The Confederate battle flag

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

The French and the English had slaves before that so I am sure we can draw parallels.

It's a distraction and a weak attempt at justification.

Let's stay with the original question of what does the CSA flag represent.......

No how about we discuss WHY it represents what you claim it does. That's what I've been trying to accomplish.

It represents what we say it does because it represents the people who made it and their reasons for needing a new flag. Slavers, who seceded for slavery. Cut and fucking dry.
Edit: okay, a smidge more complex than that. But it's the same general idea.

[The Black Forrest]

The French and the English had slaves before that so I am sure we can draw parallels.

It's a distraction and a weak attempt at justification.

Let's stay with the original question of what does the CSA flag represent.......

No how about we discuss WHY it represents what you claim it does. That's what I've been trying to accomplish.

Great. Start at page one and read your way here. Your arguments have been made and addressed several times.

[Ucropi]

No how about we discuss WHY it represents what you claim it does. That's what I've been trying to accomplish.

It represents what we say it does because it represents the people who made it and their reasons for needing a new flag. Slavers, who seceded for slavery. Cut and fucking dry.

How is the CSA seceding for slavery different than America seceding less than a decade after Britain found slavery to be unlawful? and was planning to expand this decision to the rest of the commonwealth?

[Farnhamia]

Once more, the topic is the Confederate battle flag and what it stands for. The topic is not the American Revolution and its origins.

The topic is locked for a short time for this to be seen by everyone.

Stop saying it is irrelevant. The similarities have been explained. Come up with a response. You are simply not helping anything with your denial of a valid point.

The Revolution was not about slavery. I think it would have been mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, for one thing. The Revolution arose from the Colonists not having the political remedies they felt they should have, and feeling as if they were second-class, disenfranchised citizens. The southerners were under no such burden, they had considerable power in Congress, enough power, I think, to have made Abraham Lincoln a one-term president simply by stonewalling any legislation he tried to propose. Additionally, the case of Lemmon v. New York would quite probably have dismantled all the northern anti-slavery laws, delivering the whole country to the supporters of slavery on a platter, had it gone to the Supreme Court (the Taney Court, which had given us the Dred Scott decision in 1857). The men of 1776 had nothing equal to the abilities the men of 1860 had.

That's why.

[Ucropi]

No how about we discuss WHY it represents what you claim it does. That's what I've been trying to accomplish.

Great. Start at page one and read your way here. Your arguments have been made and addressed several times.

If all arguments have been addressed why are people still debating it?

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

It represents what we say it does because it represents the people who made it and their reasons for needing a new flag. Slavers, who seceded for slavery. Cut and fucking dry.

How is the CSA seceding for slavery different than America seceding less than a decade after Britain found slavery to be unlawful? and was planning to expand this decision to the rest of the commonwealth?

Because the US had actual legitimate grievances at the time about not being represented in parliament, while the South was in fact OVER-represented in congress thanks to the 3/5ths clause and therefore the two cases aren't relatable. A good percentage of the founding fathers predicted that slavery would eventually lead to conflict if it was allowed to continue, the South's leadership started that conflict.

[Lininiel]

Great. Start at page one and read your way here. Your arguments have been made and addressed several times.

If all arguments have been addressed why are people still debating it?

Because no one wants to admit they are wrong. To themselves, they are right and therefore should not listen to another view.

[Ucropi]

Stop saying it is irrelevant. The similarities have been explained. Come up with a response. You are simply not helping anything with your denial of a valid point.

The Revolution was not about slavery. I think it would have been mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, for one thing. The Revolution arose from the Colonists not having the political remedies they felt they should have, and feeling as if they were second-class, disenfranchised citizens. The southerners were under no such burden, they had considerable power in Congress, enough power, I think, to have made Abraham Lincoln a one-term president simply by stonewalling any legislation he tried to propose. Additionally, the case of Lemmon v. New York would quite probably have dismantled all the northern anti-slavery laws, delivering the whole country to the supporters of slavery on a platter, had it gone to the Supreme Court (the Taney Court, which had given us the Dred Scott decision in 1857). The men of 1776 had nothing equal to the abilities the men of 1860 had.

That's why.

Revolution isn't the topic. Please only tell us why you believe what you believe.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

Great. Start at page one and read your way here. Your arguments have been made and addressed several times.

If all arguments have been addressed why are people still debating it?

Because of people like you who keep restarting the argument.

[The Black Forrest]

Great. Start at page one and read your way here. Your arguments have been made and addressed several times.

If all arguments have been addressed why are people still debating it?

Because someone new comes along and recycles the arguments. Those that won't believe jump in and repeat.

It is the way of NSG youngling.

[Ucropi]

How is the CSA seceding for slavery different than America seceding less than a decade after Britain found slavery to be unlawful? and was planning to expand this decision to the rest of the commonwealth?

Because the US had actual legitimate grievances at the time about not being represented in parliament, while the South was in fact OVER-represented in congress thanks to the 3/5ths clause and therefore the two cases aren't relatable. A good percentage of the founding fathers predicted that slavery would eventually lead to conflict if it was allowed to continue, the South's leadership started that conflict.

