flag that both white liberals and racial minorities can accept and that good ole boy Bubba's can fly in pride with out being pegged as gap toothed racist yokel.

View attachment 2751

So what do you think?

Retard of the month next month?

 

[Rune]

Talking about slaves, did you think that the Chinese in California building the railways were free men? I was given to understand that they were indentured slaves for the most part. Did the British use slaves in Canada?

Not so much.
Irish and others were also persecuted and murdered by both private coal and railroad dicks in collusion with government forces. Later, private corparate dicks continued to abuse labor union members.