- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 29,957
- Reaction score
- 14,683
- Location
- Netherlands
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
The Stars and Stripes, the flag of the North flew for over 80 years while Slavery was legal.
Allot longer than the Confederate battle flag.
Seems like the North only seemed to have an issue with Slavery right when the South wanted to secede.
Hmmmm..what a coincidence.
The Flag of Britain flew on the slave ships that brought slaves over.
Should those flags be retired too ?
The flags of Britain, Portugal and Spain ( among other ) flew on the ships that brought slaves to the new world.
Are those " racist symbols " too ?
Because the Confederate South is KNOWN for its role in slavery, segregation, and racial derision.
That's how it went down in the history books - Southerners who cling to it surely are smart enough to know that.
It now stands for white Southern conservatives who generally have a disdainful view of black people.
That "loser" flag was all but forgotten until the civil rights act was passed and then it popped up all over the South. It has been given a new meaning and it is about repression not history.
and Abe was killed a few days after the war ended.
The flag of my state depicts a slave owning southerner front and center, what happens when some special interest group claims they feel hatred visiting the capitol dome?
If history (and not current meaning) is what makes things offensive this becomes a valid question
That is so ridiculous its actually sad. I guess you forgot that even Grant owned slaves. Well he freed his one guy but wifie wasn't about to free her domestic help.
Most Northern states had abolished slavery in the 18th Century.
There were very few slaves in the North by 1861.
Meanwhile, in the States the CSA claimed as their own, there were nearly four million slaves.
Yes, nearly one out of four people in the South were slaves.
I always think these stats are stunning:
State ---Free Population ---Slave Population (1860)
Alabama --519,121 ----435,080
Georgia ---505,088 ----462,198
Louisiana --376,276 ----331,726
Mississippi -354,674 ----436,631
South Carolina-- 301,302 ---402,406
Texas ---421,649 ----182,566
Arkansas --324,335--- 111,115
North Carolina -661,563 ---331,099
Tennessee--- 834,082--- 275,719
Florida ---78,679 ----61,745
Kentucky --930,201 ---225,483
Virginia --1,105,453 ---490,865
Some states more slaves than free persons.
I'm sorry, but no. That's simply wrong. Southern soldiers didn't charge into battle with the thought of preserving some rich man's ability to own slaves on their minds.
They were sold the war on the premise of state's rights, and independence. The ability to deal with slavery as the states saw fit simply happened to be one of those rights.
Besides, both North and South owned slaves for the duration of the war, and both sides generally regarded African Americans as being "inferior." The Emancipation Proclamation didn't even come into play until two years into the conflict. Before that point, the Union was simply fighting to preserve it's territory.
A) The Confederates weren't the freaking Nazis. That's simply the Far Left pulling a melodramatic Godwin.
B) It was 150 years ago. Lighten up.
The Germans still pay homage to the Iron Cross in spite of it being used in both WW1 and WW2. The Japanese still fly the Rising Sun flag which was carried into battle by the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy. All of those regimes were responsible for things quite a bit more heinous than anything in which the C.S.A. was ever involved.
Someone needs to pass that on to those who raised and taught the guy who murdered 9 blacks in a Black church.
Where did he get his ideas from?
Actually more Americans died because of the Confederate traitors. In my book that makes them worse than the Nazi's.
White Supremacist groups, most of whom advocate blatantly fascist viewpoints and ideology.
It didn't have a damn thing to do with either the Confederacy or the battle flag as the vast majority of Southerners view them. Hell! The man was flying South African and Rhodesian flags half the time anyway.
Crazy people will do as crazy people are wont to do. :shrug:
So secession was essentially about taxes? I've never heard that one before. Taxes on everything or just specific things?
Like I said, you need a history lesson
The North never really needed slavery, as it never had the climate to make it profitable in the first place. By way of contrast, the South was an agrarian economy which had basically been built up around the plantation system. Of course they had more slaves, and had more reason to be defensive about the system being removed. It was their entire livelihood.
That does not change the fact, however, that it was never their primary reason for going to war from an ideological standpoint, nor that the ending of was slavery was never the North's primary goal in trying to suppress the Confederacy. The war was always primarily about economic and political self-determination in the South, and keeping the Union intact in the North. The issue of slavery simply happened to have been one of the major catalysts responsible for driving the two to blows.
The North had slave states on its side for the the duration of the war. Lincoln himself was also known to believe that African Americans were generally inferior to whites - he simple supported deporting them all, rather than keeping them as slaves.
This is more misconception than reality. With the settlement and cultivation of the Midwest the 'Free States' began to swiftly surpass the agricultural capacity of the South. Even with a smaller agricultural labor pool the 'Free States' had, before the dawn of the Civil War in 1850, reached a point where they were producing about 500 million bushels of various crops, especially cereals, while the South reached roughly 481 million of the same. This gap grew in the years leading up to the Civil War. By the time the war broke out the North was not just the dominant industrials, commercial, and scientific power on the continent--it was also the dominant agricultural force. During the war Northern farmers increased their share of the market and made millions due to massive demand from Europe and the Middle East for American foodstuffs.
Why did you name yourself after a man that ordered his men to born cities and let his men kill, rape and torture innocents? Why are you actively supporting a war criminal? Why are you supporting a side of the war that won the war by committing war crimes?
Why would any informed individual with an ounce of moral character whatsoever name themselves after Sherman?
Because I adore Sherman. He understood what needed to be done to break the will of Southern resistance and shattered the Confederacy. Furthermore his legacy has been clouded by the smears of several generations of Lost Cause historians. Luckily the historical record is increasingly being rectified.
You mean the historical fact that his men killed, raped and tortured innocents? That everything he did would be seen today as a war crime? You mean like how he used the most barbaric and sadistic tactic known to man to make another man give up?
You mean the historical fact that his men killed, raped and tortured innocents? That everything he did would be seen today as a war crime? You mean like how he used the most barbaric and sadistic tactic known to man to make another man give up?
You mean the historical fact that his men killed, raped and tortured innocents? That everything he did would be seen today as a war crime? You mean like how he used the most barbaric and sadistic tactic known to man to make another man give up?
A small minority did, just as a small minority if Southern soldiers did (and captured blacks to be 'sold south'). Confederate troops burned, ransomed, and destroyed numerous northern towns, roads, farms, etc. Fortunately the forces of the Union were in a position to inflict damage to property on such a massive scale that it helped break the back of Southern resistance, all while keeping civilian casualties exceedingly low. The South sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind.
Which General Lee condemned and would punish officers for.
On the other hand, Sherman and many of his soldiers was subject to be put to death for their actions.
1806 Code:
“Any officer or soldier who shall quit his post or colors to plunder and pillage shall suffer death or other such punishment as shall be ordered by a sentence of a general court martial.”
Because Robert E. Lee was the only Confederate General.
Furthermore the 1806 Code was replaced by the Lieber Code in 1863, well before Sherman's glorious March to the Sea. While he probably bent, or perhaps even broke, sections of the code he certainly adhered to its principles which were "...that “virtually any use of force was permissible if required by military necessity,” which produced “both a broad limit on war’s violence and a robust license to destroy.” The best wars lasted the shortest amount of time. “The more vigorously wars are pursued,” wrote Lieber in the code, “the better it is for humanity. Sharp wars are brief.”
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?