• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Confederate Flag

vergiss said:
I see your point, but that doesn't mean you can put a swastika up somewhere and not expect a lot of people to be upset by it.

If you must use the confederate flag... then so be it, I guess. Just do it with some sensitivity.

Just as many people misunderstand the origins of the swastika, the meaning of the Confederate Battle flag is also misunderstood. Both symbols were hijacked by people who have hate as their main ideology. The former was corrupted by Adolph Hitler and the Confederate flag by the KKK.

However, if you look at the symbols you see a different meaning. The swastika (still commonly used in some Asian countries) means peace and love. The Confederate flag symbolozies pride in the south and the belief in State's Rights. I don't agree with the attempted independence movement in the South, but today, people who fly the flag are among the most patriotic of Americans.
 
HTColeman said:
The U.S. was prominent before slavery, during slavery, and after slavery. It was also prominent when the U.S. gave blacks the right to vote, equal housing and employment, etc.

There was slavery at the founding of the United States. How can you say that the U.S. was prominent BEFORE slavery? Sounds like a good rationale to start a new dating system. BS=Before Slavery, AS=After slavery In the year 28 B.S. ;)
 
Calm2Chaos said:
First off the flag your talking about is not the be all end all. It is in all reality not even the flag of the conderacy, It's a battle flag. The most common version you see is actually the confederate navy jack. At some point, some how this flag got adopted to mean the whole of the conderacy. You are putting a meaning to a flag that doesn't even represent what you think it does.

It's funny how ignorant most of my fellow Northerners are about Southern flags. People used to whine and whine about the old (pre-2001) Georgia flag, which featured the Confederate Battle Emblem in the Union portion of the flag. The current Georgia flag (2003) - let's not even talk about the 2001-2002 flag affectionately known as the placemat - features prominently elements of the POLITICAL flag of the confederacy, specifically the Third Confederate National flag. No outcry from the NAACP or other liberal groups. Is that because of ignorance, or is there something else at work here?!?!?
 
HTColeman said:
I have in no way done this, the Confederate flag is not representative of the south, it is only a select few that wave the Confederate flag, not the majority. They are not personal feelings, I am only saying that your history is not the only history.

A majority of voters in Mississippi VOTED to retain the Battle Emblem in the union portion of their state flag. The voters of Georgia VOTED to adopt a flag that features elements of the Third National flag of the Confederacy. Polls have shown that a majority of Georgians support the presence of the Battle Emblem in the state flag (the 1956-2001 state flag.)
 
Re: Nazi Flag

Martyr_Machine said:
The confederate flag is a symbol of freedom from tyranny. The belief that the south were the evil slave owners and Lincoln was the liberator is revisionist history at its worst. The Civil war was not about slavery, Lincoln was an outspoken racist and was completely indifferent to it. The war was about the elimination of states right. I should point out that slavery was common in the north.

http://www.nps.gov/liho/debate1.htm

In 1858, Lincoln was expressly against expanding slavery into the territories, against the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and very much had mixed feelings on the resolution of the peculiar institution, but he was by no means a supporter of slavery.

Abraham Lincoln (1858) said:
Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North, and become tiptop Abolitionists; while some Northern ones go South, and become most cruel slave-masters.

"When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,-to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.

"When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one.

"But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go into our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave-trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long forbid the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle; and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter."

I have reason to know that Judge Douglas knows that I said this. I think he has the answer here to one of the questions he put to me. I do not mean to allow him to catechise me unless he pays back for it in kind. I will not answer questions one after another, unless he reciprocates; but as he has made this inquiry, and I have answered it before, he has got it without my getting anything in return. He has got my answer on the Fugitive Slave law.

Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any greater length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it, and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. [Laughter.] I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. [Great applause.]

While some of what is said in here is perhaps evidence of bigotry by today's standards, in 1858 he was very much progressive on this issue.
 
Re: Nazi Flag

walrus said:
Would defending the American flag be the same as supporting the genocide of the Native Americans? Would supporting the Christian Church be the same as condoning the inquisition?

Actually, the so-called genocide against American Indians is overstated. The overwhelming majority of American Indians were killed by disease, NOT by U.S. soldiers.
 
Re: Nazi Flag

ludahai said:
Actually, the so-called genocide against American Indians is overstated. The overwhelming majority of American Indians were killed by disease, NOT by U.S. soldiers.

