Is the Confederate Flag offensive?

[Mushet]

It gradually died out peacefully in much of the North, too, by the time of the ACW. The Federal slave states seemed to consider the maintenance of the Union more important than keeping their human chattel; heck, even parts of some secessionist states, like a good chunk of Virginia, several of the Delmarva islands, and unofficially a few counties in the deep south, elected to side with the federal government instead of the states they had been part of even if it meant giving up their slaves.

It's too bad that the southern landowners didn't see the writing on the wall; their big trade partners were all turning against slavery (by those of European stock, anyway; annexed locals keeping slaves were given more leeway), and their big exports could be produced elsewhere even cheaper. The slave-agriculture economy based so heavily on cotton would be unsustainable in a few more years, and a shift to more modern practices, crops and industry at that point would have saved a lot of bloodshed and prevented the increased centralization of power in the capital that their secession only sped.

I'm sad to say that the Americas were built upon the blood of so many slaves, aboriginal and African. My country reaped the benefits of human trafficking. Which was done very early in during the age of exploration.

The world reaped the relative benefits, same with all of history and the subjugation of peoples, I say relative because peaceful coexistence and trade probably would've been better in the long run

[Orham]

Doesn't =/= shouldn't

Why shouldn't it work that way? Westphalian sovereignty loses all its usefulness if the monopoly on the use of force can simply be dissolved at whim.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Don't get me wrong. Abolition of slavery was, is necessary. I just don't think it should've started a war. The South could've adopted this peacefully. I know of places were this happened, this transition, peacefully.

I know it happened that way in Puerto Rico in 1873.

Haiti, however, did not have the same fate. With the slaves brutally murdering the slaveowners, and this happened only 70 years earlier than in Puerto Rico, which is exactly what scared the US into freeing the slaves, because they were afraid that what happened to the French in Haiti would happen to them.

I'm well aware.

The Haiti revolt however, wouldn't have repeated itself since in the US the govt wanted abolition. That was not the case in Haiti. In Haiti, the slaves revolted precisely because the landowners there wanted them as slaves.

[Minarchist States]

Are any Brits here offended by me displaying the Betsy Ross (or thirteen stars?)

No?

There is your answer.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Did you see how we handled taxation in 1775?

Not well, and wasting so much poor tea in the process. Well, that was the beginning, in 1773.

Seriously, though, that's how deep the divide was, that people thought war against their own brethren was imminent and *necessary*.

Read up on all the Compromises leading up to the war. How politicians were deciding what states would have slaves, and which would be Free. How the black population would count (which would've given Southern states more representation in Congress). How escaped slaves would be returned to the South from the Free North if they were caught.

All that political discourse, and yet... war.

[Confederate Flower Power]

Doesn't =/= shouldn't

Why shouldn't it work that way? Westphalian sovereignty loses all its usefulness if the monopoly on the use of force can simply be dissolved at whim.

People should have the right to change their system of government and/or redraw political boundaries at any time if the old ones are no longer meeting their needs. That's how self-determination works.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Not well, and wasting so much poor tea in the process. Well, that was the beginning, in 1773.

Seriously, though, that's how deep the divide was, that people thought war against their own brethren was imminent and *necessary*.

Read up on all the Compromises leading up to the war. How politicians were deciding what states would have slaves, and which would be Free. How the black population would count (which would've given Southern states more representation in Congress). How escaped slaves would be returned to the South from the Free North if they were caught.

All that political discourse, and yet... war.

Then it was inevitable?

[Kalaspia-Shimarata]

More lefty nonsense

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Don't get me wrong. Abolition of slavery was, is necessary. I just don't think it should've started a war. The South could've adopted this peacefully. I know of places were this happened, this transition, peacefully.

I know it happened that way in Puerto Rico in 1873.

Haiti, however, did not have the same fate. With the slaves brutally murdering the slaveowners, and this happened only 70 years earlier than in Puerto Rico, which is exactly what scared the US South into freeing the slaves, because they were afraid that what happened to the French in Haiti would happen to them.

