Do you consider the Confederate flag to be racist

[Genivaria]

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.

My trolling reply is always "Oh so you're not an American then?"

[Mormak]

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.

Again if you cannot impact the Legislation effectively is it in anyway put into effective with input?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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.

Again if you cannot impact the Legislation effectively is it in anyway put into effective with input?

Irrelevant. The region was promised representation, not constant success on the legislative battlefield. If they're unable to sell their points of view to their own party, then maybe it's not everybody else's problem.

[Geilinor]

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.

Again if you cannot impact the Legislation effectively is it in anyway put into effective with input?

The South could impact legislation in the Senate. You're promised representation, not success.

[Nazi Flower Power]

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?

Wut?

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.

That depends which abolitionists you asked. They weren't a hivemind.

Lincoln thought it might be best in the long run to send the blacks back to Africa because he doubted that blacks and whites could live together as equals, but he didn't have an immediate plan to deport them after the war.

[Nazi Flower Power]

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.

Pretty sure more than 10% of the seats in Congress and votes in the electoral college were given to Southern states. Not the North's fault if the South can't get its shit together to use them effectively. Given that the North had a much larger population, there was nothing undemocratic about the North having the ability to outvote the South on issues where the North was united. Not that the North was united on most issues...

[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.

Pretty sure more than 10% of the seats in Congress and votes in the electoral college were given to Southern states. Not the North's fault if the South can't get its shit together to use them effectively. Given that the North had a much larger population, there was nothing undemocratic about the North having the ability to outvote the South on issues where the North was united. Not that the North was united on most issues...

Oh yeah like i said the democratic party still maintained the majority in both sessions of congress that were important pre civil war, its just it didn't overly matter. And being outvoted merely is not a sign of being undemocratic no, but claiming representation when there wasn't anywhere near equal representation is a false here. The Democratic Party was dissolving at the time over the issue and the handful of Congressmen who were firmly in the Pro Slavery Camp in the 1857 Session and had any success such as Rusk died far too early.

Combine that with no effective of means to propose and negate legislation and its hardly a issue of representation, moreover its an issue of policy being forced down the throat.

[Farnhamia]

Pretty sure more than 10% of the seats in Congress and votes in the electoral college were given to Southern states. Not the North's fault if the South can't get its shit together to use them effectively. Given that the North had a much larger population, there was nothing undemocratic about the North having the ability to outvote the South on issues where the North was united. Not that the North was united on most issues...

Oh yeah like i said the democratic party still maintained the majority in both sessions of congress that were important pre civil war, its just it didn't overly matter. And being outvoted merely is not a sign of being undemocratic no, but claiming representation when there wasn't anywhere near equal representation is a false here. The Democratic Party was dissolving at the time over the issue and the handful of Congressmen who were firmly in the Pro Slavery Camp in the 1857 Session and had any success such as Rusk died far too early.

Combine that with no effective of means to propose and negate legislation and its hardly a issue of representation, moreover its an issue of policy being forced down the throat.

The Democrats had a 62% voting share in the 35th Congress, the session that convened in 1857. While that dropped to under 50% in the 36th Congress, the Republican majority in the Senate was 50.9%, hardly enough to force anything down anyone's throat. In fact, Senator Morrill's tariffs, the ones that are so often cited as being even more important to the South than slavery, were firmly bottled up in committee until the Southern Democrats withdrew from Congress in 1861. So, yeah, the South was hardly "underrepresented" in Congress, though I will grant you that the House was a lost cause for them by the 36th Congress.

[Destrovia]

Well they fought for what they believed in, but they rebelled again'st their Government to do so(Irony). So it's the symbol of the pride of traitors, and most people who don it are just Southern fellows that feel proud of the...uh...
Southern hospitality...

[Limborg]

Its not, just like the Nazi flag... People should try to seperate a flag from the persons/countries behind them.. If people don't do that then pretty much all flags can be considerd racist.

