Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The terrorist attack in Charleston has once again brought up the debate over the meaning of the battle flag, and the reasons for the Civil War.

We get the same tired but false arguments that the war was not about slavery, that the Confederacy was a noble cause, that the flag only honors our heritage, etc.

This is all a white-washed lie. The reason for secession was to continue the institution of slavery. No other reason. If you don't believe me, please read the words of the Confederates:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... er/396482/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Here you will find the secession articles from many states, which clearly demonstrate that for SC, and other deep south states, slavery WAS the reason.

Liberal media site.........didn't even click

Not too many people can answer this truthfully,

WHAT IF: in 1963 MLK and Malcolm X decided to take start a armed rebellion in the United States. They received arms and money from Cuba, Russia and China. In fact, the U.N recognized their right to rebel. Stating that Black Americans were not given the rights that white Americans had. Taxation without representation. Denied Due Process under the law. Fast Forward 6 years later. After 15 Million deaths. America crushes the Black Rebellion and MLK and Malcolm X surrenders.

Question #1: Would they be labeled as traitors?
Question #2: Did they have a legal right to rebel?
Question #3: Would you allow the Black Rebellion Flag to fly over any statehouse in this country?

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Liberal media site.........didn't even click

LOL - anything that doesn't agree with you is a liberal site.

Supremacy

dbackjon wrote:The terrorist attack in Charleston has once again brought up the debate over the meaning of the battle flag, and the reasons for the Civil War.

We get the same tired but false arguments that the war was not about slavery, that the Confederacy was a noble cause, that the flag only honors our heritage, etc.

This is all a white-washed lie. The reason for secession was to continue the institution of slavery. No other reason. If you don't believe me, please read the words of the Confederates:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... er/396482/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Here you will find the secession articles from many states, which clearly demonstrate that for SC, and other deep south states, slavery WAS the reason.

God. How many times must we re-hash this conversation? The South seceded b/c of slavery. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand history. However, Southern men weren't fighting to maintain slaves they didn't have. Slave-owners made up a small, small portion of the population but they had the most influence. And how do you get your population to fight? Give them an ideology (Your rights, not slavery. Freedom not oil.) State's Rights (which was slavery) was the way. 'Fight for your rights to stay free. If the Union can take away slavery, they can take other things away.'

And while we're on the subject. The Union fought to keep those states b/c Slavery was vital to the Northern industries. You notice that slaves weren't freed in the North or other Union controlled areas and that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave the the Union had controlled over. Read news articles from that period (domestic and international) and you'll see a lot of criticism.

The South shouldn't have seceded. A confederacy is a bad, difficult and oppressive form of government.

One of the problems with these hicks is that 1) They don't understand the history and 2) Don't realize that living in the CSA afforded them less freedoms than living in the Union.


I will say this, if we're going to ban/remove/disgrace symbols and objects that were used to oppress people and used for violence then the American flag and the Holy Bible should be next. But that isn't the point.

mrklean wrote:Not too many people can answer this truthfully,

WHAT IF: in 1963 MLK and Malcolm X decided to take start a armed rebellion in the United States. They received arms and money from Cuba, Russia and China. In fact, the U.N recognized their right to rebel. Stating that Black Americans were not given the rights that white Americans had. Taxation without representation. Denied Due Process under the law. Fast Forward 6 years later. After 15 Million deaths. America crushes the Black Rebellion and MLK and Malcolm X surrenders.

Question #1: Would they be labeled as traitors?
Question #2: Did they have a legal right to rebel?
Question #3: Would you allow the Black Rebellion Flag to fly over any statehouse in this country?

1) Yes. By your own definition, anyone who stands up for what they believe is right and fights is a traitor.
2) Rebel? You have the right to peacefully assemble which MLK did. You don't have the right to commit acts of violence, even if it's for a "good cause."
3) No.

dbackjon wrote:The terrorist attack in Charleston has once again brought up the debate over the meaning of the battle flag, and the reasons for the Civil War.

We get the same tired but false arguments that the war was not about slavery, that the Confederacy was a noble cause, that the flag only honors our heritage, etc.

This is all a white-washed lie. The reason for secession was to continue the institution of slavery. No other reason. If you don't believe me, please read the words of the Confederates:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... er/396482/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Here you will find the secession articles from many states, which clearly demonstrate that for SC, and other deep south states, slavery WAS the reason.

The south certainly seceded because of fear that their peculiar institution would be lost. Once done, the south fought the war to become independent. The north didn't fight the war to free the slaves until it became a politically expedient position to take.

Life is complicated. you should know that.

On the other hand, it really doesn't make a damn. We all like to blab and blab and blab and mostly just poke each other in the eye. We are good folks.

OL FU wrote:

dbackjon wrote:The terrorist attack in Charleston has once again brought up the debate over the meaning of the battle flag, and the reasons for the Civil War.

We get the same tired but false arguments that the war was not about slavery, that the Confederacy was a noble cause, that the flag only honors our heritage, etc.

This is all a white-washed lie. The reason for secession was to continue the institution of slavery. No other reason. If you don't believe me, please read the words of the Confederates:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... er/396482/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Here you will find the secession articles from many states, which clearly demonstrate that for SC, and other deep south states, slavery WAS the reason.

The south certainly seceded because of fear that their peculiar institution would be lost. Once done, the south fought the war to become independent. The north didn't fight the war to free the slaves until it became a politically expedient position to take.

Life is complicated. you should know that.

On the other hand, it really doesn't make a damn. We all like to blab and blab and blab and mostly just poke each other in the eye. We are good folks.

Facts are stubborn things. The Union didn't make slavery an issue until 1863. Funny how that piece gets forgotten. The Union was fighting to maintain the status quo. Cheap materials in the south going to the industrialized North. The North benefited greatly from Slavery and they weren't about to lose that benefit. It can be argued that the North fought just as hard to maintain slavery.

Pretty sure this monster didn't kill those 9 people because of slavery or that he wanted it back.

Pretty sure this kid had a warped mind and convinced himself that blacks were taking over the country and raping the white women. He said so.

I feel very sad for those 9 black people's friends and family.

Everything else in this story is fucking bullshit that has nothing to do with any of the above.

I'll say it again….there is a reason why white supremacist groups do not generally use the confederate flag as a symbol. Take a look at the SPLC site's section about hate symbols if you don't believe me. Only confederate flag is one that has hammers on it (more of a left-wing labor type symbol if anything).

The true modern-day white supremacist movement is far more steeped with theories of evolutionary origins of biological differences between races than it is in any kind of nostalgia of slavery or segregation eras.

Ibanez wrote:

OL FU wrote:
The south certainly seceded because of fear that their peculiar institution would be lost. Once done, the south fought the war to become independent. The north didn't fight the war to free the slaves until it became a politically expedient position to take.

Life is complicated. you should know that.

On the other hand, it really doesn't make a damn. We all like to blab and blab and blab and mostly just poke each other in the eye. We are good folks.

Facts are stubborn things. The Union didn't make slavery an issue until 1863. Funny how that piece gets forgotten. The Union was fighting to maintain the status quo. Cheap materials in the south going to the industrialized North. The North benefited greatly from Slavery and they weren't about to lose that benefit. It can be argued that the North fought just as hard to maintain slavery.

Here's my response: so?

At the end of the day, and at the end of the war, slavery was eradicated and it was done so purposely. You can argue and successfully point out what the North thought before, during, and after the war, but the actions it took upon winning the war are pretty concrete and unarguable - slavery was ended, Blacks were given the right to vote, and Blacks were given due process rights. That's not really at all fighting "just as hard to maintain slavery". Whatever the North intended or wanted going into the war (and they basically wanted no secession and no war) when they came out of the war they acted with pretty noble purpose. Heck, 100 years later we had to pass the 24th ammendment to continue that noble purpose in the face of the South's continued persistence to subjucate Blacks.

GannonFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Facts are stubborn things. The Union didn't make slavery an issue until 1863. Funny how that piece gets forgotten. The Union was fighting to maintain the status quo. Cheap materials in the south going to the industrialized North. The North benefited greatly from Slavery and they weren't about to lose that benefit. It can be argued that the North fought just as hard to maintain slavery.

Here's my response: so?

At the end of the day, and at the end of the war, slavery was eradicated and it was done so purposely. You can argue and successfully point out what the North thought before, during, and after the war, but the actions it took upon winning the war are pretty concrete and unarguable - slavery was ended, Blacks were given the right to vote, and Blacks were given due process rights. That's not really at all fighting "just as hard to maintain slavery". Whatever the North intended or wanted going into the war (and they basically wanted no secession and no war) when they came out of the war they acted with pretty noble purpose. Heck, 100 years later we had to pass the 24th ammendment to continue that noble purpose in the face of the South's continued persistence to subjucate Blacks.

I agree with you for the most part, i'm just pointing out that if you're going to call the southerners of the 19th century racist, you need to put that on the Northerners as well. It's not one-sided. But nobody seems to care b/c the North won. Who cares that they had slaves throughout the war. WE WON!

That's kind of silly, don't you think?

GannonFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Facts are stubborn things. The Union didn't make slavery an issue until 1863. Funny how that piece gets forgotten. The Union was fighting to maintain the status quo. Cheap materials in the south going to the industrialized North. The North benefited greatly from Slavery and they weren't about to lose that benefit. It can be argued that the North fought just as hard to maintain slavery.

Here's my response: so?

At the end of the day, and at the end of the war, slavery was eradicated and it was done so purposely. You can argue and successfully point out what the North thought before, during, and after the war, but the actions it took upon winning the war are pretty concrete and unarguable - slavery was ended, Blacks were given the right to vote, and Blacks were given due process rights. That's not really at all fighting "just as hard to maintain slavery". Whatever the North intended or wanted going into the war (and they basically wanted no secession and no war) when they came out of the war they acted with pretty noble purpose. Heck, 100 years later we had to pass the 24th ammendment to continue that noble purpose in the face of the South's continued persistence to subjucate Blacks.

Don't forget that once the blacks fled the South after the war, the North didn't exactly open up and welcome them. But..they won and the North is perfect.

Bill Clinton on Obama “A Few Years Ago, That Guy Would Be Fetching Us Coffee"

Ibanez wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Here's my response: so?

At the end of the day, and at the end of the war, slavery was eradicated and it was done so purposely. You can argue and successfully point out what the North thought before, during, and after the war, but the actions it took upon winning the war are pretty concrete and unarguable - slavery was ended, Blacks were given the right to vote, and Blacks were given due process rights. That's not really at all fighting "just as hard to maintain slavery". Whatever the North intended or wanted going into the war (and they basically wanted no secession and no war) when they came out of the war they acted with pretty noble purpose. Heck, 100 years later we had to pass the 24th ammendment to continue that noble purpose in the face of the South's continued persistence to subjucate Blacks.

I agree with you for the most part, i'm just pointing out that if you're going to call the southerners of the 19th century racist, you need to put that on the Northerners as well. It's not one-sided. But nobody seems to care b/c the North won. Who cares that they had slaves throughout the war. WE WON!

That's kind of silly, don't you think?

Both were clearly racist, and would continue to be until today, but one side fought to maintain slavery and the other side, upon victory, eradicated slavery. Pretty big distinction there and hard to skirt that fact.

Ibanez wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Here's my response: so?

At the end of the day, and at the end of the war, slavery was eradicated and it was done so purposely. You can argue and successfully point out what the North thought before, during, and after the war, but the actions it took upon winning the war are pretty concrete and unarguable - slavery was ended, Blacks were given the right to vote, and Blacks were given due process rights. That's not really at all fighting "just as hard to maintain slavery". Whatever the North intended or wanted going into the war (and they basically wanted no secession and no war) when they came out of the war they acted with pretty noble purpose. Heck, 100 years later we had to pass the 24th ammendment to continue that noble purpose in the face of the South's continued persistence to subjucate Blacks.

Don't forget that once the blacks fled the South after the war, the North didn't exactly open up and welcome them. But..they won and the North is perfect.

No one said the North was perfect, what was said was that the South fought to maintain slavery and that the North, upon winning, eradicated slavery. And the South tried to, in many ways, ignore this outcome for the better part of the next century.

GannonFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
I agree with you for the most part, i'm just pointing out that if you're going to call the southerners of the 19th century racist, you need to put that on the Northerners as well. It's not one-sided. But nobody seems to care b/c the North won. Who cares that they had slaves throughout the war. WE WON!

That's kind of silly, don't you think?

Both were clearly racist, and would continue to be until today, but one side fought to maintain slavery and the other side, upon victory, eradicated slavery. Pretty big distinction there and hard to skirt that fact.

So it makes no difference to you that the North also fought to maintain it? Don't get me wrong, the Union was right to fight and win. But let's be honest.

GannonFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Facts are stubborn things. The Union didn't make slavery an issue until 1863. Funny how that piece gets forgotten. The Union was fighting to maintain the status quo. Cheap materials in the south going to the industrialized North. The North benefited greatly from Slavery and they weren't about to lose that benefit. It can be argued that the North fought just as hard to maintain slavery.

Here's my response: so?

At the end of the day, and at the end of the war, slavery was eradicated and it was done so purposely. You can argue and successfully point out what the North thought before, during, and after the war, but the actions it took upon winning the war are pretty concrete and unarguable - slavery was ended, Blacks were given the right to vote, and Blacks were given due process rights. That's not really at all fighting "just as hard to maintain slavery". Whatever the North intended or wanted going into the war (and they basically wanted no secession and no war) when they came out of the war they acted with pretty noble purpose. Heck, 100 years later we had to pass the 24th ammendment to continue that noble purpose in the face of the South's continued persistence to subjucate Blacks.

And here is my response, so so

IF you are looking for someone to argue that the results of the war weren't for the best, you won't find it with me.

IF you are looking for someone to argue that the south's treatment of blacks for nearly 100 years after the war was the right thing, you won't find it with me. OF course, the north wasn't much better just smart enough not to legislate it.

If you think I think the south was right to secede, then you are wrong.

My point is simply the point made in that article and by my buddy dback is mostly bullshit.

It's at this tedious point of the argument where my eyes glaze over and want to just say "We won and slavery ended."

GannonFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Facts are stubborn things. The Union didn't make slavery an issue until 1863. Funny how that piece gets forgotten. The Union was fighting to maintain the status quo. Cheap materials in the south going to the industrialized North. The North benefited greatly from Slavery and they weren't about to lose that benefit. It can be argued that the North fought just as hard to maintain slavery.

Here's my response: so?

At the end of the day, and at the end of the war, slavery was eradicated and it was done so purposely. You can argue and successfully point out what the North thought before, during, and after the war, but the actions it took upon winning the war are pretty concrete and unarguable - slavery was ended, Blacks were given the right to vote, and Blacks were given due process rights. That's not really at all fighting "just as hard to maintain slavery". Whatever the North intended or wanted going into the war (and they basically wanted no secession and no war) when they came out of the war they acted with pretty noble purpose. Heck, 100 years later we had to pass the 24th ammendment to continue that noble purpose in the face of the South's continued persistence to subjucate Blacks.

Quite honestly I usually don't get involved in these, probably felt the need to defend the confederacy since I got bumped around by people because I want to take the flag down. Oh well. I will have to stick my southerness back in my side pocket, cus this argument really isn't worth it. The flag coming down is.

andy7171 wrote:It's at this tedious point of the argument where my eyes glaze over and want to just say "We won and slavery ended."

Well the interesting part is ...is that I didn't lose I wasn't involved. Honestly for the most part don't really care. My families ancestors fought on both sides.

I probably get a little riled up though because while the south was a horrid place for blacks for way to long, the south in many respects has surpassed the north in race relations. We still have our issues, but all you have to do is look at the way things have been in Charleston. And yet...................... instead of saying "Wow, the south has come a long way" we get and article like the above

So fuck em

OL FU wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Here's my response: so?

At the end of the day, and at the end of the war, slavery was eradicated and it was done so purposely. You can argue and successfully point out what the North thought before, during, and after the war, but the actions it took upon winning the war are pretty concrete and unarguable - slavery was ended, Blacks were given the right to vote, and Blacks were given due process rights. That's not really at all fighting "just as hard to maintain slavery". Whatever the North intended or wanted going into the war (and they basically wanted no secession and no war) when they came out of the war they acted with pretty noble purpose. Heck, 100 years later we had to pass the 24th ammendment to continue that noble purpose in the face of the South's continued persistence to subjucate Blacks.

Quite honestly I usually don't get involved in these, probably felt the need to defend the confederacy since I got bumped around by people because I want to take the flag down. Oh well. I will have to stick my southerness back in my side pocket, cus this argument really isn't worth it. The flag coming down is.

And it should leave the statehouse grounds. But this won't resolve anything. It's not going to change attitudes.

Nice job, jon.

OLFU has been ripping the tits off this thread.