South Carolina, tear down that flag!

[TragicMonkey]

If you take that attitude then I guess just about the entire world should hold their head in shame because at some point their country accepted and profited from slavery.

The peculiarity isn't that all nations are forgiven, it's that some aren't while others are. Why?

Who is saying America should be handed a halo exactly?

Perhaps they're not.

 

[lobosrul]

The peculiarity isn't that all nations are forgiven, it's that some aren't while others are. Why?

Hmm. The question isn't of forgiveness. The CSA was a rebellion in the United States to keep slavery (of course the USA hadn't actually made slavery illegal when they rebelled, but they saw the writing on the wall). Thats all it was, and it hasn't even existed for 150 years. Its like asking: why should Germany be forgiven for WW2 but not the 3rd Reich?

 

[Upchurch]

Perhaps they're not.

I know I'm not saying that. I will also note that that in 2015, there is still systemic racism in the various levels of the justice system in the US.

I forget who made the analogy, but just because someone says that one disease is bad, that doesn't mean that they believe all other forms of disease are good. We can recognize that the Confederacy, and it's racist legacy, are bad without implying that the Union does not also have a racist legacy.

However, that should not detract from the fact that the Union did abolish slavery. The Confederacy would not have done that, at least not as early as the Union did. That civil rights laws were subsequently passed despite the objections of the southern states.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Thats all it was, and it hasn't even existed for 150 years. Its like asking: why should Germany be forgiven for WW2 but not the 3rd Reich?

That makes a great deal of sense, worded like that. The divergence of opinion over the (so-called) Confederate flag would then be caused by the people who believe it symbolizes (so to speak) Germany but don't understand why everyone else sees it as limited to the 3rd Reich.

After all, nobody seems to object to South Carolina flying its own flag, which was its flag since before the Civil War (although it's gone through several versions) and thus was flown at the same time as all the slavery was going on.

 

[Checkmite]

Ah. The last sinner to reform inherits all the guilt.

It's not about the Confederacy being the "last" to eliminate slavery. It's about being willing to fight for, and kill for, and found an entire country on the principle of slavery.

People in the United States had slaves until they didn't; but the country wasn't founded to enshrine the practice and it never went to war with anyone else defend it. Slavery wasn't merely something Confederates had; it was the Confederacy's sole raison d'être.

 

[Yuchi1]

Relevant to the OP, reason why the CBF is an issue in the first place:

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/economics.htm

IMO, the basic reason.

http://teaching.msa.maryland.gov/000001/000000/000017/html/t17.html

President Lincoln did this.

http://www.history.com/news/four-days-of-fire-the-new-york-city-draft-riots

Yankees did this.

There are two versions of history, the one written in textbooks and taught in classroom indoctrination sessions and, then there's what really happened.

To wit: The usual and customary version of what happened at Little Bighorn and the recent documentary that (using forensic science) revealed what actually happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW_nS3cOKPc

 

[ddt]

Agreed. I guess I'm a stricter moralist than most because I don't excuse the North from slavery for fighting against it after more than a century of accepting it and profiting from it, then deciding late in the game that it was finally time to take a stand. It's good that they did (finally) fight it, but I just don't see handing out haloes for it in the circumstances.

Let's not forget that in the decades preceding the Civil War, there were various political clashes between the "North" and the "South" over slavery, especially in new states: the Missouri compromise, the Mason-Dixon line, Bleeding Kansas. These all had the theme that the North wanted nothing of expansion of slavery to new states. And yes, Lincoln didn't rally the Union behind "abolish slavery" but behind "preserve the Union", because that was easier to do. But in the end, he did abolish slavery, and in one stroke.

So while you cannot say that the North would have abolished slavery tout court, the political reality shows they did strive to abolish it gradually. The South, on the other hand, seceded with the express intention to preserve slavery in perpetuity.

I see there a clear moral difference. Even if you cannot say the North was morally unequivocally good, it was much, much better than the South, which was unequivocally evil.

(and I care less about the treason aspect: many nations were born in rebellion, including mine, and their national heroes technically tratior. The national hymn of my country even is the apology of William the Silent why he rebelled against his king).