George Washington considered allowing black slaves to fight in the Revolutionary Army, but didn't because he (accurately) estimated that the British would be able to recruit far more blacks into their army first.

Imagine what that would've done to the post-Revolutionary slavery discussion.

[UED]

I mean it's just a flag. How can flag be even offensive? This flag may represent different things for different people.

Your sort of right, the US flag represents liberty to some and tyranny to others.
But can the same be said for the Nazi flag?
Or the Confederacy?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Haiti, however, did not have the same fate. With the slaves brutally murdering the slaveowners, and this happened only 70 years earlier than in Puerto Rico, which is exactly what scared the US into freeing the slaves, because they were afraid that what happened to the French in Haiti would happen to them.

I'm well aware.

The Haiti revolt however, wouldn't have repeated itself since in the US the govt wanted abolition. That was not the case in Haiti. In Haiti, the slaves revolted precisely because the landowners there wanted them as slaves.

I agree that, given the background, it wouldn't have happened. You have to remember though, this was the 18th century, and Southerners were not very well aware of cultural differences between Haitian slave owners and themselves.

I don't think we even began believing in ourselves being different than the rest of the world until the whole Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism ideologies came about in the 19th century.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Seriously, though, that's how deep the divide was, that people thought war against their own brethren was imminent and *necessary*.

Read up on all the Compromises leading up to the war. How politicians were deciding what states would have slaves, and which would be Free. How the black population would count (which would've given Southern states more representation in Congress). How escaped slaves would be returned to the South from the Free North if they were caught.

All that political discourse, and yet... war.

Then it was inevitable?

You ask of me if
Eventual war between
States could have been stopped

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I prefer those consequences to the consequences of people being held in slavery indefinitely.

Don't get me wrong. Abolition of slavery was, is necessary. I just don't think it should've started a war. The South could've adopted this peacefully. I know of places were this happened, this transition, peacefully.

I know it happened that way in Puerto Rico in 1873.

Oh, they could have. Hell, Lincoln wasn't even pushing for the abolition of slavery, though he did make noises that this was something that we were going to need to start dealing with somehow, and soon. He could have easily gone for a "Letting it wither on the vine" option that preserved the union but eventually led to the manumission of the slaves. Instead, they decided to double down on it, and fired on Fort Sumter. A horribly stupid move made in the name of an inhuman cause.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Haiti, however, did not have the same fate. With the slaves brutally murdering the slaveowners, and this happened only 70 years earlier than in Puerto Rico, which is exactly what scared the US South into freeing the slaves, because they were afraid that what happened to the French in Haiti would happen to them.

George Washington considered allowing black slaves to fight in the Revolutionary Army, but didn't because he (accurately) estimated that the British would be able to recruit far more blacks into their army first.

Imagine what that would've done to the post-Revolutionary slavery discussion.

True, however, the Haiti revolt cemented their fears of releasing the slaves during the 1800s

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I'm well aware.

The Haiti revolt however, wouldn't have repeated itself since in the US the govt wanted abolition. That was not the case in Haiti. In Haiti, the slaves revolted precisely because the landowners there wanted them as slaves.

I agree that, given the background, it wouldn't have happened. You have to remember though, this was the 18th century, and Southerners were not very well aware of cultural differences between Haitian slave owners and themselves.

I don't think we even began believing in ourselves being different than the rest of the world until the whole Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism ideologies came about in the 19th century.

I don't know. I think Americans had their identity as such developed quite early on, or rather fast. It took centuries for several other countries to say we are X, different from England, or Spain, or Portugal.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Don't get me wrong. Abolition of slavery was, is necessary. I just don't think it should've started a war. The South could've adopted this peacefully. I know of places were this happened, this transition, peacefully.

I know it happened that way in Puerto Rico in 1873.

Oh, they could have. Hell, Lincoln wasn't even pushing for the abolition of slavery, though he did make noises that this was something that we were going to need to start dealing with somehow, and soon. He could have easily gone for a "Letting it wither on the vine" option that preserved the union but eventually led to the manumission of the slaves. Instead, they decided to double down on it, and fired on Fort Sumter. A horribly stupid move made in the name of an inhuman cause.

Do you think this influenced the segregation, which lasted until the 1960s, was it? And some of the lingering racism in the US?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Oh, they could have. Hell, Lincoln wasn't even pushing for the abolition of slavery, though he did make noises that this was something that we were going to need to start dealing with somehow, and soon. He could have easily gone for a "Letting it wither on the vine" option that preserved the union but eventually led to the manumission of the slaves. Instead, they decided to double down on it, and fired on Fort Sumter. A horribly stupid move made in the name of an inhuman cause.

Do you think this influenced the segregation, which lasted until the 1960s, was it? And some of the lingering racism in the US?

It's part and parcel. You can't have one without the other. Not that the North was immune from racism by any stretch of the imagination, but the South codified it into law.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Oh, they could have. Hell, Lincoln wasn't even pushing for the abolition of slavery, though he did make noises that this was something that we were going to need to start dealing with somehow, and soon. He could have easily gone for a "Letting it wither on the vine" option that preserved the union but eventually led to the manumission of the slaves. Instead, they decided to double down on it, and fired on Fort Sumter. A horribly stupid move made in the name of an inhuman cause.

Do you think this influenced the segregation, which lasted until the 1960s, was it? And some of the lingering racism in the US?

I wonder if some of the racism talks in Europe actually influenced post-Civil war thought though.

I mean, much of the concept of racism comes from Europe's studies about race during the 1700s. And it has been one of the most damaging ideologies coming out of the enlightenment in general.

[Confederate Flower Power]

Oh, they could have. Hell, Lincoln wasn't even pushing for the abolition of slavery, though he did make noises that this was something that we were going to need to start dealing with somehow, and soon. He could have easily gone for a "Letting it wither on the vine" option that preserved the union but eventually led to the manumission of the slaves. Instead, they decided to double down on it, and fired on Fort Sumter. A horribly stupid move made in the name of an inhuman cause.

Do you think this influenced the segregation, which lasted until the 1960s, was it? And some of the lingering racism in the US?

Those things are a product of the ideologies that people used to rationalize slavery. They aren't specifically related to the war. We probably would have had some type of lasting racial issues regardless of whether slavery ended peacefully or violently.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Then it was inevitable?

You ask of me if
Eventual war between
States could have been stopped

Truly I say
How much I
Avidly think
Not a moment should go by
Knowingly or not
Sincerely you have my gratitude.

Ok, that sucked.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

You ask of me if
Eventual war between
States could have been stopped

Truly I say
How much I
Avidly think
Not a moment should go by
Knowingly or not
Sincerely you have my gratitude.

Ok, that sucked.

Also, mine was a haiku.

[Orham]

People should have the right to change their system of government and/or redraw political boundaries at any time if the old ones are no longer meeting their needs. That's how self-determination works.

So if the city of Los Angeles one day decides it needs to declare independence and transform itself into a totalitarian autocracy, both the state of California and the US federal government should simply clap like impotent seals and let that happen?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Do you think this influenced the segregation, which lasted until the 1960s, was it? And some of the lingering racism in the US?

It's part and parcel. You can't have one without the other. Not that the North was immune from racism by any stretch of the imagination, but the South codified it into law.

It seems that you're right. Lynchings were sort of an event down here. Which is sad.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Do you think this influenced the segregation, which lasted until the 1960s, was it? And some of the lingering racism in the US?

Those things are a product of the ideologies that people used to rationalize slavery. They aren't specifically related to the war. We probably would have had some type of lasting racial issues regardless of whether slavery ended peacefully or violently.

This is probably accurate.

However, without a non-war timeline, we'll never know if that would have been the case.

[UED]

People should have the right to change their system of government and/or redraw political boundaries at any time if the old ones are no longer meeting their needs. That's how self-determination works.

So if the city of Los Angeles one day decides it needs to declare independence and transform itself into a totalitarian autocracy, both the state of California and the US federal government should simply clap like impotent seals and let that happen?

That was amazing