[Basseemia]

Well they fought for what they believed in, but they rebelled again'st their Government to do so(Irony). So it's the symbol of the pride of traitors, and most people who don it are just Southern fellows that feel proud of the...uh...
Southern hospitality...

Its a symbol of Southern pride in racism. During the Civil War they used it to represent their "country" which they wanted to create for states rights [to own slaves]. Now almost all white supremacist groups use it to represent hate to minorities so it is a racist symbol

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Well they fought for what they believed in, but they rebelled again'st their Government to do so(Irony). So it's the symbol of the pride of traitors, and most people who don it are just Southern fellows that feel proud of the...uh...
Southern hospitality...

Its a symbol of Southern pride in racism. During the Civil War they used it to represent their "country" which they wanted to create for states rights [to own slaves]. Now almost all white supremacist groups use it to represent hate to minorities so it is a racist symbol

No, not really. Today it's used by rednecks in general regardless of opinion on blacks.

[Farnhamia]

Its a symbol of Southern pride in racism. During the Civil War they used it to represent their "country" which they wanted to create for states rights [to own slaves]. Now almost all white supremacist groups use it to represent hate to minorities so it is a racist symbol

No, not really. Today it's used by rednecks in general regardless of opinion on blacks.

You can't deny that white supremacist groups do use the flag, though. Even if that flag did not represent rebellion and insurrection, its use by WS groups would taint it irrevocably.

[Basseemia]

Its a symbol of Southern pride in racism. During the Civil War they used it to represent their "country" which they wanted to create for states rights [to own slaves]. Now almost all white supremacist groups use it to represent hate to minorities so it is a racist symbol

No, not really. Today it's used by rednecks in general regardless of opinion on blacks.

Have you seen the KKK website?? http://www.traditionalistamericanknights.com/index.html They fly the Confederate flag. So do Neo-Confederates. You know why? Because they want the COnfederacy to come back. YOU KNOW WHY???????? BEcause of state rights. WHAT KIND OF STATE RIGHTS YOU MAY ASK????? The right to slavery of course.

[Mormak]

Oh yeah like i said the democratic party still maintained the majority in both sessions of congress that were important pre civil war, its just it didn't overly matter. And being outvoted merely is not a sign of being undemocratic no, but claiming representation when there wasn't anywhere near equal representation is a false here. The Democratic Party was dissolving at the time over the issue and the handful of Congressmen who were firmly in the Pro Slavery Camp in the 1857 Session and had any success such as Rusk died far too early.

Combine that with no effective of means to propose and negate legislation and its hardly a issue of representation, moreover its an issue of policy being forced down the throat.

The Democrats had a 62% voting share in the 35th Congress, the session that convened in 1857. While that dropped to under 50% in the 36th Congress, the Republican majority in the Senate was 50.9%, hardly enough to force anything down anyone's throat. In fact, Senator Morrill's tariffs, the ones that are so often cited as being even more important to the South than slavery, were firmly bottled up in committee until the Southern Democrats withdrew from Congress in 1861. So, yeah, the South was hardly "underrepresented" in Congress, though I will grant you that the House was a lost cause for them by the 36th Congress.

Do people ignore the whole "The Democratic Party wasn't anywhere near a united front" thingie for these pre civil war congresses or what? Seems like whenever i point out that Democrats in the Southern Pro Slavery Camp dying barely in their terms, Its ignored and folks continue to cite the seating of the House, Cool they had a majority! Did it matter in the grand scheme of thing? Obviously not.

I mean if you look back at History given the Democratic Party Proposed more then single ticket (Two for both Southern and Northern Democrats) It becomes obvious even at a PASSING glance, that you have more then a party having minor disagreements, the slavery issue tore the party apart as i said a few times now, did it impact them getting elected? Not overly. It still was a popular voting bloc, but it did have them voting against each other, blocking legislation and imposing the bottleneck the republican used to the fullest advantage they could.

