• 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!

Confederate Flag[W:1518,2230, 2241]

Should the Confederate Flag be abolished?

  • Yes

    Votes: 55 30.2%

  • No

    Votes: 127 69.8%
  • Total voters
    182
Risky Thicket said:
...Why was the guilt heavier on the Southern side of the Mason-Dixon? ...
Click to expand...

I think it has a lot to do with the fact in the whole world, the Southern part of the US was the only region that had to fight a bloody battle to the end to abolish slavery.

All other countries and regions (the North) did so without war. A terrible indictment and speaks to the lengths they would go to preserve, protect and expand their horrid love of human bondage.
 
Risky Thicket said:
...My question is, as complicit as the north was how were they somehow less culpable?
...
Click to expand...

We're kinda proud in the North we enacted Personal Liberty Laws, and though racism existed, without a doubt there, we looked to our founding document and actually believed in the ideals that All Men Are Created Equal --

The CSA founded their country - as stated clearly -- on exactly the opposite notion.

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone 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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." Teaching American History

We're a might proud of this, too:


 
Paperview said:
We're kinda proud in the North we enacted Personal Liberty Laws, and though racism existed, without a doubt there, we looked to our founding document and actually believed in the ideals that All Men Are Created Equal --

The CSA founded their country - as stated clearly -- on exactly the opposite notion.

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone 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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." Teaching American History

We're a might proud of this, too:


Click to expand...

While this is true, I think we should set aside our difference, leave the past where it belongs, and be a legitimate UNITED States...
 
Paperview said:
I think it has a lot to do with the fact in the whole world, the Southern part of the US was the only region that had to fight a bloody battle to the end to abolish slavery.

All other countries and regions (the North) did so without war. A terrible indictment and speaks to the lengths they would go to preserve, protect and expand their horrid love of human bondage.
Click to expand...
It's strange that anybody would ask a question as stupid as "why is the guilt heavier on the southern side." That's such a ludicrously disingenuous question.

Why is there such a compulsion to try to sanitize the history of the south, like its possible to just be a proud confederate and forget about all that slavery stuff. This is not just moronic and racist, but truly unnecessary. It's important for a society to learn from its past.

The south has a lot of great things about its culture, there is plenty to celebrate. If you are looking for something to be proud about as a southern, how about the tremendous achievements of black culture in the south, who overcame intense oppression. That's something to be truly proud of!
 
Paperview said:
See, it's Lost Cause garbage like this you produce so readily that make what you say so easy to dismiss.

"No Southern Flag" implying the flag of the Confederacy - which, of course is just nonsense, as the international slave trade had been abolished in 1808.


You want to try that again?
YP1%20108%20Slave%20Arrival-1.jpg
Click to expand...

Do you know what you are trying to say? I have no idea what your point is. Approximately 4,000,000 slaves came to the U.S. Of the U.S. ships who transported slaves all flew the U.S. flag. The north controlled the shipping industry.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Well, I never said that "CSA leaders claimed that some dispute other than slavery was the proximate cause of the war".
Click to expand...

I guess I didn't understand your statement - "some CSA leaders who stated that they fought expressly to continue the practice of slavery you will find as many or perhaps more who did not say that."

Why was the guilt heavier on the Southern side of the Mason-Dixon? The north wanted and greatly benefited from slave labor, they just didn't want to hear the screams. Cotton built New York. Either cotton financed the growth of the north or it did not. The industrial north was more than willing - more than willing - for the South to grow cotton with slave labor as long as the north could profit from. Do you disagree? When Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin it increased the speed of raw cotton produced 50 fold! What did the north want? More cotton.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, what you're trying to do is say there really weren't any difference between the North and South and slavery, so any criticism of the South for slavery, and later for the century of Jim Crow, is illegitimate. I guess I fundamentally disagree with that in every important way. Saying, "The north also profited off of slave labor" does nothing to absolve the South for its embrace of slavery then seceding to protect the institution. Earlier when you pointed out that racism exists in every region, that also didn't do a thing to excuse this regions enthusiastic support for Jim Crow, segregation, etc. Bottom line is the rest of the country evolved on slavery and oppression of blacks, and the South was moved along kicking and screaming bloody murder.

Man, why do you want to get like that? I haven't thrown rocks at you. Why do you feel the need to flame?
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to flame, but I'm just fascinated by your insistence to put the issue of slavery in the most benign terms possible, as if it was some sort of side issue at the time. Saying slavery was just "in a way" the cause of the war is like saying the head on collision was "in a way" the cause of his broken leg, and then explaining that the person was in the car to pick up groceries so it's grocery shopping that was the actual cause of the broken leg. Or maybe automobiles themselves are the cause, and the wreck is a side issue, and that is nobody's fault...

