NationStates

The Black Forrest wrote:

United States Kingdom wrote: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?

Vazdania wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Of course. The CSA was all about slavery.


Well, if ever you feel the need to express that preference with a flag, try one that isn't associated with slavery and racism, or people with think you're a slavery-loving racist.

---

I am implying no such thing.

It was more than slavery, and by you suggesting this, is just evidence of the fact that you've absolutely no fucking clue what the hell you are talking about. The Civil War was about much more than just slavery.

Ucropi wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Believe what you like, just don't pretend to be upset when other people look down on you for waving a flag associated with slavery and rebellion.

Isn't the American flag associated with rebellion too?

Vazdania wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Where does the Constitution say states can secede?

Where does it say that they are required to be a part of the union? As stated previously all laws and rulings pertaining to the south and its so called illegal secession were made after the civil war or after the state had already seceded.

Vazdania wrote:

Cyrisnia wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

Yes, The Fort Sumpter incident was caused wholly by the Federalist States of America. They didn't remove themself from Confederate Territory.

Farnhamia wrote:

Ucropi wrote:How do you not understand that the civil war wasn't about slavery? Slaves were only freed to cripple their economy. If the north had had an agriculture based economy instead of the south you would probably own a human being still today.

The southern states tried to leave because they were afraid they would lose their slaves. That's how it's only about slavery. Other reasons were added in the years after the war as southerners tried to justify a horrible mistake.

Vazdania wrote:

Kelinfort wrote:Except both attempts failed miserably. A confederacy cannot expect to respond to economic or military threats in a quick manner due to the decentralised administration. A confederacy only works to ruin any chances of a stable and solid policy and government.

Centralizing fiscal, monetary, and military policy can still work in a confederacy.

Farnhamia wrote:

Lininiel wrote:You know, perhaps it would be best if you all just accepted that everyone has a different opinion.
The battle flag represented many things, not all of them bad, not all of them good. Nothing on Earth is perfect. Look at the U.S now? Can you sincerely say that we are the best country in the world? Think about the National Defense Authorization Act, The Patriot Act, the NSA, the IRS, and the other various laws and establishments that exist here. After looking at these things, can you still say you would salute the American Flag? I bet you answered yes. We still have pride in our flags, and we can't change everything they stood for in the past, we can just promise ourselves that we stand for the best of our country. Can you be open-minded enough to accept that not everyone will believe what you believe? So next time you see the Confederate battle flag, just ask yourself does this affect you? Or should you allow others to have the freedom to believe what they believe. Just consider it.

Believe what you like, just don't pretend to be upset when other people look down on you for waving a flag associated with slavery and rebellion.

Vazdania wrote:

Kelinfort wrote:Ah Yes, because the Confederates only tried to violently seize stores of weapons, and broke the law.

Of course it was a fucking rebellion, they had no legal right, and were represented in national politics.

That was on their property. They asked soldiers from Fort Sumpter to remove themselves off of Confederate territory.

Kelinfort wrote:

Vazdania wrote:It was only after the states succeeded that it was ruled illegal.

Something not ruled illegal =/= it's legal.

Ucropi wrote:wasn't written by the victor.

Kelinfort wrote:

Vazdania wrote:That was on their property. They asked soldiers from Fort Sumpter to remove themselves off of Confederate territory.

Which was never their territory. They never went through a legal process of any kind if it existed, and their cause was weakened by the fact they were clearly represented.

Lininiel wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Believe what you like, just don't pretend to be upset when other people look down on you for waving a flag associated with slavery and rebellion.

Good Sir! I am in no way upset. I simply ask everyone to let everyone be, let folks decide for themselves. People try to make others think the same as them. That is the very reason the flag is so widely associated with slavery. Perhaps individuals should decide for themselves. I value your opinion, even though my beliefs are different. This way we both may get along quite well even though our opinions differ on this topic.

Vazdania wrote:

Kelinfort wrote:Something not ruled illegal =/= it's legal.

In order to join the Union a state (or soon to be state) has to voluntarily ratify their own constitution, which means they also have the express right to voluntarily deratify their constitution and bid in the USA.

Vazdania wrote:

Kelinfort wrote:Which was never their territory. They never went through a legal process of any kind if it existed, and their cause was weakened by the fact they were clearly represented.

It was there territory. It was their property. The states voluntarily de-ratified their state constitution and bid in the United States of America.

Vazdania wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Not really. I'm sure most people would be aware that America came about by way of rebellion, but that was over 200 years ago and America has done plenty of things since. The Confederates, on the other hand, really didn't do anything except start a war to keep black slavery and then lose that war.

Or preserve the loose system envisioned by the founding fathers.

Sdaeriji wrote:

Ucropi wrote:wasn't written by the victor.

In other words, it was written by southern revisionists.

Kelinfort wrote:

Vazdania wrote:In order to join the Union a state (or soon to be state) has to voluntarily ratify their own constitution, which means they also have the express right to voluntarily deratify their constitution and bid in the USA.

You're making a false conclusion, yes states vote on a constitution and a vote to join the Union, but the opposite has never applied, legally.

Ucropi wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Not really. I'm sure most people would be aware that America came about by way of rebellion, but that was over 200 years ago and America has done plenty of things since. The Confederates, on the other hand, really didn't do anything except start a war to keep black slavery and then lose that war.

How do you not understand that the civil war wasn't about slavery? Slaves were only freed to cripple their economy. If the north had had an agriculture based economy instead of the south you would probably own a human being still today.

Sdaeriji wrote:

Vazdania wrote:It was there territory. It was their property. The states voluntarily de-ratified their state constitution and bid in the United States of America.

The fort was legal federal property, not state property.

Vazdania wrote:

Farnhamia wrote: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.

Vazdania wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Where does the Constitution say states can secede?

Where does it say that they are required to be a part of the union? As stated previously all laws and rulings pertaining to the south and its so called illegal secession were made after the civil war or after the state had already seceded.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Vazdania wrote: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.

No it wasn't and the aggressor wasn't the Federalists.

Vazdania wrote:

Sdaeriji wrote:
The fort was legal federal property, not state property.

The fort was previously federal property. As soon as the state removed itself from the union, that property became the states.

Vazdania wrote:

Sdaeriji wrote:
The fort was legal federal property, not state property.

The fort was previously federal property. As soon as the state removed itself from the union, that property became the states.