You would have thought the founding fathers would have stopped slavery then

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

Because the US had actual legitimate grievances at the time about not being represented in parliament, while the South was in fact OVER-represented in congress thanks to the 3/5ths clause and therefore the two cases aren't relatable. A good percentage of the founding fathers predicted that slavery would eventually lead to conflict if it was allowed to continue, the South's leadership started that conflict.

You would have thought the founding fathers would have stopped slavery then

It's almost like the slaveholders would've tried to secede and/or go to war at the slightest indication that slavery would be threatened, and the founding fathers decided that it was better to become a nation before having a civil war.

[The Black Forrest]

Because the US had actual legitimate grievances at the time about not being represented in parliament, while the South was in fact OVER-represented in congress thanks to the 3/5ths clause and therefore the two cases aren't relatable. A good percentage of the founding fathers predicted that slavery would eventually lead to conflict if it was allowed to continue, the South's leadership started that conflict.

You would have thought the founding fathers would have stopped slavery then

Jefferson wanted to in the DoI but the future CSA bulked and they would not have had a unified front if he tried to make a stand.....

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

The Revolution was not about slavery. I think it would have been mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, for one thing. The Revolution arose from the Colonists not having the political remedies they felt they should have, and feeling as if they were second-class, disenfranchised citizens. The southerners were under no such burden, they had considerable power in Congress, enough power, I think, to have made Abraham Lincoln a one-term president simply by stonewalling any legislation he tried to propose. Additionally, the case of Lemmon v. New York would quite probably have dismantled all the northern anti-slavery laws, delivering the whole country to the supporters of slavery on a platter, had it gone to the Supreme Court (the Taney Court, which had given us the Dred Scott decision in 1857). The men of 1776 had nothing equal to the abilities the men of 1860 had.

That's why.

Revolution isn't the topic. Please only tell us why you believe what you believe.

Dude! His post was literally an explanation of why somebody else's post was irrelevant! That means it's only there for the purpose of putting us back on topic!

[Nazi Flower Power]

You're not American are you?

For one thing, we have literal slavery in this country, because we have privatized prisons with disproportionate minority inmate populations who are forced to work for the profit of corporations with no compensation at all. And yes, they are thrown in chains and likely called much worse than "boy", and subjected to worse things than you probably imagine Southern slaves being, which are also likely unrealistic for the most part.

That is something the US should do away with. It's more common in the South than New England. Oh, shock!

For another, our disparity of wealth and its effect on the Black population means that yes, Black people are degraded and treated as sub-human because of income inequality.

That is a problem, but it's not really comparable to slavery.

I don't know what the f- Drury Enterprises is but enjoy having to suck up to a boss and be fired if you insult him even when he's an absolute a-hole and deserves it--are you able to speak your mind, then? Do you feel free? Of course you can quit and either work for the same kind of corporation and be subject to the same thing, or be homeless, so that's a great freedom, isn't it?

I see you've learned well enough to love your chains just like Uncle Tom. Congrats.

People actually have a lot of different options when it comes to employment. Some allow you more freedom than others to be yourself. Some pay better than others. People are free to set their own priorities when deciding what sort of jobs to apply for, and there are many different jobs to choose from.

I load trucks for UPS. We are allowed to dress much more casually and talk much more freely than people who work in offices. I also sell art on the sidewalk, and it's wonderfully liberating to be able to work for myself without a supervisor, but there's also a lot of uncertainty in that and a lot of worrying about money. When there was a bomb attack around the corner from me and the streets got shut down while they investigated, I lost a week's income. If I can't sell because the weather's bad, I don't make any money. I used to work for Aetna. That paid better, but I didn't like the corporate culture. Among other things, I didn't appreciate being preached at on the value of diversity and then every time they had layoffs, the black employees were the first out the door.

Do I like corporate America? No. But it is not slavery. You have a lot of choice in who you work for and what type of career you pursue. If you don't feel free, then instead of uselessly railing against the system, start thinking about how to free yourself. A lot of people trap themselves by being sloppy with money or they just take "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" too far and stay at a job that they are unhappy with because they're just afraid to leave. Or people let society tell them which jobs are "good" rather than thinking for themselves about what is a good fit for them personally.

[Sdaeriji]

Great. Start at page one and read your way here. Your arguments have been made and addressed several times.

If all arguments have been addressed why are people still debating it?

Because people think they're clever as fuck and are the first person asking the question.

[United States Kingdom]

Oh, yes. when Drury Enterprises hired me they threw me in chains, referred to me as "boy" and "nigger", sent me into a field for half the day in the blazing sun without giving me a single dime, then whipped me when the fancy struck them. At the end of every shift I am shuffled back into a crowded barrack with no adequate bedding to repeat the horror tomorrow.

Oh wait, no. They pay me a standard wage for my services for about 8 hours a day, and treat me with the respect that is due to a human being, I then may go home and do as I please, as I am not bound to their premises.

You're not American are you?