Why did the South own slaves? Therein lies the answer.
Click to expand...

OK, so if we agree it's about money and power, then what? That cleanses the issue where we're no longer talking about enslaving human beings but just the pursuit of profits....at any human cost?
 
Risky Thicket said:
Do you know what you are trying to say? I have no idea what your point is.
Click to expand...

"American slavers who ran slave ships were from the north."

That's not true.

Though slave ships did originate in the North in cases - the majority came from Southern ports. South Carolina and New Orleans being one of the major ports - with Southern ships.
Approximately 4,000,000 slaves came to the U.S. Of the U.S. ships who transported slaves all flew the U.S. flag. The north controlled the shipping industry.
Click to expand...

Whoa. You are only off by more than three and a half million.

Try less than a half million.*

Edit to Add: (*actually - even way less than that.)
 
Last edited:
Risky Thicket said:
All? Most? What percentage?

Are you saying that northerners didn't "talk a lot about white supremacy and that it was ordained by God and all that"? How many more Southerners than northerners said that? Percentages will suffice as long as you provide sources.
Click to expand...

Not sure what your point is. If there were racists in the north it excuses the racism in the south? That the republicans elected in part on an abolitionist platform are the same as the southerners who seceded before the republican leader could take office, and they tell us because it's over his stance on slavery?

You may well be correct there that you assumed. In fact I won't challenge the fact that you assumed. I believe you do assume. If I assume otherwise which one of us is correct? Neither.
Click to expand...

Well I can actually point to when Texas, for example, put white supremacy in its declaration of secession and the #2 leader of the CSA says the corner stone of the CSA was black slavery subordination to the white race. Are you saying those leaders were proudly expressing views not held by the majority of their constituents, that those elected to lead the South were out of step with the people who elected them?

As to selling human beings like cattle and profiting from doing so I will refer you to my comments a few paragraphs above. You appear to be saying that direct ownership is more damning than purposely deriving profit from ownership.
Click to expand...

But those "purposely deriving profit from" slavery voted in abolitionists who ran on a platform of ending or limiting the spread of slavery. So at least in part the people of the North were willing to put their abhorrence over the practice of slavery ahead of their profit motives.

There were differences in views between the north and south. You keep making statements that have at their core some assumption that there were in fact NO fundamental differences. What disproves your view is the South DID SECEDE over those differences, so they were great. The South knew those differences were more than rhetorical.

If you are a pimp and I provide the housing and clients for the whores that you and other pimps virtually control and I derive a profit from doing so am I less less culpable? Less guilty in trafficking human flesh?
Click to expand...

We can play that game today. If you're invested in the S&P 500, you're profiting off of labor exploitation, child labor, horrendous environmental practices, etc. If you eat shrimp farmed overseas, you are supporting slave labor on fishing boats. Are you any different than a slave trader?


OK. We agree.

Yes and no. Fugitive Slave Act. How was it handled north of the Mason-Dixon line? I am not excusing the South but rather I am including the north. Why do you not include them? Are you saying that black people living in the north were not or are not oppressed?
Click to expand...

I have acknowledged the North's sins, but I don't believe they're comparable, or an excuse for the sins of the South. Racism by individual northerners, even many of them, is fundamentally different than a government sanctioned system of Jim Crow, supported at the highest levels by government leaders. The latter is what the South supported until they were dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era of race relations where blacks had at least some semblance of equal civil rights.

No reluctance at all. I am better informed and apparently more willing to look at the entire picture. As with several others you either don't know much about the northern half of the issue or you have chosen to ignore it.
Click to expand...

I think I'm more willing to accept the history of the South for what it was and don't feel any need to justify that sordid history.

Many, many, many people were involved in Lincoln's position and many northern people were involved before Lincoln was elected. The issue is muuuuuch more complex than you seem to understand.
Click to expand...

We're talking broad stuff here.
 
The fact of the mater is the most Northren slave ports where Boston and Newport, and up to the eve of the civil war they profited very much from the slave trade in these states.

Northern Profits from Slavery


Why would Abraham spend Habes corpus, when he arrested the legislators of Maryland to keep them from succeeding....
 
