The Confederate battle flag

[United States Kingdom]

Lincoln was a racist; Here is some proof.

In the 1858 debates with Stephen Douglas, he stated that be believed that whites were superior to blacks.He was also against miscegenation and for black people to serve as jurors. "Douglass praised Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation; however, he stated that Lincoln "was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men."-Wikipidea. Lincoln had a large part of America that supported him. He could have implemented policies that were aimed at providing racial equality among the judicial structures and other structures. Here are some fucked up racist quotes

"I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man."

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."

[The Black Forrest]

Lincoln was a racist; Here is some proof.

In the 1858 debates with Stephen Douglas, he stated that be believed that whites were superior to blacks.He was also against miscegenation and for black people to serve as jurors. "Douglass praised Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation; however, he stated that Lincoln "was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men."-Wikipidea. Lincoln had a large part of America that supported him. He could have implemented policies that were aimed at providing racial equality among the judicial structures and other structures. Here are some fucked up racist quotes

"I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man."

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."

And your point is?

Do you guys scream "nailed it" every time you cut and paste this?

[Keyboard Warriors]

Lincoln was a racist

Here's a list of people who give fucks about Lincoln being a racist:


Seriously, we get it. He was a racist. Nobody tried to argue that. Nobody cares. It doesn't matter how racist he was, it doesn't change that he and the Union were anti-slavery and the south was pro-slavery.

[Dracoria]

Clement Vallandigham was a duly elected U.S. Congressman who was imprisoned by Lincoln and then exiled simply for giving speeches. He did not "do everything he could" to undermine anything except the U.S. war effort, which he believed was claiming lives unnecessarily. He did absolutely nothing illegal whatsoever and yet--again, a Congressman--was locked up then deported and removed from his seat for holding political views in opposition to the president's. If that's not tyranny, or fundamentally un-American, I don't know what is.

Reading up on him some more, I see you're wrong (and I am so very surprised). He was not a congressman at the time, having lost the 1862 election. So afterward, he was arrested. Even though General Order 38 supposedly allowed for harsher penalties, he was simply exiled to the Confederacy he spoke out for (he was not arrested by Lincoln, but by soldiers following the orders of their officers). Oh, the Confederates were suspicious of him too, and he eventually wound up in Canada, where after unsuccessfully running for governor of Ohio from out of the country, he discussed plans with a certain Jacob Thompson to overthrow the legitimate governments of Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois and Indiana and replace them with pro-Confederate governments to form a Northwest Confederacy, going so far as to request armaments for the insurrection. Atop that, he was terribly racist and pro-slavery. All in all, a true Confederate hero.

[Dakini]

Clement Vallandigham was a duly elected U.S. Congressman who was imprisoned by Lincoln and then exiled simply for giving speeches. He did not "do everything he could" to undermine anything except the U.S. war effort, which he believed was claiming lives unnecessarily. He did absolutely nothing illegal whatsoever and yet--again, a Congressman--was locked up then deported and removed from his seat for holding political views in opposition to the president's. If that's not tyranny, or fundamentally un-American, I don't know what is.

Reading up on him some more, I see you're wrong (and I am so very surprised). He was not a congressman at the time, having lost the 1862 election. So afterward, he was arrested. Even though General Order 38 supposedly allowed for harsher penalties, he was simply exiled to the Confederacy he spoke out for (he was not arrested by Lincoln, but by soldiers following the orders of their officers). Oh, the Confederates were suspicious of him too, and he eventually wound up in Canada, where after unsuccessfully running for governor of Ohio from out of the country, he discussed plans with a certain Jacob Thompson to overthrow the legitimate governments of Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois and Indiana and replace them with pro-Confederate governments to form a Northwest Confederacy, going so far as to request armaments for the insurrection. Atop that, he was terribly racist and pro-slavery. All in all, a true Confederate hero.

Clearly, anyone who didn't support the South was not legitimately elected.

[Dracoria]

I'd like to note that I wasn't nearly this anti-Confederacy when the thread began. Something about the Confederate apologists is just really grating on me.

