The Confederate battle flag

[Ismoli]

I'd rather be offended by the words and acts of said people in question than a red rag with a blue saltire and white stars, but that's just me.

Those people are dead. We're not angry at the flag, but the people who still tacitly endorse all of the people we're really offended by.

I meant racists and anti-abolitionists in general. The flag is seen as a symbol of racism and slavery.

[Getrektistan]

I'd say the distinction between slavery and a lack thereof is quite a bit more drastic than "a tad bit more nice".

Not really, given the major geographical differences of the two sides.

So you don't see a very big moral difference between somebody who wants to own other people because they think they're inferior and somebody who wants them to be free? I recognize the influence of geography here, but I don't see how that changes the ethics of the situation.

[Scholmeria]

The slaves didn't have a referendum to be whipped and put in chains and forced to pick cotton and be raped and have their loved ones killed at the whim of another. The Confederates didn't seem too upset about that, either, so clearly your claim to be a human rights lover doesn't hold water if you think the CSA was a moral institution.

Yes, the CSA could be seen as a immoral institution but in that case I should also think the same for the USA because it also had slavery and the CSA would abolished such institution with time.

The other alternative is not have prejudices toward the USA and CSA and look all facts without any moral or political bias (also aknowledge that slavery was not the main reason for seceding, Lincoln was not always the Saint and so on). You know the USA could be classified as a much worser insitution because it comited genocide on Indians (so some would say the US is a genocidal creation) while the Confederates never attacked the Indians.

By owning slaves.

If I don't know that murder is a crime, can I kill people with impunity?

In court people who are usually insane and cannot control their behaviour are getting acquited for murderous, at least in Europe. They also get rehabilitation.

That is patently false. If you think slavery was peace, you're severely misinformed about slavery.

I was not speaking about slavery but about the free black people which were more than in the North.

[Scholmeria]

Stop defending slavery, slavers, and the crusades. Those are all horrible atrocities in human history. Savers didn't want to "live in peace" with the slaves, they wanted to work them all for all of their lives without ever paying them an actual wage. There were BLACK abolitionists who advocated for a return to Africa. Are they racist against themselves? But you know what? Clearly the people who basically tortured an entire ethnicity just didn't know better, and the people who wanted to rescue them from slavery did it because they were racist. That's a much more valid argument than mine.

You are the one that is hurt by truth. While yes i might aknowledge that the CSA was wrong the reason for starting the Crusaders were not.

[Roski]

Not really, given the major geographical differences of the two sides.

So you don't see a very big moral difference between somebody who wants to own other people because they think they're inferior and somebody who wants them to be free? I recognize the influence of geography here, but I don't see how that changes the ethics of the situation.

Slavery (the non racist kind) is not a bad thing. You think it is because you are filled with the lies of the US History textbooks.

Winner writes the history.

[Ancient Magmia]

No, though some people use it that way.

[Ismoli]

So you don't see a very big moral difference between somebody who wants to own other people because they think they're inferior and somebody who wants them to be free? I recognize the influence of geography here, but I don't see how that changes the ethics of the situation.

Slavery (the non racist kind) is not a bad thing. You think it is because you are filled with the lies of the US History textbooks.

Winner writes the history.

Slavery (the ownership of a person by another person) is against people's right to self-determination which is also known as freedom. Going against freedom makes the act bad and wrong.

[Getrektistan]

The slaves didn't have a referendum to be whipped and put in chains and forced to pick cotton and be raped and have their loved ones killed at the whim of another. The Confederates didn't seem too upset about that, either, so clearly your claim to be a human rights lover doesn't hold water if you think the CSA was a moral institution.

Yes, the CSA could be seen as a immoral institution but in that case I should also think the same for the USA because it also had slavery

I agree entirely that the ownership of slaves by any individual is immoral, be they Union, Confederate, or otherwise.

and the CSA would abolished such institution with time.

Probably. That doesn't make it any more defensible, and supporting a clearly virulently racist slave nation is still incompatible with support for human rights.

The other alternative is not have prejudices toward the USA and CSA and look all facts without any moral or political bias

As I said, I deplore the Union slave states just as much as the Confederacy.

(also aknowledge that slavery was not the main reason for seceding, Lincoln was not always the Saint and so on).

As I said, the North was hardly a bunch of angels. However, slavery was very much the main reason for succession, I would argue. Sure, their official reason was states' rights, but the states' right they fought for primarily was the right to own slaves.

You know the USA could be classified as a much worser insitution because it comited genocide on Indians (so some would say the US is a genocidal creation)

And I would certainly classify America as a nation with genocidal beginnings. I absolutely hate how our country was founded, no matter how much I like our country now.

while the Confederates never attacked the Indians.

They weren't really around long enough for that to be a valid point one way or the other.

By owning slaves.

If I don't know that murder is a crime, can I kill people with impunity?