As for Morrill, thankfully that was an issue Hunter used to bring the Bloc around a tad bit given it involved the Tariff issue which as you said was hotly contested, but i would argue given that the Southern Sessions were oft more concerned with Slavery then import taxes they wouldn't enforce, i would hardly support the notion it was more important.

Point being they lacked any sort of legitimate means to pass and enforce legislation or forestall efforts of legislation except when they COULD use their numeric superiority in the Senate to an advantage, and if you look at those sessions, that's a rarity more oft then norm.

Also by 1860 the Republican Party controlled the Electoral College, If the

[The Empire of Pretantia]

No, not really. Today it's used by rednecks in general regardless of opinion on blacks.

You can't deny that white supremacist groups do use the flag, though. Even if that flag did not represent rebellion and insurrection, its use by WS groups would taint it irrevocably.

That's true, but the same is for a lot of things.

No, not really. Today it's used by rednecks in general regardless of opinion on blacks.

Have you seen the KKK website?? http://www.traditionalistamericanknights.com/index.html They fly the Confederate flag. So do Neo-Confederates. You know why? Because they want the COnfederacy to come back. YOU KNOW WHY???????? BEcause of state rights. WHAT KIND OF STATE RIGHTS YOU MAY ASK????? The right to slavery of course.

So? A lot of less-than-pleasant Muslim nations use the moon and star, but that doesn't make it evil.

[Basseemia]

You can't deny that white supremacist groups do use the flag, though. Even if that flag did not represent rebellion and insurrection, its use by WS groups would taint it irrevocably.

That's true, but the same is for a lot of things.

Have you seen the KKK website?? http://www.traditionalistamericanknights.com/index.html They fly the Confederate flag. So do Neo-Confederates. You know why? Because they want the COnfederacy to come back. YOU KNOW WHY???????? BEcause of state rights. WHAT KIND OF STATE RIGHTS YOU MAY ASK????? The right to slavery of course.

So? A lot of less-than-pleasant Muslim nations use the moon and star, but that doesn't make it evil.

Yes thats true but as a Muslim I can assure you that those countries are not following the proper meaning of Islam but rather of oppression. And the history of the moon and star is not evil. But back to the Confederate Flag, the history of the confederate flag is most definitely evil and we shouldnt praise the flag because thats like praising what the soldiers were fighting for, what the "country" stood for, and what happened to African Americans at that time.

[Delmonte]

Well, the flag itself? No. Flags can't be racist. Do I consider people who fly it inherently racist? Well... I definitely used to. But over my journeys I've met enough people who fly it for completely different reasons (from supporting states' rights to supporting their sports team) that I no longer think that that's necessarily true. However, if I saw someone with a Confederate Flag and I were a gambling man...

[The Empire of Pretantia]

That's true, but the same is for a lot of things.

So? A lot of less-than-pleasant Muslim nations use the moon and star, but that doesn't make it evil.

Yes thats true but as a Muslim I can assure you that those countries are not following the proper meaning of Islam but rather of oppression. And the history of the moon and star is not evil. But back to the Confederate Flag, the history of the confederate flag is most definitely evil and we shouldnt praise the flag because thats like praising what the soldiers were fighting for, what the "country" stood for, and what happened to African Americans at that time.

So a good or a neutral symbol can be bad, but the reverse can't happen?

[Basseemia]

Yes thats true but as a Muslim I can assure you that those countries are not following the proper meaning of Islam but rather of oppression. And the history of the moon and star is not evil. But back to the Confederate Flag, the history of the confederate flag is most definitely evil and we shouldnt praise the flag because thats like praising what the soldiers were fighting for, what the "country" stood for, and what happened to African Americans at that time.

So a good or a neutral symbol can be bad, but the reverse can't happen?

Okay if you mean the "good or neutral symbol" being the Confederate Flag, it was never "good or neutral" in the first place so your argument is invalid.

