Honest question for Confederate flag lovers: Why are you so proud of losing?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

We are making progress, years ago when we had this discussion you held tight to your comment that NOBODY prior to the civil war belived black people should have civil rights.

When you say property rights, that is code for rights to own slaves.

Let's stop you right here and set the record straight. It is not "code" for anything. It is, in 1861, the law of the land, as decided by the US Supreme Court. Slaves WERE property... not according to the CSA, not according to Southerners, but according to the high court of the United States. People purchased property, they owned it just as you own a car or boat, it was perfectly legal for them to buy this property and own it. As terrible as that sounds today, that was the way things were in 1861, and very few people considered blacks to be equal to whites... even President Lincoln!

Its like saying we started the Iraq war due to issues of Iraq's right to arm itself, but it was really about WMD. You are simply trying to take the specific and move it out to a general until it sounds acceptable by todays standards. It was about property rights, specifically, the right to own people as property!

It is nothing at all like Iraq or the analogy you drew. It was NOT about the right to own people, Americans had been owning people for 86 years, with the blessing of Congress and the SCOTUS. It was about property rights, and these "people" were not considered "people" by the court at this time, they were considered "property" without civil rights. It was not until AFTER the war, and passage of the 13th and 14th Amendment, slaves were recognised as "people" and not "property."

Sure the North was complicit for a while, and it would likely have been a much more gradual abolition of slavery had the Sourth not succeded, but it was happening one way or the other and the North was leading the way.

The North was certainly NOT leading the way. They continued to buy Southern cotton, and support the United States with export trade of cotton. At ANY time, they could have boycotted slave-picked cotton and the South would have had to abandon slavery, they didn't. Abolition has nothing to do with civil rights, that's another liberal misnomer. I am vehemently opposed to dog fighting, it doesn't mean I think dogs should get to vote and have equal rights. People were opposed to slavery because it was morally reprehensible, not because they though blacks and whites were equal.

The South was not the totality of the problem, the South was just the area of the country willing to have a war over to retain the cast system. It was not simply the economics of property btw, there was the entire issue of the socially conservative principal the South was fighting to restore the tradition of the social order that was in place, many, if not most, including Davis, belived black people to be inferrior and that they should be excluded from any form of power. Sure some in the North agreed, but not most of the educated leaders.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about here. The South had an abundance of slaves because that is where cotton grows. No other reason! Had cotton thrived in Northern climates, there would have been just as many Northern slaves to pick the cotton. There was NOT this 'racial equality' sentiment you keep wanting to claim, it did not exist in 1861. There were a few Quaker and Unitarian ministers, who religiously believed black slaves were 'equal' to white folks, other than those examples, I don't know of any white people who had this sentiment in 1861. Yes, a LOT of people didn't think it was right to enslave people, and recognized black slaves as people... this doesn't mean they thought they were equal in any way.

But still... there is the matter of what THE LAW said. The SCOTUS had upheld the institution of slavery and refused to recognize slaves as people, choosing to instead, declare the slaves were property.

Remember people from Alabama come from the heart of the group still trying to grasp to the "old ways" and shouting tradition as an excuse for not allowing freedom to Gays, just like they fought to keep black people from the University of Alabama 50 years ago, just like they fought to keep interracial marriage illegal, just like they fight to keep women who have children at home. This is the Heart of Social conservatism. Now before you start screaming about some social conservative you studied from New York City or Chicago or Boston... I am sure some are from all over the nation, but the BULK are from the South, and the heart of the South is ALABAMA! The Heart of Dixie.

And this is where you jump the tracks with the Crazy Train. You are attempting to tie Civil Rights to the Civil War, and blame all of America's racist problems on THE SOUTH. The reason you have the inclination to do this, is because you think it detracts from your own racist conscience. By finding a SCAPEGOAT in THE SOUTH, you can wash your hands of any 'implication' regarding racism, and claim a moral high ground. Since you have already displayed such profound bigotry regarding Southerners, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude you are bigoted in other ways. This would explain why you are now desperately trying to connect two events in history, almost a century apart, as if they happened at the same time and for the same reasons. It's absurd beyond belief.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

remember how you wondered out loud how people could assume you were racist?