In court people who are usually insane and cannot control their behaviour are getting acquited for murderous, at least in Europe. They also get rehabilitation.

Slave owners weren't criminally insane or incapable of controlling their behavior, they were regular people who owned slaves.

That is patently false. If you think slavery was peace, you're severely misinformed about slavery.

I was not speaking about slavery but about the free black people which were more than in the North.

There were not more free blacks in the South, and the free blacks that did exist were less free than those that existed in the North.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

Yes, the CSA could be seen as a immoral institution but in that case I should also think the same for the USA because it also had slavery and the CSA would abolished such institution with time.

The other alternative is not have prejudices toward the USA and CSA and look all facts without any moral or political bias (also aknowledge that slavery was not the main reason for seceding, Lincoln was not always the Saint and so on).

Oh, hey, this again! Let me show you something: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... ne-speech/
Now, I don't expect you to read that in-depth. Here's the run down: It's a speech by Alexander H. Stephens, the CSA's Vice President. The relevant quotes are...
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right."

Why, that seems to say in explicit terms that slavery WAS the main reason for secession. And it's biased in the south's own phrasing!

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
Hell, it's not even a stretch to say that slavery is the most important part of the new constitution. Give me just a minute and I can show you where in the csa constitution it says that congress can never ever abolish slavery, too.

[Getrektistan]

So you don't see a very big moral difference between somebody who wants to own other people because they think they're inferior and somebody who wants them to be free? I recognize the influence of geography here, but I don't see how that changes the ethics of the situation.

Slavery (the non racist kind) is not a bad thing. You think it is because you are filled with the lies of the US History textbooks.

Winner writes the history.

You can show me some evidence that slavery is somehow a great thing if you like, since at the moment I have absolutely zero faith in that claim. Do you really mean to say there's some sort of international conspiracy to cover up how nice American slavery was? Or any sort of slavery, for that matter?

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

Stop defending slavery, slavers, and the crusades. Those are all horrible atrocities in human history. Savers didn't want to "live in peace" with the slaves, they wanted to work them all for all of their lives without ever paying them an actual wage. There were BLACK abolitionists who advocated for a return to Africa. Are they racist against themselves? But you know what? Clearly the people who basically tortured an entire ethnicity just didn't know better, and the people who wanted to rescue them from slavery did it because they were racist. That's a much more valid argument than mine.

You are the one that is hurt by truth. While yes i might aknowledge that the CSA was wrong the reason for starting the Crusaders were not.

I was half-joking when I mentioned the crusades! "Hurt by the truth"? Really? Though this isn't the thread to debate whether the crusades were justified, I think it's entirely reasonable to say that the Crusaders acted like barbarians and monsters all the while.

[Pandeeria]

So you don't see a very big moral difference between somebody who wants to own other people because they think they're inferior and somebody who wants them to be free? I recognize the influence of geography here, but I don't see how that changes the ethics of the situation.

Slavery (the non racist kind) is not a bad thing. You think it is because you are filled with the lies of the US History textbooks.

Winner writes the history.

Slavery is always bad and should never be justified.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

Ah, here it is.

Article I Section 9(4)
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Of course it was racially based by the time of the Civil War, even if it's arguable whether the racism or the slavery came first. A few black or Native American slave owners don't change that fact.

But not all slaves were black back than and the non-white slave owner were not just few, it was in fact something occasionaly. Even the slaves were mostly brought from other Africans who captured them as part of conquering a rival tribe. So, the whole procees did not have any racial conotation at first.

It started to having after the Civil war when pro-Union historians tried to justify the agression on the CSA.

Yes, they bought the slaves from black people who turned against other black people in the name of a quick profit. And even then, that trade had largely stopped by the time of the Civil War due to the ban on the importation of any more slaves. The reason that the South was able to hold slaves with a clear conscience was because they saw black people as being inherently inferior to white people, and slavery as their natural condition. While whites were held to indentured servitude, the terms of these contracts had specific limitations, and masters in violation of these contracts could be taken to court. No such paths to justice existed for the slave. The fact is that despite a few outliers here and there, white people owning black people was considered the natural order of things in the South. This is so obvious as to be barely worth discussing.

[Upiantstan]

I live in the northern part of the mid-west.
While I do think that what the CSA beleived in was wrong, and there was probably a better way to separate from the union, I think that the confederate cross-flag isn't a representation of racist slavery. It's not necesarily southern pride either. It's just a symbole that was used for something that some people think is wrong. The swastika wasn't originally a symbole for natzism, but since Hitler used it the swastika no longer represents buddhist peace (I think i'm right, not sure). The cross-flag has to do with the CSA, but NOT with what they beleived in.
I know lots of people that say they aren't rascist and actually are. Nearly everyone had been rascist at some point in there life, and that includes profiling. I like to think of myself as not-rascist.

