Do you consider the Confederate flag to be racist

[Dyakovo]

t i'd also point out this, The Union Military forces whom directed the Territory to not secede at the point of a rifle were little better then the Confederates that wanted them to secede at the point of a rifle.

How so?

[Mormak]

t i'd also point out this, The Union Military forces whom directed the Territory to not secede at the point of a rifle were little better then the Confederates that wanted them to secede at the point of a rifle.

How so?

Because it ultimately boiled down to ideological preference for either side you supported. There was no moral highground here.

Its a perspective issue, and rarely is there a perspective i encounter that inadvertently label "superior" to another.

[Dyakovo]

So, if I write up something stating that I own your house, then write up another "legal" document that states that everything I've written previously is legally valid, I then own your house?

There are laws regarding this issue already!

Eminent domain is a popular concept in the world.

Is that a yes or a no?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

How so?

Because it ultimately boiled down to ideological preference for either side you supported. There was no moral highground here.

Its a perspective issue, and rarely is there a perspective i encounter that inadvertently label "superior" to another.

Okay.

I vote that the people who weren't looking to break off from the union in order to preserve the single most horrifying institution ever perpetrated on these shores were morally superior to those who were.

Counterclaim?

[Dyakovo]

How so?

Because it ultimately boiled down to ideological preference for either side you supported. There was no moral highground here.

Its a perspective issue, and rarely is there a perspective i encounter that inadvertently label "superior" to another.

The Union troops were agents of the legal owner. They most certainly did have the moral high ground.

[Mormak]

There are laws regarding this issue already!

Eminent domain is a popular concept in the world.

Is that a yes or a no?

It's a "From your perspective" you would.

If i disagreed with that however, It would come to an impasse.

[Pandeeria]

How so?

Because it ultimately boiled down to ideological preference for either side you supported. There was no moral highground here.

Its a perspective issue, and rarely is there a perspective i encounter that inadvertently label "superior" to another.

No moral high ground?

You don't think slavery is a morally bad thing?

[Tekania]

Because it ultimately boiled down to ideological preference for either side you supported. There was no moral highground here.

Its a perspective issue, and rarely is there a perspective i encounter that inadvertently label "superior" to another.

No moral high ground?

You don't think slavery is a morally bad thing?

The issue here is with the legal validity of seizure of federal forts by state militia units. At the time of the seizures slavery issues were not a component of Union operations.

[Mormak]

Because it ultimately boiled down to ideological preference for either side you supported. There was no moral highground here.

Its a perspective issue, and rarely is there a perspective i encounter that inadvertently label "superior" to another.

No moral high ground?

You don't think slavery is a morally bad thing?

That seems like a moral landmine if i ever saw one Do i believe in it personally? As already stated on the thread, i do not believe in the practice nor do i condone it.

However i do acknowledge that it was immensely lucrative at the time in the North American Continent and i also acknowledge that through out its entire inception in recorded history it has been so. So do i fault those who wished to keep such an economic power and industrial power? No, But you asked if i viewed it as Morally bad.

Financially and economically if managed correctly it can be a profitable institution History has proven as much, but Morally? Its a horrid practice despite its utility. But i do acknowledge its Utility.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No moral high ground?

You don't think slavery is a morally bad thing?

The issue here is with the legal validity of seizure of federal forts by state militia units. At the time of the seizures slavery issues were not a component of Union operations.

Except that he referred specifically to the moral high ground.

[Antarticaria]

Just to point out just because one didn't support slavery, doesnt mean they saw blacks as anywhere close to equals *)and(* actually most "different" races were discriminated against as well.

Including:
Asians (remember the railroad workers and miners worked to death)
Blacks (Pretty obvious, even without slavery they were still oppressed and counted as second rate)
Irish (Stuck on very very dangerous jobs and given little to no pay)
(hey this one isnt even a race) Women
Italians
Germans
...
The list goes on an on, point is throughout our nations history racism ran crazy and just didnt end when the CSA fell.

[Mormak]

No moral high ground?

You don't think slavery is a morally bad thing?