[The North Pacific League]

Clement Vallandigham was a duly elected U.S. Congressman who was imprisoned by Lincoln and then exiled simply for giving speeches. He did not "do everything he could" to undermine anything except the U.S. war effort, which he believed was claiming lives unnecessarily. He did absolutely nothing illegal whatsoever and yet--again, a Congressman--was locked up then deported and removed from his seat for holding political views in opposition to the president's. If that's not tyranny, or fundamentally un-American, I don't know what is.

Reading up on him some more, I see you're wrong (and I am so very surprised). He was not a congressman at the time, having lost the 1862 election. So afterward, he was arrested. Even though General Order 38 supposedly allowed for harsher penalties, he was simply exiled to the Confederacy he spoke out for (he was not arrested by Lincoln, but by soldiers following the orders of their officers). Oh, the Confederates were suspicious of him too, and he eventually wound up in Canada, where after unsuccessfully running for governor of Ohio from out of the country, he discussed plans with a certain Jacob Thompson to overthrow the legitimate governments of Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois and Indiana and replace them with pro-Confederate governments to form a Northwest Confederacy, going so far as to request armaments for the insurrection. Atop that, he was terribly racist and pro-slavery. All in all, a true Confederate hero.

The Committee of Elections of the House accepted his appeal, so, according to the House of Representatives, yes, he was a member of the House of Representatives.

This is equivalent to saying that G.W. Bush was not President of the United States because he was elected upon appeal to the Supreme Court. As much as I dislike the guy, I have to admit, he was President of the United States. A terrible one, but none the less.

And Vallandigham actually had a more legitimate claim because his election was approved by the body of which he was a member, whereas Bush had to be approved by a separate branch of government.

Furthermore, he plainly won the vote in both 1858 and 1860, with no contest of that sort. So before the Civil War and Lincoln's action against him, he was entirely legitimately elected with no contest.

And allow me to add that you're snorting some awfully potent fairy dust if you think Lincoln's actions were motivated by what happened four election cycles prior and not by the fact that his anti-war speaking tour was awfully effective.

And allow me to parody your own rhetoric by saying that God forbid anyone speak out against a war that cost more American lives than any other conflict in the nation's history when the Confederacy would have eagerly accepted an armistice at any time.

[Arkinesia]

I pasted it. I'm not like those idiots politicians that pass laws w/out reading them. Do you think I'm that stupid. My point was that slavery was not the main issue. See link 2.

Are you sure you read the link?

The most widespread myth is also the most basic. Across America, 60 percent to 75 percent of high-school history teachers believe and teach that the South seceded for state's rights, said Jim Loewen, author of "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" (Touchstone, 1996) and co-editor of "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The 'Great Truth' about the 'Lost Cause'" (University Press of Mississippi, 2010).

"It's complete B.S.," Loewen told LiveScience. "And by B.S., I mean 'bad scholarship.'"

In fact, Loewen said, the original documents of the Confederacy show quite clearly that the war was based on one thing: slavery. For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."

Just going to point out here that Lies My Teacher Told Me is an amazing book. Would recommend it to everyone.

[Dracoria]

Reading up on him some more, I see you're wrong (and I am so very surprised). He was not a congressman at the time, having lost the 1862 election. So afterward, he was arrested. Even though General Order 38 supposedly allowed for harsher penalties, he was simply exiled to the Confederacy he spoke out for (he was not arrested by Lincoln, but by soldiers following the orders of their officers). Oh, the Confederates were suspicious of him too, and he eventually wound up in Canada, where after unsuccessfully running for governor of Ohio from out of the country, he discussed plans with a certain Jacob Thompson to overthrow the legitimate governments of Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois and Indiana and replace them with pro-Confederate governments to form a Northwest Confederacy, going so far as to request armaments for the insurrection. Atop that, he was terribly racist and pro-slavery. All in all, a true Confederate hero.

The Committee of Elections of the House accepted his appeal, so, according to the House of Representatives, yes, he was a member of the House of Representatives.

This is equivalent to saying that G.W. Bush was not President of the United States because he was elected upon appeal to the Supreme Court. As much as I dislike the guy, I have to admit, he was President of the United States. A terrible one, but none the less.

And Vallandigham actually had a more legitimate claim because his election was approved by the body of which he was a member, whereas Bush had to be approved by a separate branch of government.