[Roski]

Slavery (the non racist kind) is not a bad thing. You think it is because you are filled with the lies of the US History textbooks.

Winner writes the history.

You can show me some evidence that slavery is somehow a great thing if you like, since at the moment I have absolutely zero faith in that claim. Do you really mean to say there's some sort of international conspiracy to cover up how nice American slavery was? Or any sort of slavery, for that matter?

Lol

Good enough?

[Utceforp]

I like how the confederate apologist is implying that I am a racist.

1. I am only a human right lover. The Confederates were denied the basic human right of self-determination. They never had a referendum.

As I said, racism is irrelevant. A slave owner has committed a much larger crime than a racist.

2. If he does not know that owning a slave is a crime, how can he commit a crime?

Also, it's not like slavery being bad was a new idea. The abolitionists in the north seemed to get the idea, not to mention the many countries had banned slavery already by the time of the Civil War.

3. But the abolitionists were racist, they were the one who wanted to deport black people to Africa. the confederates in other hand wanted to live with them in peace.:

1. Neither did the slaves. Again: Human rights > state's rights

2. I addressed that below - the belief that slavery was morally wrong was common. The confederates were backwards-thinking even in their own time.

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

[Utceforp]

You can show me some evidence that slavery is somehow a great thing if you like, since at the moment I have absolutely zero faith in that claim. Do you really mean to say there's some sort of international conspiracy to cover up how nice American slavery was? Or any sort of slavery, for that matter?

Lol

Good enough?

*ahem*

[Pandeeria]

You can show me some evidence that slavery is somehow a great thing if you like, since at the moment I have absolutely zero faith in that claim. Do you really mean to say there's some sort of international conspiracy to cover up how nice American slavery was? Or any sort of slavery, for that matter?

Lol

Good enough?

Slavery is awful, so no.

[Scholmeria]

It might be, but I also think it's an enormous leap from a little bit of bias to the South becoming defensible.

Ok, but the Union history is official, the Southern version has any chance to go the public without being declared as racist by the establishment. It is in a much inferior position.

Maybe the Native Americans thought that. Maybe it was actually true. Maybe they were simply abiding by 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Either way, it doesn't negate the racism of the CSA.

But still the Natives though the Northerers were much more racist.

Oh, I see what you mean now. No, it doesn't tell me something. I don't base my moral decisions on how a third party feels. I don't particularly know the motivation of those Native Americans, although I can certainly imagine a number of plausible possibilities that disagree with your conclusion. In any case, there is nothing that can negate the Confederate's fight to hold other people as property.

I rather hear opinion of Native Americans from them personally rather to have some mediators who think they think they know what is better for them.

I doubt that, since many abolitionists were themselves black, but in any case, they fought against slavery while the Confederacy defended it.

So were slave owners.

I don't know that he said that, but whether or not he was racist is inconsequential.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.

This is not racist to you?

[Ismoli]

You can show me some evidence that slavery is somehow a great thing if you like, since at the moment I have absolutely zero faith in that claim. Do you really mean to say there's some sort of international conspiracy to cover up how nice American slavery was? Or any sort of slavery, for that matter?

Lol

Good enough?

No. Not good enough. The pyramids served as the tombs of the pharaohs of the Egyptians made by Egyptian slaves who didn't benefit from them in any way.

[Dyakovo]

Don't forget, a rebellion that shot first, no less.

When they were asked nicely to leave? And were guaranteed cotton trade even with the hostilities?

[citation needed]

[Getrektistan]

You can show me some evidence that slavery is somehow a great thing if you like, since at the moment I have absolutely zero faith in that claim. Do you really mean to say there's some sort of international conspiracy to cover up how nice American slavery was? Or any sort of slavery, for that matter?

Lol

Good enough?

Um, no. I don't agree that the blood, sweat, and tears of an enormous number of forced laborers working under the threat of death is worth some nice sightseeing. Again, I don't think you really understand what it means to be a slave at all.

[Scholmeria]

I was half-joking when I mentioned the crusades! "Hurt by the truth"? Really? Though this isn't the thread to debate whether the crusades were justified, I think it's entirely reasonable to say that the Crusaders acted like barbarians and monsters all the while.

So were Muslims toward infidels but you hardly mention to demonize them in the same manner as the crusaders, instead there is this myth about the islamic Golden Age. That is the hypocricy of you left-wingers/liberals that I despise.

[Dyakovo]

The slaves didn't have a referendum to be whipped and put in chains and forced to pick cotton and be raped and have their loved ones killed at the whim of another. The Confederates didn't seem too upset about that, either, so clearly your claim to be a human rights lover doesn't hold water if you think the CSA was a moral institution.

Yes, the CSA could be seen as a immoral institution but in that case I should also think the same for the USA because it also had slavery and the CSA would abolished such institution with time.

Bullshit. Abolition was illegal per their constitution.