 

[lobosrul]

Relevant to the OP, reason why the CBF is an issue in the first place:

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/economics.htm

IMO, the basic reason.

http://teaching.msa.maryland.gov/000001/000000/000017/html/t17.html

President Lincoln did this.

http://www.history.com/news/four-days-of-fire-the-new-york-city-draft-riots

Yankees did this.

There are two versions of history, the one written in textbooks and taught in classroom indoctrination sessions and, then there's what really happened.

Huh? I have no idea what you're on about here. The NY draft riots are commonly tought in US public schools I assure you.

 

[Polaris]

At risk of Godwining, I suggest there are parallels to consider.

 

[Yuchi1]

Let's not forget that in the decades preceding the Civil War, there were various political clashes between the "North" and the "South" over slavery, especially in new states: the Missouri compromise, the Mason-Dixon line, Bleeding Kansas. These all had the theme that the North wanted nothing of expansion of slavery to new states. And yes, Lincoln didn't rally the Union behind "abolish slavery" but behind "preserve the Union", because that was easier to do. But in the end, he did abolish slavery, and in one stroke.

So while you cannot say that the North would have abolished slavery tout court, the political reality shows they did strive to abolish it gradually. The South, on the other hand, seceded with the express intention to preserve slavery in perpetuity.

I see there a clear moral difference. Even if you cannot say the North was morally unequivocally good, it was much, much better than the South, which was unequivocally evil.

(and I care less about the treason aspect: many nations were born in rebellion, including mine, and their national heroes technically tratior. The national hymn of my country even is the apology of William the Silent why he rebelled against his king).

IMO, you missed the mark as (coming from someone that grew up in the "occupied land") the American Civil War was an economic clash (first and foremost) that used slavery as a focal point, after the fact since President Lincoln's first motive was to "preserve the Union". Why? The north actually needed the south's wealth as it dwarfed the rest of the country (1861) making the CSA as the fifth wealthiest country on the planet.

A political solution was not in the cards, per the radical republicans as a military conquest would not only quell the south's political power (how many POTUS, pre-1861 were from the south?) but allow them to extraappropriate much, if not all of the wealth from below the M/D line. That's what "reconstruction" was really all about, a kleptocratic feeding frenzy.

Now that you understand this was a forcible entry situation with the end game of "wealth redistribution" perhaps you will have a better understanding of the underlying animosity that exists to this very day.

Botton line is simply this...since 04/1861, the USA is a country held together...by strict military force, period.

There may be hope as it has only taken ~800 years for the Irish and English to begin a reconcillation.

 

[Yuchi1]

Huh? I have no idea what you're on about here. The NY draft riots are commonly tought in US public schools I assure you.

Then, you were aware this was the bloodiest (over 100 black people were murdered) race riot in US history?

On what date did President Lincoln suspend Habeas Corpus?

 

[lobosrul]

IMO, you missed the mark as (coming from someone that grew up in the "occupied land") the American Civil War was an economic clash (first and foremost) that used slavery as a focal point, after the fact since President Lincoln's first motive was to "preserve the Union". Why? The north actually needed the south's wealth as it dwarfed the rest of the country (1861) making the CSA as the fifth wealthiest country on the planet.

A political solution was not in the cards, per the radical republicans as a military conquest would not only quell the south's political power (how many POTUS, pre-1861 were from the south?) but allow them to extraappropriate much, if not all of the wealth from below the M/D line. That's what "reconstruction" was really all about, a kleptocratic feeding frenzy.

Now that you understand this was a forcible entry situation with the end game of "wealth redistribution" perhaps you will have a better understanding of the underlying animosity that exists to this very day.

Botton line is simply this...since 04/1861, the USA is a country held together...by strict military force, period.p/

I... what... wait. No I can't even bring myself to refute everything that is wrong here.

There may be hope as it has only taken ~800 years for the Irish and English to begin a reconcillation.

You can't possibly think there is any sort of parrelel between Britain/Ireland and the USA/CSA... pahlease.

 

[Cleon]

You can't possibly think there is any sort of parrelel between the Britain/Ireland and the USA/CSA... pahlease.

I think the only thing they have in common is the word "rebel."

...Though I'd leave the "Born Rebel" shirt at home if you plan to visit Carrickfergus.

 

[Yuchi1]

I... what... wait. No I can't even bring myself to capitulate to everything that is written here.
QUOTE]

FIFY

 

[RandFan]

IMO, you missed the mark as (coming from someone that grew up in the "occupied land") the American Civil War was an economic clash (first and foremost) that used slavery as a focal point, after the fact since President Lincoln's first motive was to "preserve the Union". Why? The north actually needed the south's wealth as it dwarfed the rest of the country (1861) making the CSA as the fifth wealthiest country on the planet.

A political solution was not in the cards, per the radical republicans as a military conquest would not only quell the south's political power (how many POTUS, pre-1861 were from the south?) but allow them to extraappropriate much, if not all of the wealth from below the M/D line. That's what "reconstruction" was really all about, a kleptocratic feeding frenzy.

Now that you understand this was a forcible entry situation with the end game of "wealth redistribution" perhaps you will have a better understanding of the underlying animosity that exists to this very day.

Botton line is simply this...since 04/1861, the USA is a country held together...by strict military force, period.

There may be hope as it has only taken ~800 years for the Irish and English to begin a reconcillation.

I remember my grand parents telling me this story. Theirs had Jesus who wept when the invading hordes of unwashed Northern Barbarians destroyed the greatest cultural centers of America.

 

[Checkmite]

Relevant to the OP, reason why the CBF is an issue in the first place:

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/economics.htm

IMO, the basic reason.

It's a rather oddly congruent analogy to the initial refusal of conservative personalities to concede racism as the motivating factor for the Charleston massacre, despite the veritable pride-parade of incontrovertible clues that followed the shooter's arrest. No matter how many official Articles of Secession, state constitution preambles, letters, and speeches we have left behind from the prime movers of the Confederacy - the actual people who tried to secede - describing the institution of slavery as the primary motivating factor of the conflict, there will be denialists who think that if they can find something, anything, that southern politicians of the time also spent time whining about, they can claim that as the Real(TM) cause of the Civil War and all those Articles of Secession, state constitutions, and vice-presidential orations implicating slavery will...vanish, I suppose. Go away somehow.

 

[Yuchi1]

It's a rather oddly congruent analogy to the initial refusal of conservative personalities to concede racism as the motivating factor for the Charleston massacre, despite the veritable pride-parade of incontrovertible clues that followed the shooter's arrest. No matter how many official Articles of Secession, state constitution preambles, letters, and speeches we have left behind from the prime movers of the Confederacy - the actual people who tried to secede - describing the institution of slavery as the primary motivating factor of the conflict, there will be denialists who think that if they can find something, anything, that southern politicians of the time also spent time whining about, they can claim that as the Real(TM) cause of the Civil War and all those Articles of Secession, state constitutions, and vice-presidential orations implicating slavery will...vanish, I suppose. Go away somehow.

Most people that actually read the article quickly discern the north was hand-in-hand with slavery as the sweat of those people's brows and lashes on their back is largely what rendered the cotton to their textile mills.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I remember my grand parents telling me this story. Theirs had Jesus who wept when the invading hordes of unwashed Northern Barbarians destroyed the greatest cultural centers of America.

My grandpa's version included FDR leading a cavalry charge, and secret Egyptian pyramids buried under the ice in Greenland. Combine a fierce pride in your heritage with senile dementia and you get some great stories. SyFy should post someone at his nursing home to catch this stuff.

 

[Checkmite]

Most people that actually read the article quickly discern the north was hand-in-hand with slavery as the sweat of those people's brows and lashes on their back is largely what rendered the cotton to their textile mills.

Deflection, deflection, deflection.

A lot of people in the north certainly benefited from southern slavery; but when the writing was on the wall, they didn't try to quit and found their own separate country just to keep slavery going.

Seriously - do you think you're bringing any new ideas to the table?

 

[Yuchi1]

Deflection, deflection, deflection.

A lot of people in the north certainly benefited from southern slavery; but when the writing was on the wall, they didn't try to quit and found their own separate country just to keep slavery going.

Seriously - do you think you're bringing any new ideas to the table?

Deny, deny, deny, make counteraccusations...

Predictable.

They (north) were the ones doing the writing, on the wall and for the aforementioned reasons.

BBL, have to mow the pasture.