Furthermore, he plainly won the vote in both 1858 and 1860, with no contest of that sort. So before the Civil War and Lincoln's action against him, he was entirely legitimately elected with no contest.

He was elected before the war, yes. However, he was not declared anything in the 1862 election but a loser, having lost by a wide margin. Robert C. Schenk, a wounded ex-general who fought for the Union, won the 1862 election and took his seat on March 3rd, 1863. Also, much as people keep saying about Lincoln, the guy was a terrible racist (and pro-slavery and tried to overthrow the legitimately elected governments of four states).

[The North Pacific League]

Are you sure you read the link?

Just going to point out here that Lies My Teacher Told Me is an amazing book. Would recommend it to everyone.

Please note I accept that the war was "about slavery" (though I'd argue it was also about other things and that there's a false dichotomy that it must be entirely about slavery or entirely about something else). I just don't accept that the Confederacy was about slavery, much less that its flag, a piece of cloth, was about slavery.

[Dakini]

Just going to point out here that Lies My Teacher Told Me is an amazing book. Would recommend it to everyone.

Please note I accept that the war was "about slavery" (though I'd argue it was also about other things and that there's a false dichotomy that it must be entirely about slavery or entirely about something else). I just don't accept that the Confederacy was about slavery, much less that its flag, a piece of cloth, was about slavery.

I'd say it was about preserving a generally backwards way of life, which included large-scale slavery as a significant component.

[The North Pacific League]

Please note I accept that the war was "about slavery" (though I'd argue it was also about other things and that there's a false dichotomy that it must be entirely about slavery or entirely about something else). I just don't accept that the Confederacy was about slavery, much less that its flag, a piece of cloth, was about slavery.

I'd say it was about preserving a generally backwards way of life, which included large-scale slavery as a significant component.

The South considered the industrial way of life of the North "backwards", equally, and not without reason. History has certainly shown that industrialization has been accompanied by many horrors inflicted upon the working class, and infamous defender of slavery John C. Calhoun even fairly coined the term "wage slavery" (to which we may today add "debt slavery") which would also be taken up by socialists and communists, oddly. If you want to read anything about that read the Sadler Report and Engels.

That's not to say that I side with Calhoun; in fact I think his reasoning is mostly psychotic--but none the less there can be some truth in such arguments and he was certainly not an idiot. In fact, in a way, he was brilliantly insightful, disagree with him as we may.

In fact it was said during the war that the triumph of the North would be the triumph of banks and industry, and have we not (and especially Black Americans) suffered under that result? The primary mechanism by which Black people in the U.S. remain oppressed is income inequality; I think any careful examination will bear that out. It provides de facto segregation and subjugation and perpetuates racism.

I'd much prefer "backwards" Southern agrarianism (without slavery) to what we have now, which is a timocratic oligarchy, not a democracy nor even a republic, and a racist one at that.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Please note I accept that the war was "about slavery" (though I'd argue it was also about other things and that there's a false dichotomy that it must be entirely about slavery or entirely about something else). I just don't accept that the Confederacy was about slavery, much less that its flag, a piece of cloth, was about slavery.

I'd say it was about preserving a generally backwards way of life, which included large-scale slavery as a significant component.

Removing slavery from the Antebellum South is like removing the entertainment industry from Los Angeles, or the financial sector from New York City.

[Dakini]

I'd say it was about preserving a generally backwards way of life, which included large-scale slavery as a significant component.

The South considered the industrial way of life of the North "backwards", equally, and not without reason.

lol

At the time, it was the height of modernity, whoever argued that it was backwards at the time was both stupid and wrong.

History has certainly shown that industrialization has been accompanied by many horrors inflicted upon the working class, and infamous defender of slavery John C. Calhoun even fairly coined the term "wage slavery" (to which we may today add "debt slavery") which would also be taken up by socialists and communists, oddly. If you want to read anything about that read the Sadler Report and Engels.

That's not to say that I side with Calhoun; in fact I think his reasoning is mostly psychotic--but none the less there can be some truth in such arguments and he was certainly not an idiot. In fact, in a way, he was brilliantly insightful, disagree with him as we may.

In fact it was said during the war that the triumph of the North would be the triumph of banks and industry, and have we not (and especially Black Americans) suffered under that result? The primary mechanism by which Black people in the U.S. remain oppressed is income inequality; I think any careful examination will bear that out. It provides de facto segregation and subjugation and perpetuates racism.