For one thing, we have literal slavery in this country, because we have privatized prisons with disproportionate minority inmate populations who are forced to work for the profit of corporations with no compensation at all. And yes, they are thrown in chains and likely called much worse than "boy", and subjected to worse things than you probably imagine Southern slaves being, which are also likely unrealistic for the most part.

For another, our disparity of wealth and its effect on the Black population means that yes, Black people are degraded and treated as sub-human because of income inequality.

I don't know what the f- Drury Enterprises is but enjoy having to suck up to a boss and be fired if you insult him even when he's an absolute a-hole and deserves it--are you able to speak your mind, then? Do you feel free? Of course you can quit and either work for the same kind of corporation and be subject to the same thing, or be homeless, so that's a great freedom, isn't it?

I see you've learned well enough to love your chains just like Uncle Tom. Congrats.

Thank you for stating the truth. The USA still has a lot of work to do with racial equality.

[Sdaeriji]

If all arguments have been addressed why are people still debating it?

Because no one wants to admit they are wrong. To themselves, they are right and therefore should not listen to another view.

Most especially the people who keep asking the same fucking question that's been addressed before and claiming victory when other participants don't want to address the same inanity for the hundredth time.

[The Black Forrest]

You're not American are you?

For one thing, we have literal slavery in this country, because we have privatized prisons with disproportionate minority inmate populations who are forced to work for the profit of corporations with no compensation at all. And yes, they are thrown in chains and likely called much worse than "boy", and subjected to worse things than you probably imagine Southern slaves being, which are also likely unrealistic for the most part.

For another, our disparity of wealth and its effect on the Black population means that yes, Black people are degraded and treated as sub-human because of income inequality.

I don't know what the f- Drury Enterprises is but enjoy having to suck up to a boss and be fired if you insult him even when he's an absolute a-hole and deserves it--are you able to speak your mind, then? Do you feel free? Of course you can quit and either work for the same kind of corporation and be subject to the same thing, or be homeless, so that's a great freedom, isn't it?

I see you've learned well enough to love your chains just like Uncle Tom. Congrats.

Thank you for stating the truth. The USA still has a lot of work to do with racial equality.

And?

[Nazi Flower Power]

True, rebellion for good cause. The south had no good cause and they had numerous political remedies open to them for redress of their grievances.

The CSA wasn't even a rebellion in the first place so there is absolutely no reason to associate the flag with rebellion. It was a legal peaceful secession which was violently attacked by power hungry federalists.

I believe states have a right to secede, and I still think this is bullshit. I guess I am now a "power hungry federalist."

[Distruzio]

To be fair... the North also supported racism and hatred for blacks. It was never a "southern" thing. It was an "American" thing.

True. However, they generally did not support the institution of slavery, and the South did.

Pedantry.

j/k of course. I know.

[United States Kingdom]

Thank you for stating the truth. The USA still has a lot of work to do with racial equality.

And?

Is there anything wrong with me posting this comment?

[Distruzio]

Like I said. It was the way we were raised. Its what we believed. It's like if I told a ZooKeeper to stop his whole business and stop the Zoo. He would be left without animals to make his money and he wouldn't see why he had to since he was raised that Zoos were ok good. (Not an accurate example but it gets my point across)

Southern Heritage revolves around an institution that promoted the subjugation of an entire class of people (which you admit). You argue that they were raised to believe that Blacks were lesser (which changes nothing...and just proves my point). But you still argue that the Battle Flag does not have a racist connotation because....

Moreover, it's a heritage that includes the North. They've put it behind them. As should we Southrons. Accepting the poignant critiques of anti-Confederates, despite our potential affinity for the Confederacy and her legacy, is, I believe, an important part of understanding what it means to be Southron.

I.e. Our ancestors held/were slaves. Slavery is evil. The institution is a blight, no matter how integral it was to our historic identity. There is no shame in admitting that.

[Distruzio]

Again... you seem to be focused on the "southern racism" schtick. That isn't the way to contest his argument. The best way is to assert the absolute truth - that of course the south was racists as hell because the whole damned nation was. They didn't perpetuate a racist institution because it worked well. They did it because it was a product of American society at the time. Society evolved away from the institution in some places but not the racism.

That undercuts any argument against the south not being racist.

If the question was whether or not the US had racist views; you would have an argument.

Bringing the viewpoints of the North is nothing more then an attempt of justification.

Then again you could argue the South were dumb racists since they didn't think the black man could fight and didn't try to get them in the army till the war was lost......

Well.... that's correct. I'd only argue another pedantic perspective - that it was the Governors and Confederates that held such thoughts to such esteem that the black man was prohibited from fighting. Not, necessarily, the slave owner himself.

But that's neither here nor there and doesn't challenge the authority of your point.

[Nazi Flower Power]

None. That is the brilliant part of secession, you don't have to follow the laws of the government you are seceding from.

Personally I completely disagree with what the Confederate stands for, but I'm willing to play devils advocate for you guys because your side is clearly more thought out.

Making up all that stuff that didn't actually happen takes a lot of thought, so in that sense, yes, I guess Southern revisionists think about it more before discussing it.