Do you consider the Confederate flag to be racist

[Mormak]

Given what it stood for, yeah.

It shouldn't have the same protections as the American flag does. It's a piece of cloth that represents an outdated, bigoted bureaucracy that fought an incredibly bloody war for the right to enslave human beings...and not pay taxes

So basically the same symbol that the American flag stands or stood for or whatever.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Given what it stood for, yeah.

It shouldn't have the same protections as the American flag does. It's a piece of cloth that represents an outdated, bigoted bureaucracy that fought an incredibly bloody war for the right to enslave human beings...and not pay taxes

So basically the same symbol that the American flag stands or stood for or whatever.

As the slave trade was not being threatened by King George's government, and the Revolutionary War was not fought over the right for the colonies to continue enslaving Africans and their descendants, the comparison doesn't work.

[Mormak]

So basically the same symbol that the American flag stands or stood for or whatever.

As the slave trade was not being threatened by King George's government, and the Revolutionary War was not fought over the right for the colonies to continue enslaving Africans and their descendants, the comparison doesn't work.

Not if you take it as anything more then an attempt at Humor no, Hence why i made no real effort to back up the comparison.

That said: The right to maintain economic sovereignty and not pay Taxes to a foreign state is something comparable to both conflicts. Federalists were taxing tea! Not really, they were making it more expensive then it need be to maintain the Plantation style economics of the Southern States though, Then again the constitution protection against that went out in 1808 so it was fair game.

Still a low blow, but a legal one.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

As the slave trade was not being threatened by King George's government, and the Revolutionary War was not fought over the right for the colonies to continue enslaving Africans and their descendants, the comparison doesn't work.

Not if you take it as anything more then an attempt at Humor no, Hence why i made no real effort to back up the comparison.

That said: The right to maintain economic sovereignty and not pay Taxes to a foreign state is something comparable to both conflicts. Federalists were taxing tea! Not really, they were making it more expensive then it need be to maintain the Plantation style economics of the Southern States though, Then again the constitution protection against that went out in 1808 so it was fair game.

Still a low blow, but a legal one.

Even then, the problem during the war was taxation without representation. The Southern states had been well-represented, and had even managed to ride roughshod over Congress for generations. The tables had turned, and they were no longer in a position of power. However, they were still represented.

[Dyakovo]

Given what it stood for, yeah.

It shouldn't have the same protections as the American flag does. It's a piece of cloth that represents an outdated, bigoted bureaucracy that fought an incredibly bloody war for the right to enslave human beings.

A public institution should be prevented from flying it. A private home? Go ahead, but everyone within a few hundred meters will know that you're a worthless hick.

This I completely disagree with.

[Libertarian California]

Given what it stood for, yeah.

It shouldn't have the same protections as the American flag does. It's a piece of cloth that represents an outdated, bigoted bureaucracy that fought an incredibly bloody war for the right to enslave human beings...and not pay taxes

So basically the same symbol that the American flag stands or stood for or whatever.

Oh lord.

[Mormak]

Not if you take it as anything more then an attempt at Humor no, Hence why i made no real effort to back up the comparison.

That said: The right to maintain economic sovereignty and not pay Taxes to a foreign state is something comparable to both conflicts. Federalists were taxing tea! Not really, they were making it more expensive then it need be to maintain the Plantation style economics of the Southern States though, Then again the constitution protection against that went out in 1808 so it was fair game.

Still a low blow, but a legal one.

Even then, the problem during the war was taxation without representation. The Southern states had been well-represented, and had even managed to ride roughshod over Congress for generations. The tables had turned, and they were no longer in a position of power. However, they were still represented.

I think being railroaded by the Abolitionist movement who went to ship off the entirety of your production force back to Africa isn't exactly representation. I mean is a token gesture of "democracy" truly democratic when in actuality the course of the matter is already decided prevote? Also i notice that never comes up when discussing this subject, you get those who spiel of Union White knights fighting Southern mustache twirling villains who wanted to continue enslavement of the Africans.

Never mentioned that the Abolitionists wanted to deport the Africans after the war and that was even the plan of Lincoln, given they were non-citizens. Anywho I don't see it as an overt move to trigger hostilities, But it was one of the many things that contributed to the break away and formation of the C.S.A.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Even then, the problem during the war was taxation without representation. The Southern states had been well-represented, and had even managed to ride roughshod over Congress for generations. The tables had turned, and they were no longer in a position of power. However, they were still represented.

I think being railroaded by the Abolitionist movement who went to ship off the entirety of your production force back to Africa isn't exactly representation. I mean is a token gesture of "democracy" truly democratic when in actuality the course of the matter is already decided prevote? Also i notice that never comes up when discussing this subject, you get those who spiel of Union White knights fighting Southern mustache twirling villains who wanted to continue enslavement of the Africans.