I'd much prefer "backwards" Southern agrarianism (without slavery) to what we have now, which is an oligarchy, not a democracy nor even a republic, and a racist one at that.

You honestly think that a backwards Southern agrarianism would 1. exist without slavery and 2. be any less racist than the pre-civil rights south?

[Camelza]

I'd say it was about preserving a generally backwards way of life, which included large-scale slavery as a significant component.

Removing slavery from the Antebellum South is like removing the entertainment industry from Los Angeles, or the financial sector from New York City.

Not at all, southerners could simply start paying their ex-slaves ridiculously low wages out of their huge profits as was the norm during that time period.

[The North Pacific League]

The South considered the industrial way of life of the North "backwards", equally, and not without reason.

lol

At the time, it was the height of modernity, whoever argued that it was backwards at the time was both stupid and wrong.

History has certainly shown that industrialization has been accompanied by many horrors inflicted upon the working class, and infamous defender of slavery John C. Calhoun even fairly coined the term "wage slavery" (to which we may today add "debt slavery") which would also be taken up by socialists and communists, oddly. If you want to read anything about that read the Sadler Report and Engels.

That's not to say that I side with Calhoun; in fact I think his reasoning is mostly psychotic--but none the less there can be some truth in such arguments and he was certainly not an idiot. In fact, in a way, he was brilliantly insightful, disagree with him as we may.

In fact it was said during the war that the triumph of the North would be the triumph of banks and industry, and have we not (and especially Black Americans) suffered under that result? The primary mechanism by which Black people in the U.S. remain oppressed is income inequality; I think any careful examination will bear that out. It provides de facto segregation and subjugation and perpetuates racism.

I'd much prefer "backwards" Southern agrarianism (without slavery) to what we have now, which is an oligarchy, not a democracy nor even a republic, and a racist one at that.

You honestly think that a backwards Southern agrarianism would 1. exist without slavery and 2. be any less racist than the pre-civil rights south?

You honestly think that Reconstruction was successful in any way whatsoever and that the result was any different than what would have happened in the South without a Union victory?

[Gaelic Celtia]

Just going to point out here that Lies My Teacher Told Me is an amazing book. Would recommend it to everyone.

Please note I accept that the war was "about slavery" (though I'd argue it was also about other things and that there's a false dichotomy that it must be entirely about slavery or entirely about something else). I just don't accept that the Confederacy was about slavery, much less that its flag, a piece of cloth, was about slavery.

The South's primary reason for existing was that it felt it's agrarian society, which was completely reliant on slaves, was under threat by the election of Lincoln, and possible abolition. The Confederacy, at least politically, was all about slavery. Sure, individually the southern people, the majority of whom did not own slaves, believed to be fighting for their rights. In reality, they were thrown into the meat grinder to preserve the aristocracies right to own other human beings and treat them worse than cattle.

Earlier you said we cannot say that someone is wrong for believing the flag does not represent slavery. On the flip-side, you cannot tell the millions of people they are wrong for associating the flag as a symbol of racial oppression and slavery. Because it does. And yes, for some it may also represent some twisted form of fighting for "freedom", when in reality the south was a tyranny of the majority that oppressed and enslaved the minority. No, the flag is not literally racist and does not go around flinging racial slurs. However, there is such a thing as connotation. Deny it all you want and try to justify it by claiming states' rights, but the south was a vile, traitorous thing that started a war that killed hundreds of thousands, because they wanted to keep their ass backwards society of human ownership. The flag flew over this traitorous, slave owning entity and thus it bears the connotation of racial prejudice and slavery. This stain is not going anywhere, and it will forever be, justifiably, to many, a symbol of the repulsive institution of slavery, and the oppression of people based on the inane reason of color.

[Dakini]

lol

At the time, it was the height of modernity, whoever argued that it was backwards at the time was both stupid and wrong.


You honestly think that a backwards Southern agrarianism would 1. exist without slavery and 2. be any less racist than the pre-civil rights south?

You honestly think that Reconstruction was successful in any way whatsoever and that the result was any different than what would have happened in the South without a Union victory?

No, clearly reconstruction wasn't successful, otherwise we wouldn't have a bunch of people claiming that the CSA was totally in the right on everything and that the South was better off with slavery.

As much as you want to go on about how terrible industrialization was for the working class, it was much better than the horrors of slavery (discussed repeatedly by others earlier in this thread) and unlike slavery, actually allowed some people to improve their station in life.


p.s. That was some fancy goalpost moving and strawmanning in there since I said fuck-all about reconstruction.

[The North Pacific League]

Please note I accept that the war was "about slavery" (though I'd argue it was also about other things and that there's a false dichotomy that it must be entirely about slavery or entirely about something else). I just don't accept that the Confederacy was about slavery, much less that its flag, a piece of cloth, was about slavery.

The South's primary reason for existing was that it felt it's agrarian society, which was completely reliant on slaves, was under threat by the election of Lincoln, and possible abolition. The Confederacy, at least politically, was all about slavery. Sure, individually the southern people, the majority of whom did not own slaves, believed to be fighting for their rights. In reality, they were thrown into the meat grinder to preserve the aristocracies right to own other human beings and treat them worse than cattle.

Earlier you said we cannot say that someone is wrong for believing the flag does not represent slavery. On the flip-side, you cannot tell the millions of people they are wrong for associating the flag as a symbol of racial oppression and slavery. Because it does. And yes, for some it may also represent some twisted form of fighting for "freedom", when in reality the south was a tyranny of the majority that oppressed and enslaved the minority. No, the flag is not literally racist and does not go around flinging racial slurs. However, there is such a thing as connotation. Deny it all you want and try to justify it by claiming states' rights, but the south was a vile, traitorous thing that started a war that killed hundreds of thousands, because they wanted to keep their ass backwards society of human ownership. The flag flew over this traitorous, slave owning entity and thus it bears the connotation of racial prejudice and slavery. This stain is not going anywhere, and it will forever be, justifiably, to many, a symbol of the repulsive institution of slavery, and the oppression of people based on the inane reason of color.

I don't deny racism by claiming "States' rights"; I say that the White people who fought the war on both the Northern and Southern sides were overwhelmingly racist, and that pinning racism on the South and absolving the North of it is pseudohistory and just false. Yes, there were abolitionists amongst Notherners; they were roundly regarded as fanatics and treated as pariahs and were a tiny minority.

So that's a fine narrative except that it neglects the fact that that so many non-slave-owners volunteered to fight for the South for reasons that had nothing to do with slavery. The politicians' war was indeed about slavery but for the Southern soldier it was not at all and was indeed about freedom and regarded as a second American Revolution against overreaching federal power, which Lincoln entirely confirmed in everything he did, and the consequences of which we still suffer.

[The North Pacific League]

You honestly think that Reconstruction was successful in any way whatsoever and that the result was any different than what would have happened in the South without a Union victory?

No, clearly reconstruction wasn't successful, otherwise we wouldn't have a bunch of people claiming that the CSA was totally in the right on everything and that the South was better off with slavery.

As much as you want to go on about how terrible industrialization was for the working class, it was much better than the horrors of slavery (discussed repeatedly by others earlier in this thread) and unlike slavery, actually allowed some people to improve their station in life.


p.s. That was some fancy goalpost moving and strawmanning in there since I said fuck-all about reconstruction.

"The industrial economy actually allowed some people to improve their station in life", is what I'm reading here? Should I laugh or cry?

The slave economy allowed some slaves to improve their station in life, too (not that I in any way defend it). If you read the book "Twelve Years a Slave" (probably the most reliable slave narrative) you can see that in spite of it being in fact a very unusual situation--please don't just watch the film.

But not very much, and the slave was still regarded as property, of course. And that is also the reality of the industrial economy. The poor can improve their lot, but not very much, and not often, unless ridiculously lucky, and are regarded as capital.

The truth is anyone who doesn't own their own job is a slave.

[Gaelic Celtia]

The South's primary reason for existing was that it felt it's agrarian society, which was completely reliant on slaves, was under threat by the election of Lincoln, and possible abolition. The Confederacy, at least politically, was all about slavery. Sure, individually the southern people, the majority of whom did not own slaves, believed to be fighting for their rights. In reality, they were thrown into the meat grinder to preserve the aristocracies right to own other human beings and treat them worse than cattle.

