Classic!!! Come on, you're better than that. So now you're using Louis Farrakhan! Is that supposed to make us hide under our beds in fear? Is 'ol Louie still alive?

No it's that racist flag that has you cowering under the bed.

---

I'd like to refer you to my very first reply in this thread. It shouldn't be hard to find. It was the second post. Please read it and let me know what it says.


Also, please find me an instance of the British government proudly flying the American flag if you're going to use that as an argument.

 

The Brookwood Military Cemetery just outside of London.

 

There's also an American war memorial in Pirbright, England.  

 

Both fly the American flag.

---

The Brookwood Military Cemetery just outside of London.


There's also an American war memorial in Pirbright, England.


Both fly the American flag.

Those damn unexceptional Americans...

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The difference between the stars and stripes and the stars and bars is that the horrors committed under the stars and stripes weren't the Raison D'etre for the United States, while (no matter how much you try to argue otherwise) protecting the institution of slavery was the Raison D'etre for the Confederacy.  


It's like saying "Yeah, Mussolini was a fascist dictator, but my grandfather was a train engineer, and boy did the trains run on time.  So I'm proud of my heritage."


 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

The difference between the stars and stripes and the stars and bars is that the horrors committed under the stars and stripes weren't the Raison D'etre for the United States, while (no matter how much you try to argue otherwise) protecting the institution of slavery was the Raison D'etre for the Confederacy.


It's like saying "Yeah, Mussolini was a fascist dictator, but my grandfather was a train engineer, and boy did the trains run on time. So I'm proud of my heritage."

What we did to the native Americans alone is just as bad if not worse then anything the confederacy did under the banner of slavery. Condemning one and excusing the other is pure hypocrisy, which is my point.

---

What we did to the native Americans alone is just as bad if not worse then anything the confederacy did under the banner of slavery. Condemning one and excusing the other is pure hypocrisy, which is my point.

What we did to the native americans was still not our Raison D'etre.  Not sure what you're not getting here.  Nobody is excusing our treatment of Native American's.  The main purpose of the confederacy was defense of the institution of slavery and the idea that the white race is superior to the black race.  You can say all you want the flag stands for other things, but the fact is most people see it standing for racism and slavery as well as rebellion against the United States.  It makes no sense for it to fly on government property.  


You bring up the British, but imagine if we lost that war.  Do you think the stars and bars would be flying today if we did?  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

What we did to the native americans was still not our Raison D'etre.  Not sure what you're not getting here.  Nobody is excusing our treatment of Native American's.  The main purpose of the confederacy was defense of the institution of slavery and the idea that the white race is superior to the black race.  You can say all you want the flag stands for other things, but the fact is most people see it standing for racism and slavery as well as rebellion against the United States.  It makes no sense for it to fly on government property.  


You bring up the British, but imagine if we lost that war.  Do you think the stars and bars would be flying today if we did?  

 

To me, I have no problem with removing the Confederate flag from government buildings if they so choose.  I just resent the public persecution that is forcing people to do things.  The whole, I don't like the flag so if you sell it we will protest outside your stores and attempt to financially harm you until you relent thing is pretty loathsome.  

 

I have never heard a rebuttal in any conversation over the causation of the Civil War to the fact that the South turned down a deal for permanent slavery to rejoin the Union.  This blows the whole, "The south seceded because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery" argument out of the water.

---

People have the right to protest, so I'm not sure what your problem is there.  


The rebuttal?  I made that a long time ago. 


Here.  In the words of the Confederacy's VERY OWN Vice President Alexander Stephens:


 

 

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution […] The general opinion of the men of that day [Revolutionary Period] was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution [slavery] would be evanescent and pass away […] Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

People have the right to protest, so I'm not sure what your problem is there.  


The rebuttal?  I made that a long time ago. 


Here.  In the words of the Confederacy's VERY OWN Vice President Alexander Stephens:


 

 

Abraham Lincoln as well as most everybody said very similar things back then.  Again, what possible theory could there be for why the South would turn down two proposals that would allow them to keep slavery?  The truth is that the tariff was the sticking point.  The North was bleeding the South dry, the South was very upset for some 40 or 50 years about this until they decided to leave the Union.  Abraham Lincoln was forced into a rallying cry to unite the northern states and pressure the South from seceding.  Why else would free black men, Indians, and the 98% of the population who never owned a slave, fight for the Confederacy?  It's not that black and white.

 

Yes, people do have the right to protest.  It doesn't mean they aren't complete and total jerks for forcing their opinions onto others by mob rule.  People protested against allowing women and blacks the right to vote and that doesn't make them any less insufferable jerks just because they had the right.  I'm just glad that Americans didn't cave so easily back then as they do today. 

---

What we did to the native Americans alone is just as bad if not worse then anything the confederacy did under the banner of slavery. Condemning one and excusing the other is pure hypocrisy, which is my point.

Oh so you are now on the American apology tour? How much is Obama paying you???


I put Andrew Jackson as one of our worst presidents because of the horrors done to native Americans during his regime.


But you obviously see the difference right? Most people see this horrors, acknowledge they were terrible deeds, and have tried to rectify the situation. Southerners ignore the horrors of slavery and try to change the subject to states rights and heritage.


Huge difference!

---

Oh so you are now on the American apology tour? How much is Obama paying you???


I put Andrew Jackson as one of our worst presidents because of the horrors done to native Americans during his regime.


But you obviously see the difference right? Most people see this horrors, acknowledge they were terrible deeds, and have tried to rectify the situation. Southerners ignore the horrors of slavery and try to change the subject to states rights and heritage.


Huge difference!

 

no there is no difference, no southerner is trying to restore slavery. everyone in this here thread has said slavery was a horrible thing, I've even argued it was blatantly unconstitutional as a violation of natural rights. However just like the Stars and Stripes is not solely represented by the miss-actions done under its banner so it is true the confederate flag is not solely represented by the miss-actions done under its banner.

 

I don't fly the confederate flag on my property, I fly the American flag as I am an American, however to say we should abolish one flag because of what was done under it's banner and not the other is hypocritical at best. It is as much apart of our history as every other flag, the confederate flag is an American flag. 

---

Abraham Lincoln as well as most everybody said very similar things back then.  Again, what possible theory could there be for why the South would turn down two proposals that would allow them to keep slavery?  The truth is that the tariff was the sticking point.  The North was bleeding the South dry, the South was very upset for some 40 or 50 years about this until they decided to leave the Union.  Abraham Lincoln was forced into a rallying cry to unite the northern states and pressure the South from seceding.  Why else would free black men, Indians, and the 98% of the population who never owned a slave, fight for the Confederacy?  It's not that black and white.

 

Yes, people do have the right to protest.  It doesn't mean they aren't complete and total jerks for forcing their opinions onto others by mob rule.  People protested against allowing women and blacks the right to vote and that doesn't make them any less insufferable jerks just because they had the right.  I'm just glad that Americans didn't cave so easily back then as they do today. 

 

Oh, now it's the tariff? Keep looking for something other than slavery - someone may believe it.

 

Are you not reading the quote from A. Stephens provided by The Eleventh Doctor?

 

Am I going to have to send FBT over there so he can wag his finger in your face and chide you about how important knowledge of history is?

 

Truth is - it's always been about slavery! From the very beginning. Why did the founders try so hard to find a way around it? And pretty much fail. Why was representation based on counting slaves - as 3/5 a person? What do you think Congress was dealing with regarding the Missouri Compromise (1820) and the Kansas and Nebraska Act (1854)?

 

My god, why do you think the Republican Party was created and how do you think Lincoln became president?

 

There is lack of knowledge and there is willful lack of knowledge. There is a whole lot of the latter going on here.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Now the creation of the Republican Party and Lincoln's presidency was to address slavery lol I've heard it all now.

---

I'd like to refer you to my very first reply in this thread. It shouldn't be hard to find. It was the second post. Please read it and let me know what it says.


Also, please find me an instance of the British government proudly flying the American flag if you're going to use that as an argument.

They've flown it over the royal palace before

---

People have the right to protest, so I'm not sure what your problem is there.


The rebuttal? I made that a long time ago.


Here. In the words of the Confederacy's VERY OWN Vice President Alexander Stephens:

Several states including Virginia, florida, south Carolina and several other specifically state slavery and the protection of it as the reason for seccesion. Jefferson Davis daid very similar things in his speech leaving congress...

---

Now the creation of the Republican Party and Lincoln's presidency was to address slavery lol I've heard it all now.

 

From the Republican Party Wikipedia page:


 

Founded in the Northern states in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs, and ex-<a class="" href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Soil' title="Free Soil">Free Soilers</a>, the Republican Party quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant <a class="" href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29' title="History of the Democratic Party (United States)">Democratic Party</a> and the briefly popular Know Nothing Party. The main cause was opposition to the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise by which slavery was kept out of Kansas. The Northern Republicans saw the expansion of slavery as a great evil. The first public meeting where the name "Republican" was suggested for a new anti-slavery party was held on March 20, 1854 in a schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin.^[16] The name was partly chosen to pay homage to Thomas Jefferson's Republican Party.

The first official party convention was held on July 6, 1854, in Jackson, Michigan.^[17] By 1858, the Republicans dominated nearly all Northern states. The Republican Party first came to power in 1860 with the election of Lincoln to the Presidency and Republicans in control of Congress and again, the Northern states. It oversaw the preserving of the union, the end of slavery, and the provision of equal rights to all men in the American Civil War and <a class="" href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era_of_the_United_States' title="Reconstruction era of the United States">Reconstruction</a>, 1861–1877.^[18]

 

 

And this, from the Republican Party History Wikipedia page:

 

It began as a coalition of anti-slavery "Conscience Whigs" and Free Soil Democrats opposed to the <a class="" href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas-Nebraska_Act' title="Kansas-Nebraska Act">Kansas-Nebraska Act</a>, submitted to Congress by <a class="" href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Douglas' title="Stephen Douglas">Stephen Douglas</a> in January 1854. The Act opened Kansas Territory and Nebraska Territory to slavery and future admission as slave states, thus implicitly repealing the prohibition on slavery in territory north of <a class="" href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/36%C2%B0_30%E2%80%B2_latitude' title="36° 30′ latitude">36° 30′ latitude</a>, which had been part of the Missouri Compromise. This change was viewed by Free-Soil and Abolitionist Northerners as an aggressive, expansionist maneuver by the slave-owning South.
 

 

I understand Wikipedia can be wrong, but there's this:

 

The Republican Party name was christened in an editorial written by New York newspaper magnate Horace Greeley. Greeley printed in June 1854: "We should not care much whether those thus united (<i>against slavery</i>) were designated 'Whig,' 'Free Democrat' or something else; though we think some simple name like 'Republican' would more fitly designate those who had united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty rather than propagandist of slavery."

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

To me, I have no problem with removing the Confederate flag from government buildings if they so choose.  I just resent the public persecution that is forcing people to do things.  The whole, I don't like the flag so if you sell it we will protest outside your stores and attempt to financially harm you until you relent thing is pretty loathsome.  

 

I have never heard a rebuttal in any conversation over the causation of the Civil War to the fact that the South turned down a deal for permanent slavery to rejoin the Union.  This blows the whole, "The south seceded because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery" argument out of the water.

 

Oh, God, here we go again. 

 

Here are the Articles of Secession by 4 different southern states, and they all state quite clearly and emphatically that they are seceding to defend slavery. 

 

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html' title="External link">http://www.civilwar....onofcauses.html</a>

 

Georgia:

 

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property...

 

Mississippi:

 

"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.


Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."

 

South Carolina:

 

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

 

Texas:

 

"Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association."

 

 

Here are the words of Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy.

 

<a class="bbc_url" href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech' title="External link">https://en.wikipedia...nerstone_Speech</a>

 

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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."

 

So, yes, the South did secede to defend the institution of slavery.   THEY SAID SO THEMSELVES!  

---

Oh, God, here we go again.


Here are the Articles of Secession by 4 different southern states, and they all state quite clearly and emphatically that they are seceding to defend slavery.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html'>http://www.civilwar....onofcauses.html</a>


Georgia:


"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property...


Mississippi:


"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.


Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."


South Carolina:


"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."


Texas:


"Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association."



Here are the words of Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy.

<a class="bbc_url" href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech'>https://en.wikipedia...nerstone_Speech</a>


"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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."


So, yes, the South did secede to defend the institution of slavery. THEY SAID SO THEMSELVES!

See the problem you are having is you only focusing on the part they exclicity stated was their reason. Not the other reasons. You good ones. The ones aren't completely racist and dispicable in nature. Just like if you just ignore the whole mass genocide thing you will see Hitler's war mongering ways helped to bring about the space age!!!!

---

As my wife says:


People will revise history in order to make it more acceptable to themselves.  And that is the difference between the American Flag and the Confederate Flag.  Those who fly the Confederate Flag will make excuses.  "It was the times!"  "It was about State's Rights, not slavery!"  "It was about Tariffs!"  They choose to ignore that slavery was the central issue for the South's secession.  It's true many who fought for the South did not own slaves.  Many of them did however aspire to one day own slaves themselves.  Many fought for their country "right or wrong".   Slavery was by no means a minor issue, and anyone trying to spread it as such is only participating in historical revisionism.  


 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

As my wife says:


People will revise history in order to make it more acceptable to themselves.  And that is the difference between the American Flag and the Confederate Flag.  Those who fly the Confederate Flag will make excuses.  "It was the times!"  "It was about State's Rights, not slavery!"  "It was about Tariffs!"  They choose to ignore that slavery was the central issue for the South's secession.  It's true many who fought for the South did not own slaves.  Many of them did however aspire to one day own slaves themselves.  Many fought for their country "right or wrong".   Slavery was by no means a minor issue, and anyone trying to spread it as such is only participating in historical revisionism.  

 

I'm still trying to figure out who it is that's ignoring slavery.  You libs keep saying this, but nobody is ignoring it.  You're the ones ignoring something by simply fixating on one issue while ignoring the rest. 

 

The only people trying to revise history are liberals who are demanding we erase any reference to our past that they deem offensive from view. 

 

You libs sure are good at tolerance.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.