No. I don't give a fuck nigger

 

[Steelplate]

No. I don't give a fuck nigger

And there we have it....game, set and match.

 

[OnearmSword]

Actually a very small percentage of whites owned slaves. But apparently you have been brainwashed with white guilt to look at things objectively

Slavery has been a part of human existence for ages and still exists today. It is not unique to whites or the negro. You white liberals act as if the negro was the only slave in all of human history.

Now this is where your dumb ass says I am defending slavery. I am not. But if I were to own a slave it would be your simple minded ass. I wouldn't mind taking the whip to you and making you pick some cotton

 

[OnearmSword]

Let's stop you right here and set the record straight. It is not "code" for anything. It is, in 1861, the law of the land, as decided by the US Supreme Court. Slaves WERE property... not according to the CSA, not according to Southerners, but according to the high court of the United States. People purchased property, they owned it just as you own a car or boat, it was perfectly legal for them to buy this property and own it. As terrible as that sounds today, that was the way things were in 1861, and very few people considered blacks to be equal to whites... even President Lincoln!



It is nothing at all like Iraq or the analogy you drew. It was NOT about the right to own people, Americans had been owning people for 86 years, with the blessing of Congress and the SCOTUS. It was about property rights, and these "people" were not considered "people" by the court at this time, they were considered "property" without civil rights. It was not until AFTER the war, and passage of the 13th and 14th Amendment, slaves were recognised as "people" and not "property."



The North was certainly NOT leading the way. They continued to buy Southern cotton, and support the United States with export trade of cotton. At ANY time, they could have boycotted slave-picked cotton and the South would have had to abandon slavery, they didn't. Abolition has nothing to do with civil rights, that's another liberal misnomer. I am vehemently opposed to dog fighting, it doesn't mean I think dogs should get to vote and have equal rights. People were opposed to slavery because it was morally reprehensible, not because they though blacks and whites were equal.



Again, you don't know what you are talking about here. The South had an abundance of slaves because that is where cotton grows. No other reason! Had cotton thrived in Northern climates, there would have been just as many Northern slaves to pick the cotton. There was NOT this 'racial equality' sentiment you keep wanting to claim, it did not exist in 1861. There were a few Quaker and Unitarian ministers, who religiously believed black slaves were 'equal' to white folks, other than those examples, I don't know of any white people who had this sentiment in 1861. Yes, a LOT of people didn't think it was right to enslave people, and recognized black slaves as people... this doesn't mean they thought they were equal in any way.

But still... there is the matter of what THE LAW said. The SCOTUS had upheld the institution of slavery and refused to recognize slaves as people, choosing to instead, declare the slaves were property.



And this is where you jump the tracks with the Crazy Train. You are attempting to tie Civil Rights to the Civil War, and blame all of America's racist problems on THE SOUTH. The reason you have the inclination to do this, is because you think it detracts from your own racist conscience. By finding a SCAPEGOAT in THE SOUTH, you can wash your hands of any 'implication' regarding racism, and claim a moral high ground. Since you have already displayed such profound bigotry regarding Southerners, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude you are bigoted in other ways. This would explain why you are now desperately trying to connect two events in history, almost a century apart, as if they happened at the same time and for the same reasons. It's absurd beyond belief.

Excellent and very informative post..

 

[Steelplate]

Dixie....did the states that made up the CSA not vote on the slavery issue? Did they not have representation at the Federal level?

Don't tell me the CSA didn't make it so. Every one of those states had a say. And I'd be willing to bet that every one voted the exact same way, and a one or two Northern states that were on the fence tipped the balance to keep slavery intact.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Let's stop you right here and set the record straight. It is not "code" for anything. It is, in 1861, the law of the land, as decided by the US Supreme Court. Slaves WERE property... not according to the CSA, not according to Southerners, but according to the high court of the United States. People purchased property, they owned it just as you own a car or boat, it was perfectly legal for them to buy this property and own it. As terrible as that sounds today, that was the way things were in 1861, and very few people considered blacks to be equal to whites... even President Lincoln!