Never mentioned that the Abolitionists wanted to deport the Africans after the war and that was even the plan of Lincoln, given they were non-citizens. Anywho I don't see it as an overt move to trigger hostilities, But it was one of the many things that contributed to the break away and formation of the C.S.A.

You mean the workforce that had been enslaved and abused for generations? That workforce?

Who was proposing to ship them back?

What bill had been presented?

What were the chances of such a proposal succeeding?

When did I make the spiel you mentioned?

TL;DR: Source that shit.

[Mormak]

I think being railroaded by the Abolitionist movement who went to ship off the entirety of your production force back to Africa isn't exactly representation. I mean is a token gesture of "democracy" truly democratic when in actuality the course of the matter is already decided prevote? Also i notice that never comes up when discussing this subject, you get those who spiel of Union White knights fighting Southern mustache twirling villains who wanted to continue enslavement of the Africans.

Never mentioned that the Abolitionists wanted to deport the Africans after the war and that was even the plan of Lincoln, given they were non-citizens. Anywho I don't see it as an overt move to trigger hostilities, But it was one of the many things that contributed to the break away and formation of the C.S.A.

You mean the workforce that had been enslaved and abused for generations? That workforce?

Who was proposing to ship them back?

What bill had been presented?

What were the chances of such a proposal succeeding?

When did I make the spiel you mentioned?

1.Obviously?
2. The Back to Africa Movement has seen several bills presented. Do you want direct citation of the Individual ones?
3. Given the popularity of the Abolishist at the time in congress? I'd rate it middling at best, but possible.
4. You seem to have no end of insults to the C.S.A its banner, its cause or its viewpoint so...I necessarily wouldn't say you view the Union as White knights, but its absolute to see you view them as preferable.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You mean the workforce that had been enslaved and abused for generations? That workforce?

Who was proposing to ship them back?

What bill had been presented?

What were the chances of such a proposal succeeding?

When did I make the spiel you mentioned?

1.Obviously?
2. The Back to Africa Movement has seen several bills presented. Do you want direct citation of the Individual ones?
3. Given the popularity of the Abolishist at the time in congress? I'd rate it middling at best, but possible.
4. You seem to have no end of insults to the C.S.A its banner, its cause or its viewpoint so...I necessarily wouldn't say you view the Union as White knights, but its absolute to see you view them as preferable.

2. Only the ones that had a chance in passing, and weren't like the attempted Obamacare repeals we're seeing nowadays.
3. Source?
4. Yes, I do view them as preferable to a would-be state breaking off mostly so that they could continue their enslavement, rape, maiming, and general abuse of their fellow human beings.

[Basseemia]

I've never seen the flag used in a racist context, and I don't consider it racist.

(Image)

Look up pictures of the KKK!
Of course what the flag stands for is racist! And if you dont think its racist its probably because you're racist

[Mormak]

1.Obviously?
2. The Back to Africa Movement has seen several bills presented. Do you want direct citation of the Individual ones?
3. Given the popularity of the Abolishist at the time in congress? I'd rate it middling at best, but possible.
4. You seem to have no end of insults to the C.S.A its banner, its cause or its viewpoint so...I necessarily wouldn't say you view the Union as White knights, but its absolute to see you view them as preferable.

2. Only the ones that had a chance in passing, and weren't like the attempted Obamacare repeals we're seeing nowadays.
3. Source?
4. Yes, I do view them as preferable to a would-be state breaking off mostly so that they could continue their enslavement, rape, maiming, and general abuse of their fellow human beings.

2. I am assuming you want every notable one until 1868 then given that with the passing of the 14th adamant to the Constitution, all Naturally born peoples of the United States were given Citizenship, that basically ended the "Back to Africa" Movement of the Era. The first and most notable is The American Colonization Society Proposal of 1815 in which 80 former slaves were relocated to Freetown, Sierra Leone. It met mixed feelings from the Congress in session and ultimately was not accepted. The Most widely cited case is obviously the founding of Liberia as a relocation area for freed American slaves by the ACS. Again not widely supported by the congress but did reach it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-to-Af ... References

As i said not a widely supported position, but had enough clout to make it congress a few times.

3. Do you want to count the Republicans who more or less wanted the same thing just not immediately to provoke a war, or do you want strictly "abolitionist" congress supporters?
4. Figured as much.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

2. Only the ones that had a chance in passing, and weren't like the attempted Obamacare repeals we're seeing nowadays.
3. Source?
4. Yes, I do view them as preferable to a would-be state breaking off mostly so that they could continue their enslavement, rape, maiming, and general abuse of their fellow human beings.