JasperL said:
As far as I can tell, what you're trying to do is say there really weren't any difference between the North and South and slavery, so any criticism of the South for slavery, and later for the century of Jim Crow, is illegitimate. I guess I fundamentally disagree with that in every important way. Saying, "The north also profited off of slave labor" does nothing to absolve the South for its embrace of slavery then seceding to protect the institution. Earlier when you pointed out that racism exists in every region, that also didn't do a thing to excuse this regions enthusiastic support for Jim Crow, segregation, etc. Bottom line is the rest of the country evolved on slavery and oppression of blacks, and the South was moved along kicking and screaming bloody murder.
Click to expand...

There were obvious differences between the South and the North regarding slavery. It has never been my intention to attempt to exonerate the South of its involvement in slavery. However, I would say to you that while different the North's involvement was no less wrong and no less abhorrent. The idea from some here is "if we can just fix that mess in the South and make them more like us it will be all better." Their assumption being that the North's involvement in slavery was slight and somehow more forgivable. That assumption is incorrect.

I don't mind discussing the issue of slavery or the war or racism. As a Southern man with deep roots and heritage in the Southland I am used to hearing it. I've pretty much heard it all at one time of another. The South isn't shying away from a discussion of slavery or racism or discrimination. Dixie can take the heat. It always has. But this time more Southern people are saying "let's discuss it all, everybody, equally". This entire thread and all related ones here focus on what the South did wrong and what the South is and what the South needs to do. That is not a discussion of everybody equally.

Slavery in the South could not have existed without the North. The North could not have thrived had it not been for slavery in the South. I think you and I agree on that.

By definition the industrial North and the agrarian South had two separate economies. It would be foolish to believe that the two separate economic models would have the same rate of maturation.

Just prior to the war the industrial northern economy boomed as manufacturing and exporting, banking, shipping, insurance grew and grew because of slave picked King Cotton. When cotton was king the north ruled the kingdom.<< I’ll come back to that. The north diversified.

The agrarian South diversified as well with tobacco and rice.

Just before the war the top three US exports were cotton, tobacco and rice. At its peak the US supplied the world with something close to 70% of its cotton. Cotton was business and business was good. Slave picked cotton built the industrial north.

I have projects to do at home today. More later.
 
Ryriena said:
The fact of the mater is the most Northren slave ports where Boston and Newport, and up to the eve of the civil war they profited very much from the slave trade in these states.

Northern Profits from Slavery
Click to expand...
??

First, we are talking about the U.S. Founded when?

That website slavenorth is well known for having an obvious bias. (though I will admit it does provide some useful statistics)

They have it wrong on that.

For example, they state:

"Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. "

Do you see what they did there? No, the US ships that brought most of the slaves during that period were from Southern ports.

While we're here: is there a good Slavery in the South site you might recommend?
Why would Abraham spend Habes corpus, when he arrested the legislators of Maryland to keep them from succeeding....
Click to expand...
Your posts are getting ever more bizarre and oblique.
 
Last edited:
Hee's something more for you to chew on, Rryriena, that I'll betchew slavenorth.com won't tell you:

"While Congress did not have the power to end the international slave trade, it did have the power to regulate it, and starting in 1794, it did just that.

In March, Congress prohibited the use of any U.S. port or shipyard for the purpose of fitting out or building any ship to be used for the introduction of slaves. The law also prohibited ships sailing from U.S. ports from trafficking in foreign countries. '

Ships sailing from the United States to Africa, even if of foreign registry, were required to "give bond with sufficient sureties, to the treasurer of the United States, that none of the natives of Africa, or any other foreign country or place, shall be taken on board... to be transported, or sold as slaves in any other foreign place, within nine months thereafter."

Penalties under the law included fines ranging from $2,000 for outfitting a ship to $200 for an individual working on such a vessel. The act provided that the ships could be confiscated, and half of all fines given to any informants, thus providing an incentive for ship captains and mariners to monitor the activities of anyone they suspected of being involved in the illegal slave trade.

Until 1800 none of the states had reopened the African trade, which had been effectively closed since the Revolution. Before 1800 all introductions into the U.S. were thus illegal, even if the slaves were brought in by foreign ships.

After 1800, however, Georgia and South Carolina reopened their international slave trade, and in the next eight years, these two states would introduce about 100,000 new slaves from Africa. "

U.S. Constitution and Acts - The Abolition of The Slave Trade | NY Public Library
 
Oh so a slavery in the north is biased now, then image.jpg how do you explained the fact New York was a slave state but keep on believing the north has the better high ground.....
 
President Lincoln suspends the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War - May 25, 1861 - HISTORY.com


See my post aren't that bizarre sweetie. He did supspend habes corpus during the civil war...He did arrest the Maryland Legislators and kept them from voting on succeeding....