Earlier you said we cannot say that someone is wrong for believing the flag does not represent slavery. On the flip-side, you cannot tell the millions of people they are wrong for associating the flag as a symbol of racial oppression and slavery. Because it does. And yes, for some it may also represent some twisted form of fighting for "freedom", when in reality the south was a tyranny of the majority that oppressed and enslaved the minority. No, the flag is not literally racist and does not go around flinging racial slurs. However, there is such a thing as connotation. Deny it all you want and try to justify it by claiming states' rights, but the south was a vile, traitorous thing that started a war that killed hundreds of thousands, because they wanted to keep their ass backwards society of human ownership. The flag flew over this traitorous, slave owning entity and thus it bears the connotation of racial prejudice and slavery. This stain is not going anywhere, and it will forever be, justifiably, to many, a symbol of the repulsive institution of slavery, and the oppression of people based on the inane reason of color.

I don't deny racism by claiming "States' rights"; I say that the White people who fought the war on both the Northern and Southern sides were overwhelmingly racist, and that pinning racism on the South and absolving the North of it is pseudohistory and just false. Yes, there were abolitionists amongst Notherners; they were roundly regarded as fanatics and treated as pariahs and were a tiny minority.

So that's a fine narrative except that it neglects the fact that that so many non-slave-owners volunteered to fight for the South for reasons that had nothing to do with slavery. The politicians' war was indeed about slavery but for the Southern soldier it was not at all and was indeed about freedom and regarded as a second American Revolution against overreaching federal power, which Lincoln entirely confirmed in everything he did, and the consequences of which we still suffer.

Actually it doesn't, as I said that many who fought, in fact probobly everyone who fought, did not fight specifically for slavery. But regardless of personal intent, they fought, by extension to prolong the most disgusting institution ever created. And the fact that every soldier thought they were fighting for freedom (you know, if you were white at least. Which was only about 55-60% of the whole south) does not change the fact that the connotations of the flag are negative and racial.

And yes the North was indeed not exactly perfect. OP has beaten that horse into sand. Does this now mean the south is good? No. The north however, did not treat people worse than an Ox, force them to work all day in a field, beat them with whips and other instruments until their backs bled, tore families apart, and ripped people from their homes overseas.

And yes yes, all states did this at one point, we know. The south however, refused to give it up and fought a war largely revolving around it. There is your difference.

[Gaelic Celtia]

No, clearly reconstruction wasn't successful, otherwise we wouldn't have a bunch of people claiming that the CSA was totally in the right on everything and that the South was better off with slavery.

As much as you want to go on about how terrible industrialization was for the working class, it was much better than the horrors of slavery (discussed repeatedly by others earlier in this thread) and unlike slavery, actually allowed some people to improve their station in life.


p.s. That was some fancy goalpost moving and strawmanning in there since I said fuck-all about reconstruction.

"The industrial economy actually allowed some people to improve their station in life", is what I'm reading here? Should I laugh or cry?

The slave economy allowed some slaves to improve their station in life, too (not that I in any way defend it). If you read the book "Twelve Years a Slave" (probably the most reliable slave narrative) you can see that in spite of it being in fact a very unusual situation--please don't just watch the film.

But not very much, and the slave was still regarded as property, of course. And that is also the reality of the industrial economy. The poor can improve their lot, but not very much, and not often, unless ridiculously lucky, and are regarded as capital.

The truth is anyone who doesn't own their own job is a slave.

Are you seriously comparing modern corporate enterprise to slave labor? Tell me you are joking.

[The North Pacific League]

I don't deny racism by claiming "States' rights"; I say that the White people who fought the war on both the Northern and Southern sides were overwhelmingly racist, and that pinning racism on the South and absolving the North of it is pseudohistory and just false. Yes, there were abolitionists amongst Notherners; they were roundly regarded as fanatics and treated as pariahs and were a tiny minority.

So that's a fine narrative except that it neglects the fact that that so many non-slave-owners volunteered to fight for the South for reasons that had nothing to do with slavery. The politicians' war was indeed about slavery but for the Southern soldier it was not at all and was indeed about freedom and regarded as a second American Revolution against overreaching federal power, which Lincoln entirely confirmed in everything he did, and the consequences of which we still suffer.

Actually it doesn't, as I said that many who fought, in fact probobly everyone who fought, did not fight specifically for slavery. But regardless of personal intent, they fought, by extension to prolong the most disgusting institution ever created. And the fact that every soldier thought they were fighting for freedom (you know, if you were white at least. Which was only about 55-60% of the whole south) does not change the fact that the connotations of the flag are negative and racial.

And yes the North was indeed not exactly perfect. OP has beaten that horse into sand. Does this now mean the south is good? No. The north however, did not treat people worse than an Ox, force them to work all day in a field, beat them with whips and other instruments until their backs bled, tore families apart, and ripped people from their homes overseas.

And yes yes, all states did this at one point, we know. The south however, refused to give it up and fought a war largely revolving around it. There is your difference.

"By extension"? So you ignore individual agency and intent? I can't subscribe to your ethical theory in such case.

Furthermore it is not the most disgusting institution ever created, horrifically enough. For example Nazism was an institution that would have demanded the slow torture and murder of all such people. The truth and reality of slavery is not what you might think; it was a way that people lived, not a way that they died. It was awful, yes. It should have been abolished long before the Civil War, yes. You're right to find it repulsive. But it wasn't genocide and to call it what you do is a disservice to victims of other institutions which were far worse. I'm sorry to inform you that human history is in fact that terrible, but it is.

I'm afraid that's all I can say and I don't think we can have any more meaningful argument because we appear to disagree on fundamental ethical principles and interpretations of history.

[The North Pacific League]

"The industrial economy actually allowed some people to improve their station in life", is what I'm reading here? Should I laugh or cry?

The slave economy allowed some slaves to improve their station in life, too (not that I in any way defend it). If you read the book "Twelve Years a Slave" (probably the most reliable slave narrative) you can see that in spite of it being in fact a very unusual situation--please don't just watch the film.

But not very much, and the slave was still regarded as property, of course. And that is also the reality of the industrial economy. The poor can improve their lot, but not very much, and not often, unless ridiculously lucky, and are regarded as capital.

The truth is anyone who doesn't own their own job is a slave.

Are you seriously comparing modern corporate enterprise to slave labor? Tell me you are joking.

Yes, yes I am.

[Gaelic Celtia]

Actually it doesn't, as I said that many who fought, in fact probobly everyone who fought, did not fight specifically for slavery. But regardless of personal intent, they fought, by extension to prolong the most disgusting institution ever created. And the fact that every soldier thought they were fighting for freedom (you know, if you were white at least. Which was only about 55-60% of the whole south) does not change the fact that the connotations of the flag are negative and racial.

And yes the North was indeed not exactly perfect. OP has beaten that horse into sand. Does this now mean the south is good? No. The north however, did not treat people worse than an Ox, force them to work all day in a field, beat them with whips and other instruments until their backs bled, tore families apart, and ripped people from their homes overseas.

And yes yes, all states did this at one point, we know. The south however, refused to give it up and fought a war largely revolving around it. There is your difference.

"By extension"? So you ignore individual agency and intent? I can't subscribe to your ethical theory in such case.

Furthermore it is not the most disgusting institution ever created, horrifically enough. For example Nazism was an institution that would have demanded the slow torture and murder of all such people. The truth and reality of slavery is not what you might think; it was a way that people lived, not a way that they died. It was awful, yes. It should have been abolished long before the Civil War, yes. You're right to find it repulsive. But it wasn't genocide and to call it what you do is a disservice to victims of other institutions which were far worse. I'm sorry to inform you that human history is in fact that terrible, but it is.

I'm afraid that's all I can say and I don't think we can have any more meaningful argument because we appear to disagree on fundamental ethical principles and interpretations of history.

No I do not. Do you deny that when they fought for the Confederate Army to keep the south alive, they were by extension fighting for the survival of the institution of slavery? And once again, what every rank and file soldier thought they were fighting for has no effect on the negative connotations the flag has garnered.

I never called it genocide, do not put words in my mouth. Perhaps it was hyperbolic, but do not say I am disrespecting others who endured other horrors besides slavery by expressing my utter disgust for it.