2. I am assuming you want every notable one until 1868 then given that with the passing of the 14th adamant to the Constitution, all Naturally born peoples of the United States were given Citizenship, that basically ended the "Back to Africa" Movement of the Era. The first and most notable is The American Colonization Society Proposal of 1815 in which 80 former slaves were relocated to Freetown, Sierra Leone. It met mixed feelings from the Congress in session and ultimately was not accepted. The Most widely cited case is obviously the founding of Liberia as a relocation area for freed American slaves by the ACS. Again not widely supported by the congress but did reach it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-to-Af ... References

As i said not a widely supported position, but had enough clout to make it congress a few times.

3. Do you want to count the Republicans who more or less wanted the same thing just not immediately to provoke a war, or do you want strictly "abolitionist" congress supporters?
4. Figured as much.

So essentially these bills didn't have a serious chance of passing, and the South jumped the gun. Not to mention that they were still represented, which was my point in the first place.

[Mormak]

2. I am assuming you want every notable one until 1868 then given that with the passing of the 14th adamant to the Constitution, all Naturally born peoples of the United States were given Citizenship, that basically ended the "Back to Africa" Movement of the Era. The first and most notable is The American Colonization Society Proposal of 1815 in which 80 former slaves were relocated to Freetown, Sierra Leone. It met mixed feelings from the Congress in session and ultimately was not accepted. The Most widely cited case is obviously the founding of Liberia as a relocation area for freed American slaves by the ACS. Again not widely supported by the congress but did reach it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-to-Af ... References

As i said not a widely supported position, but had enough clout to make it congress a few times.

3. Do you want to count the Republicans who more or less wanted the same thing just not immediately to provoke a war, or do you want strictly "abolitionist" congress supporters?
4. Figured as much.

So essentially these bills didn't have a serious chance of passing, and the South jumped the gun. Not to mention that they were still represented, which was my point in the first place.

If you think that them going over to Africa and creating Infrastructure and colonies to resettle them in isn't a serious attempt anyway. And again Under Represented if you consider the Republican Parties popularity at the time, The Democrats were losing steam over the issue and were basically fragmenting as they had been for years by this point.

So represented sure, by a united and vested interest? Not even close, it was a divided and rapidly shrinking bloc of the congress. I don't view a 90/10 split as even presentation of view.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

So essentially these bills didn't have a serious chance of passing, and the South jumped the gun. Not to mention that they were still represented, which was my point in the first place.

If you think that them going over to Africa and creating Infrastructure and colonies to resettle them in isn't a serious attempt anyway. And again Under Represented if you consider the Republican Parties popularity at the time, The Democrats were losing steam over the issue and were basically fragmenting as they had been for years by this point.

So represented sure, by a united and vested interest? Not even close, it was a divided and rapidly shrinking bloc of the congress. I don't view a 90/10 split as even presentation of view.

With that many slaves? It barely rates as an experiment.

What makes you call it a 90/10 split?

[Mormak]

If you think that them going over to Africa and creating Infrastructure and colonies to resettle them in isn't a serious attempt anyway. And again Under Represented if you consider the Republican Parties popularity at the time, The Democrats were losing steam over the issue and were basically fragmenting as they had been for years by this point.

So represented sure, by a united and vested interest? Not even close, it was a divided and rapidly shrinking bloc of the congress. I don't view a 90/10 split as even presentation of view.

With that many slaves? It barely rates as an experiment.

What makes you call it a 90/10 split?

At the time when it was being brought to congress and the establishment of a Nation was underway it likely seemed far more then that, Hindsight is perfect and all.

Because despite holding the Majority the Democrats i have said repeatedly were ripping themselves apart on the issue of Slavery.

Because as you likely well known it was a primarily southern bloc but had many vestures in the Northern portion of the Union. And there was mass division over the issue, the Democrats had majority in the 1858, 1860 Congress but that barely impacted the issue at all given their division. Also factor in that several Pro Slavery Senators of the democratic party died in 1857 barely into their terms such as Thomas Rusk of Texas.

And his replacement died in 1858.

._. See the issue here? As quickly as they were getting them in there, they were dropping like flies. That and many other reasons are why i view the last few congresses before the civil war to be jokes.

[Dyakovo]

If you think that them going over to Africa and creating Infrastructure and colonies to resettle them in isn't a serious attempt anyway. And again Under Represented if you consider the Republican Parties popularity at the time, The Democrats were losing steam over the issue and were basically fragmenting as they had been for years by this point.