Revoking Civil Liberties: Lincoln's Constitutional Dilemma - US News
Teaching American History in Maryland - Documents for the Classroom - Maryland State Archives
Blog Divided » Post Topic » President Lincoln & the Maryland Legislature
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_in_the_American_Civil_War

Sorry but you know little of the civil war and the coustutional aspects he broke during the war.
 
Last edited:
Ryriena said:
Oh so a slavery in the north is biased now, then View attachment 67187790 how do you explained the fact New York was a slave state but keep on believing the north has the better high ground.....
Click to expand...

lol.

??

What is your point? As we all know, and your map shows - most of the states north of the Mason Dixon line abolished slavery - even before the constitution was signed.

NY put in measures for gradual emancipation. By 1830, there was a grand total of 75 slaves in NY. By 1840 -->4.

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/00165897ch14.pdf

What was the South doing? Building them up to the tune of four million. And fighting for it's perpetuation.

You think the decimal point in the North at the time of war comes anywhere close?

Another bizarre equivocation.
 
Ryriena said:
President Lincoln suspends the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War - May 25, 1861 - HISTORY.com


See my post aren't that bizarre sweetie. He did supspend habes corpus during the civil war...He did arrest the Maryland Legislators and kept them from voting on succeeding....

Revoking Civil Liberties: Lincoln's Constitutional Dilemma - US News
Teaching American History in Maryland - Documents for the Classroom - Maryland State Archives
Blog Divided » Post Topic » President Lincoln & the Maryland Legislature
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_in_the_American_Civil_War

Sorry but you know little of the civil war and the coustutional aspects he broke during the war.
Click to expand...

"habes corpus" (sic) was a war measure. A power granted Lincoln under the Constitution in times of War.

Know what, sista? Jefferson Davis suspended "habes corpus" (sic) too.

Betchew didn't know that.
 
K
Paperview said:
lol.

??

What is your point? As we all know, and your map shows - most of the states north of the Mason Dixon line abolished slavery - even before the constitution was signed.

NY put in measures for gradual emancipation. By 1830, there was a grand total of 75 slaves in NY. By 1840 -->4.

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/00165897ch14.pdf



What was the South doing? Building them up to the tune of four million. And fighting for it's perpetuation.

You think the decimal point in the North at the time of war comes anywhere close?

Another bizarre equivocation.
Click to expand...


Oh look your not mentioning my post about him removing habes corpus it says 1789 -1961 lmao I just proved you wrong...,,
 
Last edited:
Paperview said:
"habes corpus" (sic) was a war measure. A power granted Lincoln under the Constitution in times of War.

Know what, sista? Jefferson Davis suspended "habes corpus" (sic) too.

Betchew didn't know that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I did in fact know that, did you read the civil liberties part where he arrested legislators. Why so defensive man? Did I prove you wrong? Lmao
 
Ryriena said:
Yeah, I did in fact know that, did you read the civil liberties part where he arrested legislators. Why so defensive man?
Click to expand...

You seriously think this falls under the heading of rebuttal?

What are your thoughts on Jefferson Davis suspending "habes corpus" (sic) ?
Did I prove you wrong? Lmao
Click to expand...

Not one bit. Keep laughing if it makes you feel better.
 
Paperview said:
:lol:

Oh dear lawdy. A random citation that in no way speaks to your claim and actually demolishes some of the Lost Cause Myths.

Good work.

lol
Click to expand...

It's actually dispels some of your bias son, as well, son it does say General grant had slaves and did not free them until the 14th amendment was legally past.
Hell, I am not a lost cause supporter or whatever, when you call me names, then I know for a fact you have failed in debate. I know for a fact you don't understand what you post from random sites all the time. Hell, at least I do my research on sites before I post things from random sites. :lamo
 
Caine said:
You seem perfectly okay with bigotry........ as long as it is aimed towards certain groups.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!

Blacks don't choose to be black, i don't hold that against them.

People who wave around the confederate battle flag, choose to wave around a symbol of racism and hatred, and i'm proudly critical of willful bigots.
 
Ryriena said:
It's actually dispels some of your bias son, as well, son it does say General grant had slaves and did not free them until the 14th amendment was legally past.
Click to expand...
I'm convinced you don't even read your own links.

"he certainly did not own “many,” nor did he own any during the course of the Civil War. ' <--from your link.

Everyone who knows history know grant freed the slave bequeathed to him before the war

Hell, at least I do my research on sites before I post things from random sites. :lamo
Click to expand...

Um...I don't think so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom