Trayvon Martin - Page 26

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-04-13, 11:43 AM

Sure is a lot to be proud of. Like instigating one of the bloodiest wars ever fought in defense of an institution of a legacy so evil we still feel its effects today.

And then losing that war, in spectacular fashion.

Usually losing a war means bad things for the losing side, only in this case, an entire race of humans beings were set free. So as far as I can tell, seeing that flag get run down a flagpole and replaced with the ol' stars-and-stripes typically meant a point scored for Team Good, amirite?

Before you jump down my throat, by the way, both sides of my family were living in Ireland when all this went down, so I don't have 'pride' for north OR south. I just know evil when I see it and, boy oh boy, was slavery eeeeeeevil.

Vash02 · 2012-04-13, 11:47 AM

Tom, that flag is always going to stand for slavery. Nothing is going to change that.

WildGunsTomcat · 2012-04-13, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by Vash02

Tom, that flag is always going to stand for slavery. Nothing is going to change that.

Yeah and it's sad. Because idiots made it that way.

Slavery was not the reason for the civil war. The civil war was started because the South was sick of propping up the north with cotton money.

And no amount of bullshit from the north is going to change that fact.

Sheppy, you need to grab an unbiased history book and read it btw.

General Grant was a fucking savage. Robert E. Lee was in fact a gentleman that didn't even WANT to go to war.

Baneblade · 2012-04-13, 12:27 PM

Robert E. Lee should have won.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-04-13, 12:51 PM

The mental gymnastics you have to perform to take slavery out of the picture when talking about the American Civil War are so impressive, they deserve a gold medal. I mean... wow. They started the war because they were 'sick of propping up the north with cotton money'. I'm speechless. You stuck the landing.

We're definitely getting off topic here so I'll leave it with all I have to say on the matter: The south losing the civil war led directly to abolition of slavery in america, and that is a very good thing. The south were the Bad Guys, and the bad guys thankfully lost. The Confederate flag represents a period and a people so debased in their morality that they viewed owning other humans as property as being a legal and moral thing to do. If you value that flag while at the same time not accepting that it stood for a country that viewed slavery as a cherished institution, worth fighting and dying over, you are delusional.

The Confederate Flag will always stand as a symbol for how depraved and evil we American could be. It stands for slavers; always will. The world is a better place because the South lost that war.

Vash02 · 2012-04-13, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

Yeah and it's sad. Because idiots made it that way.

Slavery was not the reason for the civil war. The civil war was started because the South was sick of propping up the north with cotton money.

And no amount of bullshit from the north is going to change that fact.

Sheppy, you need to grab an unbiased history book and read it btw.

General Grant was a fucking savage. Robert E. Lee was in fact a gentleman that didn't even WANT to go to war.

Yes it was a reason for the war.
The North wanted to make it law in new states that slavery was illegal and the south objected. It was a states right issue but it was an issue over slavery.

Also lol at the cotton money comment, really? Would of thought they could of afforded to arm and uniform their army properly then

**Malorn** · 2012-04-13, 02:09 PM

Meh.

Warborn · 2012-04-13, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

The north pushed it and they had little to lose by the abolishment. The south had everything to lose. There was a lot of resentment when someone who has nothing to lose is demanding you change your entire way of life and prosperity.

No they didn't. The North was not pushing the South into abolishing slavery. There were representatives within congress who were fervent abolitionists (Charles Sumner), but the policy of the federal government was toward reconciliation and compromise. The South seceded because of Kansas and Nebraska and Lincoln getting elected, to a large extent. When Kansas and Nebraska were created and people within those states allowed to vote for whether to be free or slave, and they voted free, the South saw it as the beginning of the end. That they would be marginalized as the Union grew and the free states began to overwhelm the slave states in terms of voting power, and that eventually abolition would be forced on them. Lincoln, of the newly minted pro-freedom Republican Party, was a final nail in the coffin toward the South having hope that they'd be able to keep the Union half slave states, half free states.

But war didn't break out because Lincoln was campaigning on a promise to free all slaves and make black people equal to white people. Those, in fact, were untruths used as ammunition during the 1864 election by Lincoln's opponent, George McClellan, trying to scare Northerners into voting Democrat for fear of Lincoln forcing them to live alongside black folk as equals.

WildGunsTomcat · 2012-04-13, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

No they didn't. The North was not pushing the South into abolishing slavery. There were representatives within congress who were fervent abolitionists (Charles Sumner), but the policy of the federal government was toward reconciliation and compromise. The South seceded because of Kansas and Nebraska and Lincoln getting elected, to a large extent. When Kansas and Nebraska were created and people within those states allowed to vote for whether to be free or slave, and they voted free, the South saw it as the beginning of the end. That they would be marginalized as the Union grew and the free states began to overwhelm the slave states in terms of voting power, and that eventually abolition would be forced on them. Lincoln, of the newly minted pro-freedom Republican Party, was a final nail in the coffin toward the South having hope that they'd be able to keep the Union half slave states, half free states.