So represented sure, by a united and vested interest? Not even close, it was a divided and rapidly shrinking bloc of the congress. I don't view a 90/10 split as even presentation of view.

With that many slaves? It barely rates as an experiment.

What makes you call it a 90/10 split?

Kind of ridiculous to say they were under represented when the Democrats held 38 of 66 seats in the Senate (with 3 seats vacant) and 84 of 237 seats in the House (with 2 seats vacant) at the beginning of the 36th Congress...

[Mormak]

With that many slaves? It barely rates as an experiment.

What makes you call it a 90/10 split?

Kind of ridiculous to say they were under represented when the Democrats held 38 of 66 seats in the Senate (with 3 seats vacant) and 84 of 237 seats in the House (with 2 seats vacant) at the beginning of the 36th Congress...

Its more accurate to say they held 36 seats given four men died in their terms within the year and had to be replaced, also factor in the division over Slavery and hardly have a United Front for "Plantation economics" The Democratic Party tore it self apart over the Slavery Issue better then the Wigs ever could.

Seriously its that brief statement of inaccuracy that annoys me on the issue.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Kind of ridiculous to say they were under represented when the Democrats held 38 of 66 seats in the Senate (with 3 seats vacant) and 84 of 237 seats in the House (with 2 seats vacant) at the beginning of the 36th Congress...

Its more accurate to say they held 36 seats given four men died in their terms within the year and had to be replaced, also factor in the division over Slavery and hardly have a United Front for "Plantation economics" The Democratic Party tore it self apart over the Slavery Issue better then the Wigs ever could.

Seriously its that brief statement of inaccuracy that annoys me on the issue.

And yet you're losing sight one one thing, here, which is that they were still represented, if not in the numbers they were used to. Therefore, the previous analogy was still inaccurate.

[Mormak]

Its more accurate to say they held 36 seats given four men died in their terms within the year and had to be replaced, also factor in the division over Slavery and hardly have a United Front for "Plantation economics" The Democratic Party tore it self apart over the Slavery Issue better then the Wigs ever could.

Seriously its that brief statement of inaccuracy that annoys me on the issue.

And yet you're losing sight one one thing, here, which is that they were still represented, if not in the numbers they were used to. Therefore, the previous analogy was still inaccurate.

Do you think that people listen to the Green Party? Or the American Independent Party? Or Any party at all that can barely muster into Congress little lone have the numbers to push Legislation or block it? Its in effect the very same thing as having NO voice. So the Analogy works.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And yet you're losing sight one one thing, here, which is that they were still represented, if not in the numbers they were used to. Therefore, the previous analogy was still inaccurate.

Do you think that people listen to the Green Party? Or the American Independent Party? Or Any party at all that can barely muster into Congress little lone have the numbers to push Legislation or block it? Its in effect the very same thing as having NO voice. So the Analogy works.

Do the Greens or Libertarians have representatives in Congress?

No?

Then you might want to find a better argument.

There's also the fact that we're talking about representatives for certain regions. The South had those, regardless of party, and they were freely elected.

[Mormak]

Do you think that people listen to the Green Party? Or the American Independent Party? Or Any party at all that can barely muster into Congress little lone have the numbers to push Legislation or block it? Its in effect the very same thing as having NO voice. So the Analogy works.

Do the Greens or Libertarians have representatives in Congress?

No?

Then you might want to find a better argument.

Do you think it matters having representation when they are divided on such a critical issue they destroy each other's efforts at legislation?

Its a feasible argument, the best kind.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Do the Greens or Libertarians have representatives in Congress?

No?

Then you might want to find a better argument.

Do you think it matters having representation when they are divided on such a critical issue they destroy each other's efforts at legislation?

Its a feasible argument, the best kind.

Their region was represented. Therefore, they could not complain that they were being taxed without representation, or that laws were being passed without their input.

[Dyakovo]

Do you think that people listen to the Green Party? Or the American Independent Party? Or Any party at all that can barely muster into Congress little lone have the numbers to push Legislation or block it? Its in effect the very same thing as having NO voice. So the Analogy works.

Do the Greens or Libertarians have representatives in Congress?

No?
Then you might want to find a better argument.

There's also the fact that we're talking about representatives for certain regions. The South had those, regardless of party, and they were freely elected.

Silly Yummy… If your party doesn't get a clear majority, the election doesn't really count.
*nods*

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Do the Greens or Libertarians have representatives in Congress?

No?
Then you might want to find a better argument.

There's also the fact that we're talking about representatives for certain regions. The South had those, regardless of party, and they were freely elected.

Silly Yummy… If your party doesn't get a clear majority, the election doesn't really count.
*nods*

That does explain the number of Republicans saying that Obama isn't their President.