[Farnhamia]

The Democrats had a 62% voting share in the 35th Congress, the session that convened in 1857. While that dropped to under 50% in the 36th Congress, the Republican majority in the Senate was 50.9%, hardly enough to force anything down anyone's throat. In fact, Senator Morrill's tariffs, the ones that are so often cited as being even more important to the South than slavery, were firmly bottled up in committee until the Southern Democrats withdrew from Congress in 1861. So, yeah, the South was hardly "underrepresented" in Congress, though I will grant you that the House was a lost cause for them by the 36th Congress.

Do people ignore the whole "The Democratic Party wasn't anywhere near a united front" thingie for these pre civil war congresses or what? Seems like whenever i point out that Democrats in the Southern Pro Slavery Camp dying barely in their terms, Its ignored and folks continue to cite the seating of the House, Cool they had a majority! Did it matter in the grand scheme of thing? Obviously not.

I mean if you look back at History given the Democratic Party Proposed more then single ticket (Two for both Southern and Northern Democrats) It becomes obvious even at a PASSING glance, that you have more then a party having minor disagreements, the slavery issue tore the party apart as i said a few times now, did it impact them getting elected? Not overly. It still was a popular voting bloc, but it did have them voting against each other, blocking legislation and imposing the bottleneck the republican used to the fullest advantage they could.

As for Morrill, thankfully that was an issue Hunter used to bring the Bloc around a tad bit given it involved the Tariff issue which as you said was hotly contested, but i would argue given that the Southern Sessions were oft more concerned with Slavery then import taxes they wouldn't enforce, i would hardly support the notion it was more important.

Point being they lacked any sort of legitimate means to pass and enforce legislation or forestall efforts of legislation except when they COULD use their numeric superiority in the Senate to an advantage, and if you look at those sessions, that's a rarity more oft then norm.

Also by 1860 the Republican Party controlled the Electoral College, If the

I'm not saying that the tariffs were more important but that Confederate apologists claim they were. They claim that they were a kind of economic warfare against the South. I'll grant your idea of the disarray of the Democratic Party in the Congresses preceding secession but the dissolution of a party hardly equates to under-representation. The country was changing, the center of population moving west and the Southern states were upset that they were in danger of losing their commanding position in Congress. In response they looked backward and tried to withdraw from the Union in order to preserve a way of life that was clearly on its way out. What they ought to have done was encourage manufacturing in their states in order to bring workers in to boost their population so as to retain their seats in the House.

[Mormak]

So a good or a neutral symbol can be bad, but the reverse can't happen?

Okay if you mean the "good or neutral symbol" being the Confederate Flag, it was never "good or neutral" in the first place so your argument is invalid.

Only if you feel things like Self governance, Policing of self, and Self Determination as "negative" in any moral spectrum.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

So a good or a neutral symbol can be bad, but the reverse can't happen?

Okay if you mean the "good or neutral symbol" being the Confederate Flag, it was never "good or neutral" in the first place so your argument is invalid.

It wasn't at first, but now it's not universally bad. Take, for example, this guy. It can be a symbol of southern pride as much as one of racism.

[Farnhamia]

Okay if you mean the "good or neutral symbol" being the Confederate Flag, it was never "good or neutral" in the first place so your argument is invalid.

Only if you feel things like Self governance, Policing of self, and Self Determination as "negative" in any moral spectrum.

Only if you feel that the breaking of a solemn compact of perpetual Union, rebellion and insurrection, and slavery are "positive" in any moral spectrum.

[Basseemia]

Okay if you mean the "good or neutral symbol" being the Confederate Flag, it was never "good or neutral" in the first place so your argument is invalid.

Only if you feel things like Self governance, Policing of self, and Self Determination as "negative" in any moral spectrum.

You need to understand that the entire Confederate Flag/ states right/Confederacy revolved around slavery and that was the main reason they wanted states rights in the first place. Understand that and youll see that the flag's context is in fact extremely racist.