But war didn't break out because Lincoln was campaigning on a promise to free all slaves and make black people equal to white people. Those, in fact, was used as ammunition during the 1964 election by Lincoln's opponent, George McClellan, trying to scare Northerners into voting Democrat for fear of Lincoln forcing them to live alongside black folk as equals.

Thank you for reading a history book Warborn. You have my applause.

The war was NOT about slavery.

Lincoln said himself that if he could end the war without freeing a single slave..he would.

The civil war was about money. Period.

WildGunsTomcat · 2012-04-13, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

The mental gymnastics you have to perform to take slavery out of the picture when talking about the American Civil War are so impressive, they deserve a gold medal. I mean... wow. They started the war because they were 'sick of propping up the north with cotton money'. I'm speechless. You stuck the landing.

We're definitely getting off topic here so I'll leave it with all I have to say on the matter: The south losing the civil war led directly to abolition of slavery in america, and that is a very good thing. The south were the Bad Guys, and the bad guys thankfully lost. The Confederate flag represents a period and a people so debased in their morality that they viewed owning other humans as property as being a legal and moral thing to do. If you value that flag while at the same time not accepting that it stood for a country that viewed slavery as a cherished institution, worth fighting and dying over, you are delusional.

The Confederate Flag will always stand as a symbol for how depraved and evil we American could be. It stands for slavers; always will. The world is a better place because the South lost that war.

Edit: Forget it. Let the idiot think what he wants. It's not worth the argument, you can't change a closed minded person's opinion.

Warborn · 2012-04-13, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

Thank you for reading a history book Warborn. You have my applause.

I read Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln when it was released in the early-mid 2000s. It's a really interesting book.

Warborn · 2012-04-13, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

The civil war was about money. Period.

For the North, it was about preserving the Union. The South seceded and attacked a Union fort, so they had an obligation to defend themselves and to restore their lost territory. And, as he implored the South, Lincoln's other interest was in preventing the destruction of "this great experiment of democracy" that was the first nation ever formed without any obligation to Gods or Kings.

For the South, it was about taking their ball and going home because they felt confident that without an equal number of slave and free states and a President who did not want to expand slavery beyond its initial areas, their interests would never be properly represented.

But yeah, Lincoln freed the slaves somewhat reluctantly, and even at that point he had flirtations with, after the war, simply expelling the Africans from the USA down to South America. As much as people hype Lincoln as the Great Emancipator, he definitely did not want to make black people equal to white people and living side-by-side.

WildGunsTomcat · 2012-04-13, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

For the North, it was about preserving the Union. The South seceded and attacked a Union fort, so they had an obligation to defend themselves and to restore their lost territory. And, as he implored the South, Lincoln's other interest was in preventing the destruction of "this great experiment of democracy" that was the first nation ever formed without any obligation to Gods or Kings.

For the South, it was about taking their ball and going home because they felt confident that without an equal number of slave and free states and a President who did not want to expand slavery beyond its initial areas, their interests would never be properly represented.

But yeah, Lincoln freed the slaves somewhat reluctantly, and even at that point he had flirtations with, after the war, simply expelling the Africans from the USA down to South America. As much as people hype Lincoln as the Great Emancipator, he definitely did not want to make black people equal to white people and living side-by-side.

Exactly.

And I find a great disparity constantly between what they teach up North to what ACTUALLY happened.

For people in the North (Especially New England) it's pretty much as Sheppy said "The should was evil and bad and wanted slaves, and the north were good guys."

Pfft. Lincoln didn't give a shit about slaves...neither did the Union Army. Get that bullshit out of your head right now, uneducated fucks.

Plus, the Union Army committed so many atrocities against the southern population it was unbelievable. They burned houses, killed women and children....they were savages.

But according to people like Sheppy the south was "evil"......please get the fuck out of my face with that false bullshit.

Seriously.

((Also thanks Warborn, I'm going to pick that book up.))

Vash02 · 2012-04-13, 07:50 PM

Tom are you reading Warborns posts? Warborn is practically saying one of the main reasons the south fought the war was to preserve slavery, which your blasting sheppy for saying that same exact thing.

Also yes, Lincoln was a racist, he only wanted to free the slaves because they were taking white peoples jobs.

Warborn · 2012-04-13, 07:51 PM

Well, the burning of homes and fields and so forth was mainly Sherman during his March To The Sea. General Grant was pretty decent and so were many of the others, but Sherman was pretty fucking brutal and that was definitely an atrocity.

Originally Posted by Vash02

Tom are you reading Warborns posts? Warborn is practically saying one of the main reasons the south fought the war was to preserve slavery, which your blasting sheppy for saying that same exact thing.

The South fought because they couldn't expand slavery. They wanted, ideally, for an equal representation between the slave states (and thus slave state economy) with free states. The actual institution of slavery wasn't in imminent danger in the South when war broke out. So it wasn't to preserve slavery that the war was fought, as slavery wasn't something the feds were actively working to end. If memory serves, the plan of Lincoln was for slavery to be kept within the states the Constitution laid out for it to be practiced in.