Well that's true...but I think it's more of the thought behind the actions than the actual numbers, don't you? I mean they gave Indians infected blankets. That's horrible.
 
rudy0908 said:
Thats his right. He's the freakin president, he ruled the north and the south, so he can put the US military anywhere on US lands. What is your point there? That he shouldn't be able to place troops on southern land?

The point was whether or not a state could secede from a country which as Jefferson Davis put it: the northern states were trying to create an "unjust system of legislation to promote the industry of the United States at the expense of the people of the South." The population of northern states had skyrocketed, while the southern states population remained stagnant, which meant the northern states gained representatives in the House and the south was found themselves outnumbered greatly there. Since slavery was obviously embedded in the Constitution, the South they had a hard time understanding all the anti slavery sentiment within the government.

The South basically felt that the federal government wasn't treating them fairly, and felt they were no longer represented by the federal government and wanted out. Nothing in the constitution stated a state could not dissolve its association with the government, so they decided to do it. If it was true that a state could quit the union, then the federal troops were trespassing at Ft Sumter. The war seems to have decided the secession question.

rudy0908 said:
People keep saying it was about states rights. Maybe, but what was the issue that pushed it over the edge? Slavery. Southern states knew that when Lincoln won the election, he would probably (whether in his rights or not) try to impose northern will on southern states on the issue of slavery. It was this single issue that pushed the South over the edge.

Slavery did not push it over the edge, it pushed it to the edge, and the southern states saw, with this one issue, what was in store for them on any issue in which they disagreed with the northern states. "States rights," is a term without any standing, as states do not have any rights. This was about federal power, and a states place within the governments power, and about a states power.

Slavery was the root, a root which the south saw growing into a plant with many limbs, each at the will of the federal government, not their own desires, and not in their best interests. It wasn't just Lincoln the south was concerned about, it was more so the House of representatives (Which they were outnumbered in) along with the Senators from newly admitted states.
 
Re: Nazi Flag

ludahai said:
Actually, the so-called genocide against American Indians is overstated. The overwhelming majority of American Indians were killed by disease, NOT by U.S. soldiers.

You mean the "virgin-soil epidemic" the white man brought them and sometimes used deliberately, like when Sir Jeffrey Amherst ordered Colonel Henry Bouquet to give blankets which had been exposed to smallpox to the natives??? There are many such documented events of germ warfare by the British, and even some after they left.
 
Re: Nazi Flag

Kelzie said:
Well that's true...but I think it's more of the thought behind the actions than the actual numbers, don't you? I mean they gave Indians infected blankets. That's horrible.

Actually, the smallpox blanket incident was conducted by the British during Pontiac's Rebellion in 1763. That predated the American flag, so linking the U.S. flag with this incident (as unfortunate and wrong as it was) doesn't hold.

http://www.somsd.k12.nj.us/~chssocst/ssgavittus1amherstsmallpox.htm
 
Re: Nazi Flag

C.J. said:
You mean the "virgin-soil epidemic" the white man brought them and sometimes used deliberately, like when Sir Jeffrey Amherst ordered Colonel Henry Bouquet to give blankets which had been exposed to smallpox to the natives??? There are many such documented events of germ warfare by the British, and even some after they left.

The original poster linked the AMERICAN flag with the "genocide" of the American Indians. This PREdated the U.S. flag by more than a decade.
 
Re: Nazi Flag

ludahai said:
I am a high school history teacher, what did you expect?!?!? :2wave:

Howbout a little sympathy for us non-history teachers? You could've pretended I was right. Just for a little while.
 
Re: Nazi Flag

Kelzie said:
Howbout a little sympathy for us non-history teachers? You could've pretended I was right. Just for a little while.

:) Sorry. Kelzie, even though you are a liberal, I like you. We have good honest disagreements. However, when it comes to history, I am a stickler for accuracy. Sorry.

I just wish it wasn't so darned HOT today, I would rather be out on a nice run with less than a week to go before school starts again.... argh!!!
 
rudy0908 said:
Thats his right. He's the freakin president, he ruled the north and the south, so he can put the US military anywhere on US lands. What is your point there? That he shouldn't be able to place troops on southern land?

People keep saying it was about states rights. Maybe, but what was the issue that pushed it over the edge? Slavery. Southern states knew that when Lincoln won the election, he would probably (whether in his rights or not) try to impose northern will on southern states on the issue of slavery. It was this single issue that pushed the South over the edge.

The Confederacy was not under his jurisdiction, he had no right to station troops in a foreign country. What Lincoln did was like North Korea stationing a terrorist cell in America.
 
The southern states out of frustration and stupidity attempted to overthrow the Republic.

:lol:

How? The southern states not one initiated violence against the union. The Civil war began because of a pre-emptive strike against the south by Lincoln. Secession is not revolution, far from it.
 
Re: Nazi Flag

ludahai said:
The original poster linked the AMERICAN flag with the "genocide" of the American Indians. This PREdated the U.S. flag by more than a decade.

I was referring to the fact that the alleged genocide was ongoing from before the U.S. flag to long after. Some estimates show upwards of 80% of the NA population was history long before the U.S. flag, which is why I also stated "There are many such documented events of germ warfare by the British, and even some after they left. By the time the U.S. government/soldiers got involved with federal policies, some estimates show approximately 2 million NA still living which was then reduced to a few hundred thousand by 1900. Genocide in the form of deliberate disease spreading and war seems to be the cause.

Prior to this time unintended infections, as well as some deliberate infections by the British occurred, but after our government was formed, we utilized the same practices. Overall their numbers decreased mainly due to disease, an unintended consequence of white intrusion in to their land, but between the founding of this country and the early 1900's it was more of a deliberate attempt to rid the continent of NA's, such as the alleged 1837 Fort Clark incident where contaminated blankets were deliberately passed out resulting in over alleged 100,000 deaths.

If one attempts to associate any genocide since the flag they should not state that the "overwhelming majority of American Indians were killed by disease, NOT by U.S. soldiers," when within the time period it's not true, and can only be true by using figures of deaths prior to any U.S. troop involvement.

The largest loss of life of NA's was due to unintended disease transmission, from contact with early settlers. This does not appear to be the case though, between the late 1700's and the early 1900's, the time frame of involvement of the U.S. government and their soldiers.

Even if one assumes that over several hundred years, the NA population was reduced by close to 90% by disease, and of the remaining 10% a large majority of them (Approximately 80-90%) were killed by violence, totally eliminating some tribes, and destroying the social identity of almost all others, is this not genocide regardless of what disease had done previously?
 
Martyr_Machine said:
The Confederacy was not under his jurisdiction, he had no right to station troops in a foreign country. What Lincoln did was like North Korea stationing a terrorist cell in America.
Lincoln and many politicians believed that states had no right to secede, so they did have the right to enter what they considered their own land.

And don't make idiotic comparisons. North Korea has never been a part of the US. They never seceded or shared any type of government. If you said Nk going into SK, then it could make sense. What you said was ridiculous.
 
Martyr_Machine said:
The Confederacy was not under his jurisdiction, he had no right to station troops in a foreign country. What Lincoln did was like North Korea stationing a terrorist cell in America.

A simple declaration of independence doesn't make one an independent nation. The U.S. declared independence in 1776, but had to fight a long war that didn't end until 1781 with formal independence being achieved when the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783.

The South declared independence, but lost the war. The Confederacy never achieved the status of independent nation, but was more like Biafra, who declared independence against Nigeria in the 1960s, but lost their war of succession.
 
ludahai said:
A simple declaration of independence doesn't make one an independent nation. The U.S. declared independence in 1776, but had to fight a long war that didn't end until 1781 with formal independence being achieved when the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783.

The South declared independence, but lost the war. The Confederacy never achieved the status of independent nation, but was more like Biafra, who declared independence against Nigeria in the 1960s, but lost their war of succession.

So is the "status" of being an independent nation is dependent on capitulation by the country they are breaking away from?
 
C.J. said:
So is the "status" of being an independent nation is dependent on capitulation by the country they are breaking away from?

In the form of a peace treaty in accordance with customary international law, though in modern practice, simple recognition from the sovereign state will suffice. The UN broke that series of precendents in the case of the former-Yugoslavia however.
 
ludahai said:
In the form of a peace treaty in accordance with customary international law, though in modern practice, simple recognition from the sovereign state will suffice. The UN broke that series of precendents in the case of the former-Yugoslavia however.

That would stand to reason, as to why the federals did not want a negotiated treaty, as any treaty would in itself grant recognition to the Confederacy. A treaty would have been a plus for the confederacy, but not for the union.
 
rudy0908 said:
Lincoln and many politicians believed that states had no right to secede, so they did have the right to enter what they considered their own land.

And don't make idiotic comparisons. North Korea has never been a part of the US. They never seceded or shared any type of government. If you said Nk going into SK, then it could make sense. What you said was ridiculous.

What Lincoln believed is irrelevent. Rights do not magically appear or disappear based on what you believe. What Lincoln did was an act of imperialism.
 
Back
Top Bottom