I do not have a doctorate degree.
I don't know what you're trying to say. The reason for the civil war was that the south refused to endure an end to slavery. The confederate flag is a symbol of that refusal, and therefore a symbol of racist oppression. I don't see how you can possibly agree with so much, and yet deny that it is reasonable for a black American to be offended, intimidated, denigrated, or belittled by the confederate flag.
Slavery does not = Racism. You can have Racism without slavery. The fact that major heroes of the Union were also quite racist (Grant, Lincoln, etc) proves that racism existed despite the desire to remove the institution of slavery.
You are jumping portions of history to reach this simplified position. The north decided to end slavery to gain support for the war (where recruiting in the north was lacking, and the british were in support of the south until emancipation) and the South didn't go to war to maintain slavery, they went to war to maintain their independence from the union. They SECEDED from the nation over slavery. Related, but not the same thing.
And yet, your statement fails when Free black slave owners in the south existed. They were free, and free to have the "liberty" (as they considered it) of owning slaves.
I mean, raise the flag in front of your house. I don't care. Keep it off state property. There should be NO governmental endorsement of SLAVERY and racial oppression, flying in the air.
Not at all. They were still quite racist. However, implying that they desired all black people to be enslaved is quite different from their desire to keep the slaves they had.What? You had a token free black guy running around and suddenly that nullifies generations of racial oppression?
And I do not deny that.There was still racism in that caucasians believed africans were, for example, less intelligent. That's still less racist than, say, enslaving africans and shipping them over here to toil in cotton fields 12 hrs a day under the crack of a whip.
No...you arent able to see it apparently. I dont care what the states choose...to flu the confederate flag, a civil rights flag, hell...let their freak flag fly. It should just be THEIR choice without coercion by a bunch of cause driven ****heads.
Obviously you are just blathering on without listening to anything I have said. I dont care if the good people of SC make the decision to remove the Confederate flag. They just shouldnt do it because a bunch of cause driven morons have had their strings pulled by a group of race baiting assholes.The people like you that would like the Confederate flag to stay are cause driven. You said that you were a bit worked about it because you grew up in the South. You tried to make a case for the Confederate flag based on your personal experiences with your neighbors. And made it clear that you think that anyone who disagrees is a moron. You my friend are cause driven.
Im good with not letting States fly screwy flags on Government grounds. It doesnt impede on the rights or liberties of individuals. A States government has no right to fly some lame ass flag. But you seem to think that if a bunch of cause driven ****heads in a State want to fly a CHe flag on the State capitol then it ok it was their decision. Screw that just disallow all flags except the official Federal, State, Local flags on public property. Then we wont ever have some silly ass flag flying on public property.
Obviously you are just blathering on without listening to anything I have said. I dont care if the good people of SC make the decision to remove the Confederate flag. They just shouldnt do it because a bunch of cause driven morons have had their strings pulled by a group of race baiting assholes.
1-I watched the live proceedings.And how would you know if thats why they decided to remove the flag? Are you magic?
You've already answered, doctor, by refusing to answer, you believe yes, politically incorrect speech should be met with violence. You don't get to dictate when you refuse to do any heavy lifting yourself. Sorry charly.
Really:
Yet when each state left the Union, its leaders made clear that they were seceding because they were for slavery and against states’ rights. In its “Declaration of the Causes Which Impel the State of Texas to Secede From the Federal Union,” for example, the secession convention of Texas listed the states that had offended the delegates: “Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa.” Governments there had exercised states’ rights by passing laws that interfered with the federal government’s attempts to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. Some no longer let slave owners “transit” across their territory with slaves. “States’ rights” were what Texas was seceding against. Texas also made clear what it was seceding for — white supremacy:
That above is what taints the flag.
That was interesting. I'd never quite thought of it that way before but it does make sense. The slave states tried to get the federal government to force the citizens of non slave states to protect southern slavery and to even actively hunt down runaway slaves in their areas and turn them over to slave bounty hunters and slave owners. So the non slave states started passing state anti-slave laws to protect their citizens from an unconstitutional law. This made the South angry and since they couldn't get the federal government to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, they chose to secede from the union instead, just to protect slavery and proving once again that the real cause of the Civil War was slavery.
That was interesting. I'd never quite thought of it that way before but it does make sense. The slave states tried to get the federal government to force the citizens of non slave states to protect southern slavery and to even actively hunt down runaway slaves in their areas and turn them over to slave bounty hunters and slave owners. So the non slave states started passing state anti-slave laws to protect their citizens from an unconstitutional law. This made the South angry and since they couldn't get the federal government to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, they chose to secede from the union instead, just to protect slavery and proving once again that the real cause of the Civil War was slavery.
It also shows how when it came to "States Rights" the south spoke so loudly about, they were speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
They wanted States Rights for themselves, but didn't want the Northern States to have the same.
The north was pushing their "rights" onto the South, and the South got tired of it. The north hated state's rights if they couldn't force the South to cave.
Human rights and civil rights trump state's rights.
Yet the yanks wanted to make sure they kept their "state's rights" by insuring the South gave ours up.
That doesn't even make sense.
It actually does if you think about it. The north wanted to keep their power in Congress to make sure that the South did not have the right to decide for themselves whether to allow slavery.
The North tried to compromise with South, but they still wanted to expand slavery into the new territories and force northerners to return runaway slaves. So the north passed state laws to protect the free states from the slave states. The South threw a hissy fit when they couldn't get their way.The north was pushing their "rights" onto the South, and the South got tired of it. The north hated state's rights if they couldn't force the South to cave.
The North tried to compromise with South, but they still wanted to expand slavery into the new territories and force northerners to return runaway slaves. So the north passed state laws to protect the free states from the slave states. The South threw a hissy fit when they couldn't get their way.
"...the Kansas–Nebraska Act, submitted to Congress by Stephen A. Douglas in January 1854. The Act opened Kansas Territory and Nebraska Territory to slavery and future admission of slave states by allowing white male settlers[1] in those territories to determine through "popular sovereignty" whether they would allow slavery within each territory. Thus, the Kansas–Nebraska Act effectively undermined the prohibition on slavery in territory north of 36°30′ latitude which had been established by the Missouri Compromise. This change was viewed by Free Soilers and many abolitionist Northerners as an aggressive, expansionist maneuver by the slave-owning South, and led to the creation of the Republican Party.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise
Are you a republican, HorseLoverGirl?
No, i mean, have you read any of the stuff above? The south has been lying to itself.
Yeah sure we have. We knew we were right, get over it.
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I guess this man had the right idea.
That was William tcumsah Sherman.
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their... - William Tecumseh Sherman at BrainyQuote
If there is any justice in this world that piece of pond scum (not fit to be called human, much less a "man") is burning in the innermost circle of hell for eternity
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?