The issue here is with the legal validity of seizure of federal forts by state militia units. At the time of the seizures slavery issues were not a component of Union operations.

You mean the Sovereign armed forces of a Confederation of Nations.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Just to point out just because one didn't support slavery, doesnt mean they saw blacks as anywhere close to equals *)and(* actually most "different" races were discriminated against as well.

Including:
Asians (remember the railroad workers and miners worked to death)
Blacks (Pretty obvious, even without slavery they were still oppressed and counted as second rate)
Irish (Stuck on very very dangerous jobs and given little to no pay)
(hey this one isnt even a race) Women
Italians
Germans
...
The list goes on an on, point is throughout our nations history racism ran crazy and just didnt end when the CSA fell.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The issue here is with the legal validity of seizure of federal forts by state militia units. At the time of the seizures slavery issues were not a component of Union operations.

You mean the Sovereign armed forces of a Confederation of Nations.

They weren't sovereign.

They weren't nations.

[Antarticaria]

Just to point out just because one didn't support slavery, doesnt mean they saw blacks as anywhere close to equals *)and(* actually most "different" races were discriminated against as well.

Including:
Asians (remember the railroad workers and miners worked to death)
Blacks (Pretty obvious, even without slavery they were still oppressed and counted as second rate)
Irish (Stuck on very very dangerous jobs and given little to no pay)
(hey this one isnt even a race) Women
Italians
Germans
...
The list goes on an on, point is throughout our nations history racism ran crazy and just didnt end when the CSA fell.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that.

I was just commenting on the 'moral high ground' one right doesn't fix many years worth of wrong.

[Mormak]

You mean the Sovereign armed forces of a Confederation of Nations.

They weren't sovereign.

They weren't nations.

That sounds like a fascinating opinion friend.

I disagree

[Pandeeria]

They weren't sovereign.

They weren't nations.

That sounds like a fascinating opinion friend.

I disagree

They weren't sovereign though.

[Mormak]

That sounds like a fascinating opinion friend.

I disagree

They weren't sovereign though.

Their constitution disagrees.

As did their Armed forces.

[Antarticaria]

I would have to agree with the others, they weren't sovereign, no more then the whiskey rebellion was sovereign. In order to claim sovereignty completely you sort of have to... win first? Much like the situation with America and England.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I don't think that anyone is arguing that.

I was just commenting on the 'moral high ground' one right doesn't fix many years worth of wrong.

Nobody stated that it did.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

They weren't sovereign.

They weren't nations.

That sounds like a fascinating opinion friend.

I disagree

They were states within a Union.

Thing is, if they'd had any claim to independence or to marginalization and ill-treatment beyond "We want to keep owning people!", then I'd have a bit more sympathy. They didn't.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

They weren't sovereign though.

Their constitution disagrees.

As did their Armed forces.

The argument made by their armed forces was rather thoroughly refuted by the Union forces.

[Pandeeria]

They weren't sovereign though.

Their constitution disagrees.

As did their Armed forces.

No they weren't. They didn't have the legal right to be sovereign nor should they have the right to be sovereign over a trivial issue like states rights or slavery.

[Mormak]

I would have to agree with the others, they weren't sovereign, no more then the whiskey rebellion was sovereign. In order to claim sovereignty completely you sort of have to... win first? Much like the situation with America and England.

According to what article of War or Establishment of governance?

John Locke said that political legitimacy derives from popular explicit and implicit consent of the governed

The Chinese Used the Mandate of Heaven.

Rational legitimacy derives from a system of institutional procedure, wherein government institutions establish and enforce law and order in the public interest. Therefore, it is through public trust that the government will abide the law that confers rational-legal legitimacy.

I could cite many more forms of "legitimacy to rule or of the state" but the point being is, there isn't an established method of being a recognized Nation anymore then there is a Notion of Theological Absolute Monarchy being the best system of governance, There are many methods, theories and beliefs when it comes to this subject.

[Dyakovo]

They weren't sovereign.

They weren't nations.

That sounds like a fascinating opinion friend.

I disagree

Unfortunately for you, it isn't a matter of opinion.