• 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
Re: Confederate Flag

digitusmedius said:
Never said all southerners are racists so that's your first straw man argument. And, of course there's still plenty of racism in the north and all over the country (witness what the very liberal town of Cambridge MA's cops did to Prof. Gates way back in 2009 that Obama got so much flack for describing accurately), so that's your second straw man. And repeating the first straw man with the false accusation that I "act" like everyone in the south, etc., etc. So when you have to make up false premises in order to score points you end up scoreless. Your final sentence simply doesn't even make sense so I don't know what to make of that one.
Click to expand...

I don't think you even know what a strawman is let alone that I made what? 3 different arguments? It is true you did not say all southerners were racists, you did however imply it by saying "Well-loved by southern (and elsewhere) rednecks. So you are going to try and deny you just called any redneck anyplace a racist who uses the N word etc?" Now if you had actually read my statement instead of knee jerking you would see I said "You want to talk about real racism? Let's talk Chicago, where I grew up."

The cambridge thing means nothing and has literally nothing to do with anything I said.

Nothing false about my premise at all, typical nonsense from a self stated "progressive."
 
Re: Confederate Flag

Ryriena said:
Not really, I haven't heard of that here in Houston! My dad married a Liberal catholic woman and I am atheist..... I heard the n------ lover thing on tv sometimes watching old movies but not that much anymore.
Click to expand...

Then you need to learn some history of how racism was openly and viciously expressed in this county in the past. About the only thing that's changed is racists seldom use the old favorites anymore. "Thug" has replaced "n-gg-r" as one example. Reagan liked "welfare queens" in "gold cadillacs" as his favorite thinly veiled epithets (and, of course, his toadies all across the country repeated those slurs endlessly.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

HorseLoverGirl said:
For someone with a name like yours its awfully ironic that truth is presented to you and you reject it
Click to expand...
I have a hard time believing that there is much "truth" coming from an author who for 20 years has kept his webpage title spelled "Southron & Confederate Information Center".
 
Re: Confederate Flag

digitusmedius said:
Bull. Shyt. You must be too young to know how the language was used by these people.
Click to expand...

Yankee lover just means yankee lover. It has no bearing on race at all.

So that makes you what? Because I am over 50.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

Black Dog said:
I don't think you even know what a strawman is let alone that I made what? 3 different arguments? It is true you did not say all southerners were racists, you did however imply it by saying "Well-loved by southern (and elsewhere) rednecks. So you are going to try and deny you just called any redneck anyplace a racist who uses the N word etc?" Now if you had actually read my statement instead of knee jerking you would see I said "You want to talk about real racism? Let's talk Chicago, where I grew up."

The cambridge thing means nothing and has literally nothing to do with anything I said.

Nothing false about my premise at all, typical nonsense from a self stated "progressive."
Click to expand...

Putting your words into my mouth is no kind of argument. It's more of an attempted but botched escape from having to put up something meaningful. You're bush league, my friend.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

digitusmedius said:
Putting your words into my mouth is no kind of argument. It's more of an attempted but botched escape from having to put up something meaningful. You're bush league, my friend.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who doesent even know what a strawman is. :lamo
 
Re: Confederate Flag

calamity said:
At least that flag wins wars. The other one got it's ass handed to it in the only war ever fought for it.
Click to expand...
got it's ass handed to it? if i might humbly suggest, you bone up on your history
 
B'smith said:
Like most Wars, the Civil War was fought for economic reasons. The South had enviable natural resources that the North wanted cheaply or, ideally, for free.
Click to expand...
Gimmesometruth said:
What resources did the North capture as a result of the CW?
Click to expand...
B'smith said:
I was just kidding about the silverware.........

I listed many causes of the War other than slavery which was primarily a moral "Fig Leaf"

Concerning "natural resources" as a cause, I was drawing a parallel between the general reasons Industrial Nations / Societies invade Agrarian Nations / Societies throughout History & especially in reference to Colonial European Powers.

In the case of the North vs the South, the natural resources of the South would have assured timber, coal, metals, textiles & minerals well into the future.
But not all resources are tangible items. For example, the freedom to trade, for Treaties etc
If the South were free of the North, they could trade & form financially beneficial treaties with European powers which would have been anathema to a Northern Government.

Much of Europe was deforested in the 1800s from the prolific use of wood for fuel, building, export. I imagine that was noted by Industrialized Northerners & figured into "Preserving the Union.

When I cited "Economic Reasons", I meant that the North was benefiting from legislation that made Southern exports relatively cheap compared to European goods as one example.

My intent is not to rehash the Civil War but to cite that "Slavery" was not a major reason the North went to war. "Preserving the Union" meant perpetuating the Status Quo in which the more populous North shaped trade, tariff & tax legislation in the existing Federal Government that was financially beneficial to the North & detrimental to the South.

I'm about finished with this topic for now as I'm having to restate the same facts to 2 people & want to go outside.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Youre talking about free market trade between the South and North post CW, where your previous implication was that the North would capture resources by force, by annexation. You have not supported your previous argument but simply distracted to laws designed to take advantage of Southern weakness....which you haven't substantiated.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

digitusmedius said:
From someone who's willfully blind to it.
Click to expand...

I'm a black man. Hard to be blind to it. But hey, it's not like the ignorance of your posts do not shine through.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

HorseLoverGirl said:
So you never read a book and looked around once in a while. That figures
Click to expand...

If you want to compare knowledge on the civil war, than you should probably know who general George Henry Thomas and admiral David Farragut were? After all, they were prominent officers during the civil war.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

SlevinKelevra said:
Its soldiers, as a % of the total military force, were killed on nearly a 2 to 1 basis. That is the definition of getting your ass handed to you in largely conventional 'hand to hand' combat type warfare- you know, the situation where typically #'s matter most.
Click to expand...
you should also note that the north had better than a 2 to 1 population advantage, and even with 100
% conscription, the south could not come close to matching the manpower in the field..in sheer numbers of dead, i believe the north lost more, but, with a higher population, could better handle higher losses....that is the sheer reason the north won, it wasnt that that they had a better plan, or better generals, they had more munitions factories, more men in the field, better able to absorb losses, better supplie lines....i'd lay good money with better supply lines, more factories, and a few million more in population, their would have been , at least for a period of time, two Americas. the south would have won, imo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war
 
Re: Confederate Flag

HorseLoverGirl said:
Could be his name for all you or anyone else knows
Click to expand...
No, I know his name, it is Russell R. Lenzini. For someone who has used his site as a reference multiple times, the lack of knowledge about the author, not even knowing WHO FRIGGING WROTE THE CRAP YOU POST, shows again how little you value references.

HorseLoverGirl said:
So you never read a book and looked around once in a while. That figures
Click to expand...
Wow....now that is irony.
 
Last edited:
Re: Confederate Flag

SlevinKelevra said:
What matters more? 'Fighting prowess'? Or winning the WAR?

IF the confederate soldiers had actually some supreme fighting prowess(or strategy), being outnumbered would not have mattered.
Click to expand...
i put you in a pit with 10 guys looking to kick your ass, and you are the greatest fighter in the world, what odds would you give yourself? you made a very ignorant statement.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

calamity said:
Whether it took a year or 5 to "grind down" the resistance matters not. In the end, the South got whooped...pretty bad. Or are you of mind to argue that the Nazis and Imperial Japanese didn't really get their asses handed to them since it took a while to grind them down?
Click to expand...
in the end , the south lost, they were not 'whooped' as you put it...if they would have been 'whooped', the war would have been over in less than a year...it took 4...sorry, that is not a 'whoopin' by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

sawdust said:
To keep the union whole Lincoln offered to let the south keep their slaves. He would not allow the new territories who would later become states the right to slavery however. While the south had an issue with that, there were other issues. Pro slavery Democrats were upset with Republican abolitionists in the north. To gain control of the federal legislature, the south wanted slaves counted in the census for the purpose of counting legislators. The abolitionists only allowed slaves to be counted as 3/5th of a person for the census thus taking votes away in the house of representatives for the south and decreasing their impact in Federal government.

The south succeeded. Two years after succession Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation hoping to create a slave rebellion in the south and further taxing confederate troops. He allowed some northern states to keep their slaves and the institution of slavery lasted until after the war was over and congress ratified the thirteenth amendment.

To say that the civil war was about slavery isn't quite true. It was a large issue but Lincoln was willing to let the south keep their slaves and there were many more issues that contributed to the south's unhappiness with the union. In the end it's more accurate to say that the war was fought over states rights and federal power.

Some of this I knew. Some I garnered from my participation in these discussions and independent reading I did as a result. Thank you.
Click to expand...
yep, if lincoln could have kept the union together , even with slavery still intact, he would have...he had no desire to go to war.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

HorseLoverGirl said:
I have posted nothing but facts, from the horse's MOUTH, but you and your agenda reject fact for yankee myth. How sad for you
Click to expand...

Again, third-hand accounts are not "straight from the horse's mouth."

This is pointless.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

HorseLoverGirl said:
WOW are you ignorant of true Southern history. The slaves in the South were treated fairly well, considering their rank in society. Besides that only a minority of the wealthiest Southerners even owned slaves.
Click to expand...
treated fairly well? not sure i agree with that one....true on the second statement, i believe it was only 6% of southerners actually owned slaves.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

HorseLoverGirl said:
You just explained why the Southern states left. The yanks knew had they allowed everyone to be counted down south the South would run the show, and the yanks couldn't handle that
Click to expand...
if everyone was free in the south, during this period, this would not have been an issue...look at it from the 'yank' perspective...why should they let the south count the slaves as people, for representation purposes, when for every other purpose, the slave owners consider them to be 'property'???? you want them to count as 'citizens' when it came to figuring out how many reps you are entitled to in the congress, but you want them to "know their place" and to remember that they are not actually citizens, but property, the rest of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom