• 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!

Nikki Haley: 'I could not look my kids in the face and justify that flag'

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 ?

It was the flag of the United States, it was not a pro-slavery flag. In fact, with the Southern states giving themselves a battle flag to fight with the Northern States to keep their slavery legal, the USA flag became the anti-slavery flag under which the armies fought the traitors who took up arms against the United States.

Personally I could care less that the flag is there, but I do think it is sad that some people think the flag of treason and slavery is the sign of Southern Pride? Pride of what? The treason? The fact that they took up arms against their own country men to keep slaves? That is not something to be very proud of IMHO. The same goes for the names of soldiers and politicians who decided to betray the United States of America in order to keep their slaves, that are put on buildings and roads.

The South may have a lot to be proud of, but slavery and betrayal is not really something to be proud of. Why not celebrate something else than the battle flag or other flags of betrayal? Why not fly the flag of your own state with the motto "Southern Pride" stitched on there? Southern pride can be professed in a more appropriate manner.

I do disagree with the motivation that is being used now, that Roof moron, the flag should have been removed because it sent out the wrong message and should have been removed and replaced by a South Carolina flag.
 
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 ?

I am not proud that flags of my country where on slave vessels. But we did not fight a civil war with that flag to allow slavery to go on. Our flag was used to fight the French to secure a free country.

The slavery vessels use of flags was not synonymous or of determining importance to the moral signature of our flag, it is a dark spot on an otherwise "clean flag" (the other dark spot was our colony history). But it was not used as a flag under which we turned on our country and the citizens of our country.
 
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.

You do realize that all those things were going on in the North too? (although slavery was not in most Northern states, it still wasn't the main thing that the North cared about when it came to the reasons they were fighting) The North didn't start fighting the South to end slavery, not most of those people fighting anyway. The North entered the fight to keep the Southern states from leaving the Union. Lincoln did not win on a platform about freeing slaves or ending slavery in the South. His platform was about keeping slavery from expanding. This was seen as a problem for the South because much of their population and therefore voting power came from slaves and slave owners having those slaves (giving them through design of the Constitution more voting power with their votes than the North technically got due to having people who couldn't vote being counted for them).

And not all the southern states joined the Confederacy right away. Some took so long because there was some serious divides about the issue of slavery in those "border" states, at least until the North started conscripting soldiers/militias from those states to fight for them, which basically pissed them off into joining the Confederacy.

While it is a great thing that the North won the Civil War and slavery ended completely (don't support secession either), it also would be wrong to say that the South was doing it because of racial derision or segregation but ignore the fact that the North had those things going on as well, especially at that time. It is also wrong to maintain that just because something was used one way in the past, doesn't mean people cannot attach different, especially more broad meanings to it now.
 
It now stands for white Southern conservatives who generally have a disdainful view of black people.

Sorry, I've seen it here too in Michigan. And stop hiding from your racist history, your party is a symbol of slavery.
 
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.

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.
 
and Abe was killed a few days after the war ended.

Yep, I have been to Ford's Theater and saw exactly where it happened. In fact they have it preserved just like it was that night. Of course the house where he actually died is marked with a huge sign so no one with decent eyesight will miss it.
 
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

Then better tell the State of Washington to redesign their flag! Oh well I was born there and still love the place :) Even though I would much rather see a purple and gold flag with a Husky in the middle :)
 
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.

That flag is the Dixiecrat flag of segregation not the Confederate flag.
I wish they would rename my county to Grant county instead o the that loser Lee.
 
Last edited:
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Amadeus
The political and economic self-determination of owning slaves.



No Amadeus is right.





It was the literal lifeblood of the CSA.

Slavery was their Cornerstone.

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.

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.
 
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.

Actually more Americans died because of the Confederate traitors. In my book that makes them worse than the Nazi's.
 
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?

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:
 
Actually more Americans died because of the Confederate traitors. In my book that makes them worse than the Nazi's.

You're assuming that anyone gives a damn about "your book"... Why, exactly?

Did the Confederates exterminate 10 - 20 million people in the name of racial purity? Did they commit the kinds of heinous war crimes for which the Nazis were notorious?

No, and no. Actually, if you want to talk about "war crimes," the North was far worse than the Confederacy ever was. Lee took care to make sure that his troops behaved themselves. Sherman had no such qualms.
 
Last edited:
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:

The Dixiecrats were crazy racists and they made the flag their emblem and put it on Govt. houses all over the south. The Civil war is long forgotten but the stain of Dixiecrat racism and segregation remains. Blame them for polluting the memory of the flag then. If it wasn't for them it would be a harmless relic of our past.
 
So secession was essentially about taxes? I've never heard that one before. Taxes on everything or just specific things?

It's obvious she isn't going to be honest and admit that the one overriding issue was slavery.
 
Like I said, you need a history lesson

Such ignorance is unbelievable! I took Civil War History at the University of Houston during my senior year. The U of H is in the South, by the way, and our professor said the one overriding issue was slavery.

Of course your beliefs and sources are the correct ones and everyone else is wrong. :roll: :3oops:

You might be able to sell your merchandise as fertilizer but not history.
 
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. In the year before the war itself, in 1860, the 'Free States' had "...nearly twice the value of farm machinery per acre and per farm worker as did the slave states, leading to increased productivity. As a result, in 1860, the Northern states produced half of the nation's corn, four-fifths of its wheat, and seven-eighths of its oats." http://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm?id=251

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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?

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.
 
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?

There were bad actors on both side, but what you are parroting is Lost Cause nonsense.

Let's hear from the acclaimed Southern Historian, Shelby Foote:

"Sherman, in his march across Georgia and up through Carolina, had sixty thousand men with him. I don't know what percentage of them were illiterate. I know there were very few men in there with a delicacy of manners that you'd expect nowadays.

And the whole time he made that march, those sixty thousand men, I had not heard of one case of rape. And that is one of the finest compliments I know you can pay this country and the soldiers it produced that we did not engage in these usual horrendous things that are common in civil war. The fact that we spoke the same language is not what made us close together. In fact, in most civil wars they speak the same language, and they're very savage with each other. But somehow we didn't do that. "


A Visit from Historian Shelby Foote | Humanities
 
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?

Yes. This is the folly of war. CRIMES are committed!
 
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.”
 
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.”
 
Because Robert E. Lee was the only Confederate General.

Lee was an officer of the North before the war and had to follow the code just like Sherman. The fact that Lee upheld the code and the north did not is telling.

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.”

Do you really want to go with Lieber Code? The whole point of the code was that Lincoln wanted to target civilians which was illegal in the 1806 code.
 
Back
Top Bottom