It is nothing at all like Iraq or the analogy you drew. It was NOT about the right to own people, Americans had been owning people for 86 years, with the blessing of Congress and the SCOTUS. It was about property rights, and these "people" were not considered "people" by the court at this time, they were considered "property" without civil rights. It was not until AFTER the war, and passage of the 13th and 14th Amendment, slaves were recognised as "people" and not "property."



The North was certainly NOT leading the way. They continued to buy Southern cotton, and support the United States with export trade of cotton. At ANY time, they could have boycotted slave-picked cotton and the South would have had to abandon slavery, they didn't. Abolition has nothing to do with civil rights, that's another liberal misnomer. I am vehemently opposed to dog fighting, it doesn't mean I think dogs should get to vote and have equal rights. People were opposed to slavery because it was morally reprehensible, not because they though blacks and whites were equal.



Again, you don't know what you are talking about here. The South had an abundance of slaves because that is where cotton grows. No other reason! Had cotton thrived in Northern climates, there would have been just as many Northern slaves to pick the cotton. There was NOT this 'racial equality' sentiment you keep wanting to claim, it did not exist in 1861. There were a few Quaker and Unitarian ministers, who religiously believed black slaves were 'equal' to white folks, other than those examples, I don't know of any white people who had this sentiment in 1861. Yes, a LOT of people didn't think it was right to enslave people, and recognized black slaves as people... this doesn't mean they thought they were equal in any way.

But still... there is the matter of what THE LAW said. The SCOTUS had upheld the institution of slavery and refused to recognize slaves as people, choosing to instead, declare the slaves were property.



And this is where you jump the tracks with the Crazy Train. You are attempting to tie Civil Rights to the Civil War, and blame all of America's racist problems on THE SOUTH. The reason you have the inclination to do this, is because you think it detracts from your own racist conscience. By finding a SCAPEGOAT in THE SOUTH, you can wash your hands of any 'implication' regarding racism, and claim a moral high ground. Since you have already displayed such profound bigotry regarding Southerners, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude you are bigoted in other ways. This would explain why you are now desperately trying to connect two events in history, almost a century apart, as if they happened at the same time and for the same reasons. It's absurd beyond belief.

They seem to want to forget about how many people were sent to the "Americas" as indentured servants, which was an British code word for "slave".

Indentured servants in the North American ColoniesFarmers, planters, and shopkeepers in the American colonies found it very difficult to hire free workers, primarily because it was so easy for potential workers to set up their own farms. Consequently, a common solution was to transport a young worker from England or Germany, who would work for several years to pay off the debt of their travel costs. During the indenture period the servants were not paid wages, but were provided with food, accommodation, clothing and training. The indenture document specified how many years the servant would be required to work, after which they would be free. Terms of indenture ranged from one to seven years with typical terms of four or five years.

Not all were sent willingly. Several instances of kidnapping for transportation to the Americas are recorded and this falls more clearly into the bracket of "white slave". Whilst these white slaves were often indentured in the same way as their willing counterparts it is an important distinction to make. An illustrative example of such a kidnap story is that of Peter Williamson (1730-1799).

Most white immigrants arrived in Colonial America as indentured servants, usually as young men and women from Britain or Germany, under the age of 21. Typically, the father of a teenager would sign the legal papers, and work out an arrangement with a ship captain, who would not charge the father any money. The captain would transport the indentured servants to the American colonies, and sell their legal papers to someone who needed workers. At the end of the indenture, the young person was given a new suit of clothes and was free to leave. Many immediately set out to begin their own farms, while others used their newly acquired skills to pursue a trade.

In the 17th century, nearly two-thirds of settlers to the New World from the British Isles came as indentured servants. Given the high death rate, many servants did not live to the end of their terms. In the 18th and early 19th century, numerous Europeans traveled to the colonies as redemptioners, a form of indenture.

It has been estimated that the redemptioners comprised almost 80% of the total British and continental emigration to America prior to the Revolution. Indentured servants were a separate category from bound apprentices. The latter were American-born children, usually orphans or from an impoverished family who could not care for them. They were under the control of courts and were bound out to work as an apprentice until a certain age. Two famous bound apprentices were Benjamin Franklin who illegally fled his apprenticeship to his brother, and Andrew Johnson, who later became President of the United States.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Actually, USF...

Slave is code word for slave.
Indentured servant is code word for indentured servant.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie....did the states that made up the CSA not vote on the slavery issue? Did they not have representation at the Federal level?

Don't tell me the CSA didn't make it so. Every one of those states had a say. And I'd be willing to bet that every one voted the exact same way, and a one or two Northern states that were on the fence tipped the balance to keep slavery intact.

First we have to all be on the same page with understanding of context. As long as some of you are believing that slaves were already recognized by the SCOTUS as people and not property and the South was resisting this, then we can't move any further in our conversation, because you lack the proper context to have an intelligent discussion. The law of the land had been decided by SCOTUS, not the CSA. The LAW said that slaves were not people, they were owned private property. I am sorry about that, I wish that had never happened, I am embarrassed that my country did this, but they did do it... not the CSA.

With the comprehension that slavery was legal, and slaves were considered private property, what are we to expect Southern legislators, who are beholden to their constituents, to rule on the issue of vanquishing their private property? If the EPA banned "Snow Plows" and suggested they all be confiscated, would there be any Northern Senators who would support the measure? Would Southern states give a rat's ass? Is it some fucking big "AH HA" moment, if they behave as we expect them to?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

how long are some of you white folk going to feel guilty about slavery which you or probably none of your parents had anything to do with?

 

[cancel2 2022]

Actually, USF...

Slave is code word for slave.
Indentured servant is code word for indentured servant.

In 1807, the slave trade was finally abolished, but this did not free those who were already slaves. It was not until 1833 that an act was passed giving freedom to all slaves in the British empire.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/wilberforce_william.shtml

 

[Howey]

Dear Dixie:

Welcome to the the 21st century. 1861 is soooo two centuries ago.

 

[Steelplate]

how long are some of you white folk going to feel guilty about slavery which you or probably none of your parents had anything to do with?

Perhaps when we stop ignoring our poor minority neighborhoods?

Perhaps when desperation, drug abuse, addiction and the inevitable crime that feeds the need for escape from that desperation is reduced to similar levels in other, better managed neighborhoods?

Perhaps when crime gangs stop owning the streets and outgun law enforcement in those neighborhoods?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Perhaps when we stop ignoring our poor minority neighborhoods?

Perhaps when desperation, drug abuse, addiction and the inevitable crime that feeds the need for escape from that desperation is reduced to similar levels in other, better managed neighborhoods?

Perhaps when crime gangs stop owning the streets and outgun law enforcement in those neighborhoods?

Are you saying all of those things are vestiges of slavery? If so why?

 

[Steelplate]

Are you saying all of those things are vestiges of slavery? If so why?

Sure it is. The 13th amendment, outlawing slavery may have been ratified in 1865, but real change didn't happen until the civil rights act...100 years later. But even now...50 years later...we still have major issues with inequality. Our best teachers, books and equipment go to the best neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods get hand me downs, marginal instruction, and outdated equipment. The best job opportunities go to our suburban areas, while our inner cities get little to none. They don't have the money to move out, and because if the shitty education they receive, they don't have the skills to compete anyway.

The educational system is rigged against them and has been all along. The parents of students today can't help the students because their parents couldn't help them, and the generation before had a huge chance that most of them were illiterate.

We need our BEST teachers to go into these places...not the ones that can't get a job anywhere else.

I have more....but I got shit to do today.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Sure it is. The 13th amendment, outlawing slavery may have been ratified in 1865, but real change didn't happen until the civil rights act...100 years later. But even now...50 years later...we still have major issues with inequality. Our best teachers, books and equipment go to the best neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods get hand me downs, marginal instruction, and outdated equipment. The best job opportunities go to our suburban areas, while our inner cities get little to none. They don't have the money to move out, and because if the shitty education they receive, they don't have the skills to compete anyway.

The educational system is rigged against them and has been all along. The parents of students today can't help the students because their parents couldn't help them, and the generation before had a huge chance that most of them were illiterate.

We need our BEST teachers to go into these places...not the ones that can't get a job anywhere else.

I have more....but I got shit to do today.

It seems like you are saying that there is something inherently wrong with the blacks that they can't fix these things themselves and they need compassionate white folk like you to fix it for them.

Here is an interesting statistic for you to chew on as you wipe the next retards ass. The illegitimacy rate among the blacks in 1940 was much lower than it is today. How do you explain that given that in 1940 the blacks were much closer to slavery and all of its horrible consequences than todays blacks who didn't have to grow up in the bondages of slavery or even segregation and fear of the KKK that you democrats created?

Let your uneducated ass ponder that for a while bitch

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dear Dixie:

Welcome to the the 21st century. 1861 is soooo two centuries ago.

Dear Howie:

It wasn't two centuries ago unless this is 2062. Liberals have a difficult time with time. That's the whole reason I am attempting to educate you on context. 1861 white sentiment toward blacks was completely different than 1964 sentiments. The same for white sentiment about my own Native American people. However, we have certain retards here, who want to cling to the false perception that we already had a civil rights movement in 1861, that Congress had already acted to ensure equal rights, and the South was defiantly standing in the schoolhouse door, proclaiming "Slavery today, Slavery forever!" It was NOT 1964, white people did NOT think blacks were equal to whites, and me pointing this out, is NOT racist or me living in the past.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Sure it is. The 13th amendment, outlawing slavery may have been ratified in 1865, but real change didn't happen until the civil rights act...100 years later.

WHAT? Are you saying emancipation from slavery wasn't REAL change? Taking their chains off in 1865 was sure as hell more of a REAL change than shackling them to 50 years of LBJs plantation policies.

But even now...50 years later...we still have major issues with inequality.

Perhaps this has something to do with racist bigots who hide their true sentiments by pretending Southerners are the problem?

Our best teachers, books and equipment go to the best neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods get hand me downs, marginal instruction, and outdated equipment. The best job opportunities go to our suburban areas, while our inner cities get little to none. They don't have the money to move out, and because if the shitty education they receive, they don't have the skills to compete anyway.

The educational system is rigged against them and has been all along. The parents of students today can't help the students because their parents couldn't help them, and the generation before had a huge chance that most of them were illiterate.

No... THIS was the argument made in 1964, a half century ago. We passed a series of acts and laws to rectify this situation, as well as providing a safety net and countless social welfare resources. IF this is still a problem, it HAS to be because these policies have FAILED!

Any objective open-minded person, can look a the history of black Americans, and you'll find that from 1865 to 1965, blacks steadily made gains in everything, from education to economics. Since 1965, they have been in steady decline. This is a fact you can't escape. I'm NOT saying we should go back to pre-civil rights, but it's obvious the plan didn't work, by your own admission.

We need our BEST teachers to go into these places...not the ones that can't get a job anywhere else.

I have more....but I got shit to do today.

Oh but in 1964, all we needed to do was desegregate the schools! Why didn't that work?

 

[philly rabbit]

The confederate flag may as well be a white surrender flag. It's the symbol of getting your asses royally kicked by the north. And yet you tattoo it on yourselves, or put in the rear window of your pick up truck. Why are you so fixated on being losers? Are you gluttons for punishment? Do you like constantly reminding yourselves of how your ancestors/relatives chose the wrong side? Why are you so eager to ally yourself with team failure?

Back to you.

Why do you support war imperialism?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It seems like you are saying that there is something inherently wrong with the blacks that they can't fix these things themselves and they need compassionate white folk like you to fix it for them.

This is the insidious racist message the guilty white liberals have been advancing for years. It's the whole idea behind LBJs policies, and five decades of guilty white liberal policy to follow. As Howey points out, NONE OF IT HAS WORKED to deliver the desired result. If that's not bad enough, they seem hell-bent on continuing the same line of thinking, to keep perpetrating these racist policies which do not solve the problem, and push us further and further apart.

The guilty white liberal message is: You are black, therefore, you lack the credentials to be successful... and we're here to help your poor unfortunate black asses! You can't help that you are black, and we can sympathize with the fact that you will always be black, and therefore, incapable of achieving anything meaningful in your life, without our help. It is seriously the most racist and prejudiced viewpoint we've ever seen, outside of the KKK, masquerading as "compassion." But they take this outrageous view a step further, and attempt to cast all blame and responsibility for racism on THE SOUTH!