Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Confederate Flag, Part II

The Confederate Flag, Part II (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 10:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
Jesus, we both know there's a difference between the Nazis and buddhists.

So what if it was on the decline, the south still defended it, The south LOST, man.

Besides, people who wave it or wear it just confirms the stereotype of the southern racists we have of you.
Do you even know the difference between a buddhist and a Taoist? Geez man, the more you type the worse it gets.

I guess since I'm not a Southern racist your assertion only reflects poorly on you.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 10:31 PM
 
Buh bye General Lee and Duke boys, you were simply too cool for today's batshit insane social justice climate, anyway.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 07:24 AM
 
So you don't 'think' the states rights had ANYTHING to do with the civil war?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 07:29 AM
 
The problem is the ignorant, thinned skinned dolts who want to be offended just for the attention. They need to grow up. Just because they see some bogus 'symbolism' repeated enough times and fall for it doesn't make it a fact.
     
abbaZaba
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 09:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So you don't 'think' the states rights had ANYTHING to do with the civil war?
It most certainly did: the Confederates opposed States' Rights. More exact, they opposed the right for Northern states not to support slavery.

South Carolina was the first to secede and published the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union".

It noted “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” and argued Northern states had failed to “fulfill their constitutional obligations” by interfering with the return of fugitive slaves to bondage.

They were also upset New York no longer allowed slavery transit. If Southern gentry traveled to New York they would bring their cook with them; New York put an end to this and really pissed them off.

Other States echoed South Carolina's sentiment:


Originally Posted by Mississippi's own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world...Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth...A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
Originally Posted by Louisiana's secession document
As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.
Originally Posted by Alabama's secession document
Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war—for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and. her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans.
Originally Posted by Texas' secession document
...in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states....
^ Those are taken straight from each State's secession documents.

Just for the hell of it:

Originally Posted by Jefferson Davis
You too know, that among us, white men have an equality resulting from a presence of a lower caste, which cannot exist where white men fill the position here occupied by the servile race. The mechanic who comes among us, employing the less intellectual labor of the African, takes the position which only a master-workman occupies where all the mechanics are white, and therefore it is that our mechanics hold their position of absolute equality among us.
Originally Posted by Georgia Governor Joseph E. Brown
Among us the poor white laborer is respected as an equal. His family is treated with kindness, consideration and respect. He does not belong to the menial class. The ***** is in no sense of the term his equal. He feels and knows this. He belongs to the only true aristocracy, the race of white men. He black no masters boots, and bows the knee to no one save God alone. He receives higher wages for his labor than does the laborer of any other portion of the world, and he raises up his children with the knowledge, that they belong to no inferior cast, but that the highest members of the society in which he lives, will, if their conduct is good, respect and treat them as equals.
( Last edited by abbaZaba; Jun 24, 2015 at 09:38 AM. )
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 09:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
You don't even know why it was fought, slavery was already down >25% in just the 10 years before the civil war even started, All you know is the specious claptrap you've been told.
It's not coincidence every state cited slavery as it was breaking away.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 09:35 AM
 
Lincoln was doing things that was not about states rights but that the US had more power than the states. it was about interstate trade and intrastate trading and taxes. Slavery was minor part, except to the revisionists.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 09:36 AM
 
So, I have a theory about but what might have helped motivate this deluge, you guys tell me what you think. Coincidentally, last week Texas won the case the Confederate Sons brought against it in the Supreme Court on the grounds that a state-sponsored license plate with the flag was government speech. Could that give the political cover and moral strength for this sudden reversal on the flag?

The other, disgustingly cynical take would have to be the GOP is embracing this because it shifts the conversation away from a possible gun rights debate (I don't buy this mostly because after Newtown, nothing happened, and this is a drop in the bucket)
     
abbaZaba
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 09:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It's not coincidence every state cited slavery as it was breaking away.
Yeah, that is so weird
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 09:50 AM
 
I'd also like point out that states seceded not because of any action the Federal government took, but merely because they didn't like who got elected (I'm also pretty sure Lincoln made it clear he didn't want to touch slavery during his campaign). And that's after they overturned the Missouri Compromise and trampled on other states rights with the Fugitive Slave Act. They had been winning for 10 years and they still took their ball and went home.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 09:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Lincoln was doing things that was not about states rights but that the US had more power than the states. it was about interstate trade and intrastate trading and taxes. Slavery was minor part, except to the revisionists.
For such a minor part, we sure do have a ton of letters/speeches from Southern leaders that discuss it an awful lot.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
They had been winning for 10 years and they still took their ball and went home.
Stop holding a grudge.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 10:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by abbaZaba View Post
Yeah, that is so weird
One out of several (larger) reasons, but slavery was precipitously on the decline, as has already been shown.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
One out of several (larger) reasons, but slavery was precipitously on the decline, as has already been shown.
Slaves still constituted 13% of the population in 1860.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 10:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
I'd be curious what % of goods or southern GDP they had a hand in.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 10:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
and what % was it in 1830?

(I have the number, just seeing if you know.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 10:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
From the link: 46% (!) of South Carolinians owned slaves in 1860. Half!!!

Edit: Slaves were 57% of the pop of SC.

I guess it's another weird coincidence they seceded first.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 11:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
and what % was it in 1830?

(I have the number, just seeing if you know.)
The percentage of slaves was higher in 1830, but the total number of slaves was higher in 1860.

Total Population 1830: 12,866,020
Slave Population 1830: 2,009,043

There were almost twice as many slaves in 1860 as were in 1830. That doesn't match the rate of growth of the country in general, but it's not like slavery was becoming less of a problem.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 12:21 PM
 
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 03:36 PM
 
You see this is the type of abject stupidity I'm talking about.

Even in the face of Confederate leaders' own words ... even with secession documents themselves being quoted verbatim ... we still have fools talking about "revisionists". Freaking idiots making dumbass assertions about "taxes" and "tariffs" with no documentation. Conveniently overlooking the fact that the Democratic party dominated the Federal government from 1837 - 1860 (i.e. 25th - 36th Congress). And the Southern Democrats ... i.e. the ones who wanted to preserve and expand slavery ... were the dominant faction! Look at this graph right here ...



It lists each Congress, followed by party breakdown of the Senate, followed by party breakdown of the House, followed by the President. The majority party in the House and Senate is listed in bold. As you can see, during the 12 Congresses from 1837 - 1861 the Democratic party had full control of the Presidency and Congress for 5 of them ... and control of the Presidency and the Senate for 3 of them. OTOH, the Whigs or Republicans only controlled the Presidency and both chambers of Congress during the 27th Congress, the Presidency and the Senate during the 28th Congress, and the Presidency with a completely Democrat opposition in Congress during the 31st and 32nd Congress. So clearly the Democrats were running the show ... especially in the decade prior to the Civil War.

So when exactly did all these "taxes and tariffs" get passed that the Southern Democrats were so opposed to that were the "real reason" they seceded?

Or could it be that in the election of 1860 they lost complete control of the Presidency and Congress to the Republican party which was anti-slavery?

Furthermore, I didn't even cite this part of the article I posted earlier. But since this fanciful notion is being bandied about that slavery was on its way out in the South it seems quite relevant ....

Slaveholders were not modest about the perceived virtues of their way of life. In the years leading up to the Civil War, calls for expansion into the tropics reached a fever pitch, and slaveholders marveled at the possibility of spreading a new empire into central America:

Looking into the possibilities of the future, regarding the magnificent country of tropical America, which lies in the path of our destiny on this continent, we may see an empire as powerful and gorgeous as ever was pictured in our dreams of history. What is that empire? It is an empire founded on military ideas; representing the noble peculiarities of Southern civilization; including within its limits the isthmuses of America and the regenerated West Indies; having control of the two dominant staples of the world's commerce—cotton and sugar; possessing the highways of the world's commerce; surpassing all empires of the age in the strength of its geographical position; and, in short, combining elements of strength, prosperity, and glory, such as never before in the modern ages have been placed within the reach of a single government. What a splendid vision of empire!

How sublime in its associations! How noble and inspiriting the idea, that upon the strange theatre of tropical America, once, if we may believe the dimmer facts of history, crowned with magnificent empires and flashing cities and great temples, now covered with mute ruins, and trampled over by half-savages, the destiny of Southern civilization is to be consummated in a glory brighter even than that of old, the glory of an empire, controlling the commerce of the world, impregnable in its position, and representing in its internal structure the most harmonious of all the systems of modern civilization.
Edward Pollard, the journalist who wrote that book, titled it Black Diamonds Gathered In The Darkey Homes Of The South. Perhaps even this is too subtle. In 1858, Mississippi Senator Albert Gallatin Brown was clearer:

I want Cuba, and I know that sooner or later we must have it. If the worm-eaten throne of Spain is willing to give it for a fair equivalent, well—if not, we must take it. I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason—for the planting and spreading of slavery.

And a footing in Central America will powerfully aid us in acquiring those other states. It will render them less valuable to the other powers of the earth, and thereby diminish competition with us. Yes, I want these countries for the spread of slavery. I would spread the blessings of slavery, like the religion of our Divine Master, to the uttermost ends of the earth, and rebellious and wicked as the Yankees have been, I would even extend it to them.

I would not force it upon them, as I would not force religion upon them, but I would preach it to them, as I would preach the gospel. They are a stiff-necked and rebellious race, and I have little hope that they will receive the blessing, and I would therefore prepare for its spread to other more favored lands.
Thus in 1861, when the Civil War began, the Union did not face a peaceful Southern society wanting to be left alone. It faced an an aggressive power, a Genosha, an entire society based on the bondage of a third of its residents, with dreams of expanding its fields of the bondage further South. It faced the dream of a vast American empire of slavery. In January of 1861, three months before the Civil War commenced, Florida secessionists articulated the position directly:

At the South, and with our People of course, slavery is the element of all value, and a destruction of that destroys all that is property. This party, now soon to take possession of the powers of the Government, is sectional, irresponsible to us, and driven on by an infuriated fanatical madness that defies all opposition, must inevitably destroy every vestige or right growing out of property in slaves.

Gentlemen, the State of Florida is now a member of the Union under the power of the Government, so to go into the hands of this party.

As we stand our doom is decreed.
The Confederate Cause in the Words of Its Leaders - The Atlantic

Again ... it's right there in black and white! As abbaZaba so aptly noted ... the Southern Democrats didn't start bowing down at the altar of "state's rights" until they lost control of the federal government. And even then the primary "state's right" they concerned themselves with was the preservation and expansion of slavery. Period. Dot. End of sentence.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jun 24, 2015 at 04:40 PM. )
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 04:56 PM
 
Someone pointed out, the Confederate Constitution outright prevents outlawing slavery.
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.


As for state's rights? Those end where someone else's slavery begins.
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 05:03 PM
 
Oh come now Dakar. The plain English of original Confederate documents mean nothing. Only the ideological narrative of modern day neo-Confederate apologists.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 06:43 PM
 
To even further debunk this "tariffs" crap the deliberately obtuse keep spewing ...

Walker Tariff

The Democrats won in 1845, electing James K. Polk as president. Polk succeeded in passing the Walker tariff of 1846 by uniting the rural and agricultural factions of the entire country for lower tariffs. They sought a level of a "tariff for revenue only" that would pay the cost of government but not show favoritism to one section or economic sector at the expense of another. The Walker Tariff actually increased trade with Britain and others and brought in more revenue to the federal treasury than the higher tariff. The average tariff on the Walker Tariff was about 25%. While protectionists in Pennsylvania and neighboring states were angered, the South achieved its goal of setting low tariff rates before the Civil War.[23]

Low tariff of 1857

The Walker Tariff remained in place until 1857, when a nonpartisan coalition lowered them again with the Tariff of 1857 to 18%. This was in response to the British repeal of their protectionist "Corn Laws".[24]

The Democrats in Congress, dominated by Southern Democrats, wrote and passed the tariff laws in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s, and kept reducing rates, so that the 1857 rates were down to about 15%. The South had almost no complaints but the low rates angered many Northern industrialists and factory workers, especially in Pennsylvania, who demanded protection for their growing iron industry. The Republican Party replaced the Whigs in 1854 and also favored high tariffs to stimulate industrial growth; it was part of the 1860 Republican platform.

The Morrill Tariff significantly raising tariff rates became possible only after the Southern Senators walked out of Congress when their states joined the Confederacy, leaving a Republican majority. It was signed by Democratic President James Buchanan in early March 1861 shortly before President Abraham Lincoln took office. Pennsylvania iron mills and New England woolen mills mobilized businessmen and workers to call for high tariffs, but Republican merchants wanted low tariffs. The high tariff advocates lost in 1857, but stepped up their campaign by blaming the economic recession of 1857 on the lower rates. Economist Henry Charles Carey of Philadelphia was the most outspoken advocate, along with Horace Greeley and his influential newspaper, the New York Tribune. Increases were finally enacted in February 1861 after Southerners resigned their seats in Congress on the eve of the Civil War.[25][26]

Historians in recent decades have minimized the tariff issue as a cause of the war, noting that few people in 1860–61 said it was of central importance to them. Many compromises were proposed in 1860-61 to save the Union, but they did not involve the tariff.[27] Some secessionist documents do mention the tariff issue, though not nearly as often as the preservation of slavery. However, a few libertarian economists place more importance on the tariff issue.[28]
Tariffs in United States history

Now does anyone doubt that the usual suspects will just ignore all of this and keep repeating the same BS?

OAW
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 08:19 PM
 
I wrote an extended post about this, and now the undercover racists on my feed have come out in droves to make their case that defending the Confederate flag is equivalent to staving off Jewish genocide in Nazi Germany.

I'm not freaking kidding.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 08:53 PM
 
^^^

Trust me. I can most definitely believe it.

OAW
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 11:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You truly are the King of Strawmen
This is the king of straw men
Louis Farrakhan : “They Don’t Give a Damn About Them 9″ | 105.9 FM and AM 630—Where Washington Comes To Talk | WMAL-AF

Hufsa Kamal

WMAL.com

Louis Farrakhan addressed hundreds Wednesday at the Metropolitan AME Church in D.C. Religious leaders from various background joined Farrakhan to talk about the Millions for Justice Mobilization taking place in D.C. in October.

His speech took an angry turn when he said white people don’t care about the people who died in the South Carolina church shootings.

“White folks march with you because they don’t want you upsetting the city,” he said in reference to protesting against the South Carolina shootings.

His comments were met by cheers and applause.

He added his disdain for the North Carolina police who fed Dylann Roof, the Charleston church shooting suspect, Burger King after he was arrested.

Farrakhan also attacked the American flag, saying “What the hell is the use of us paying allegiance to a flag under which we get no justice?”
45/47
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 12:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Do you even know the difference between a buddhist and a Taoist? Geez man, the more you type the worse it gets.

I guess since I'm not a Southern racist your assertion only reflects poorly on you.
You may not be in the South but you have the same revisionist (or lack of understanding) history.

I won't call you dumb, I'll just call you a conservative. Up here it's just a slang.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 04:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
The percentage of slaves was higher in 1830, but the total number of slaves was higher in 1860.

Total Population 1830: 12,866,020
Slave Population 1830: 2,009,043

There were almost twice as many slaves in 1860 as were in 1830. That doesn't match the rate of growth of the country in general, but it's not like slavery was becoming less of a problem.
Indeed, it was "becoming less of a problem". So care to try that again?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 04:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
And the Southern Democrats ... i.e. the ones who wanted to preserve and expand slavery ... were the dominant faction! Look at this graph right here ...
Expand while the % of slaves, even in the most agriculturally-rich areas of the country, was dropping dramatically? How does that work?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 04:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
You may not be in the South but you have the same revisionist (or lack of understanding) history.

I won't call you dumb, I'll just call you a conservative. Up here it's just a slang.
Conservative? No. To be conservative I'd need to be authoritarian, and I'm most certainly not one of those. In fact, on social issues, I'm probably more liberal than you'll ever be.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 07:32 AM
 
Imagine agreeing with Calypso Louis.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 07:36 AM
 
45/47
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 07:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post

There were almost twice as many slaves in 1860 as were in 1830. That doesn't match the rate of growth of the country in general, but it's not like slavery was becoming less of a problem.
Another bit of history that get twisted is the 3/5 Compromise. No wonder why the southern colonies wanted slaves counted only for seats in the House and the north did not want them counted at all.
45/47
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 09:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
I wrote an extended post about this, and now the undercover racists on my feed have come out in droves to make their case that defending the Confederate flag is equivalent to staving off Jewish genocide in Nazi Germany.

I'm not freaking kidding.
Post the best ones with the names and pics blacked out.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 11:35 AM
 
I deleted the two most incendiary replies, but there are still some slightly-more-subtle gems in there...



Here's where another guy claims they're coming for Old Glory next...



I commented that prophecy predicts persecution for those who espouse biblical principles, to which the same guy as above replied...



Another friend insisted that slavery wasn't the primary cause for the Civil War:



Here's a lady who thinks taking down the Confederate flag is the beginnings of a conspiracy:



And lastly, on a good note, this is a pastor friend of mine from Los Angeles. He's around 35-years-old, and is one of the best speakers I've ever heard. A far more sensible voice.

     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 11:36 AM
 
Wow, haven't read them yet, but you really went the extra mile and posted a lot. A for effort.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 11:40 AM
 
Unimportant.
( Last edited by Jawbone54; Jun 25, 2015 at 07:02 PM. )
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 11:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
This one isn't so bad on the surface. They feel a little misguided, though they do throw in the Christian persecution complex for good measure.

I'm a little amused by the final quote though – would he fight for the socialists?


Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
Here's a lady who thinks taking down the Confederate flag is the beginnings of a conspiracy:

Great response on your part, though.


Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
And lastly, on a good note, this is a pastor friend of mine from Los Angeles. He's around 35-years-old, and is one of the best speakers I've ever heard. A far more sensible voice.

Yes, well done.


If it's any consolation, these aren't that bad. Of course, thats in comparison to stuff that gets passed around which is usually the worst of the internet.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 11:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
This one isn't so bad on the surface. They feel a little misguided, though they do throw in the Christian persecution complex for good measure.

I'm a little amused by the final quote though – would he fight for the socialists?
I know the guy well, and I'm pretty sure that's not what he meant, but I was confused as to why he used that quote. His response was probably the most typical — more concerned with the coming nanny state than issues of race.

If it's any consolation, these aren't that bad. Of course, thats in comparison to stuff that gets passed around which is usually the worst of the internet.
True. Remember, I deleted the two worst offenders. Also, the worst things I saw weren't responses to my post, but pictures and opinions that were posted during the past few days. Luckily, 99% of it wasn't coming from people associated with my church — that would have been a lot more disappointing.

A few members of our church mildly criticized me for the post, then our pastor got in the pulpit last night and spent about five minute blasting the Confederate flag and its defenders. I noticed a lot of people immediately got on their phones and deleted posts.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 11:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
A few members of our church mildly criticized me for the post, then our pastor got in the pulpit last night and spent about five minute blasting the Confederate flag and its defenders. I noticed a lot of people immediately got on their phones and deleted posts.
That's disappointing.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 12:02 PM
 
Honestly, most are more misguided than racist. Many have bought into the Confederate flag "Heritage, Not Hate" shtick, and are truly ignorant as to how minorities receive it. It's difficult to understand when you don't have many black friends in your social circle.

Stuff like this is why I was looking into starting a church in the Pacific Northwest.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 12:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
Honestly, most are more misguided than racist. Many have bought into the Confederate flag "Heritage, Not Hate" shtick, and are truly ignorant as to how minorities receive it. It's difficult to understand when you don't have many black friends in your social circle.
My minority exposure growing up in rural NEPA has been pretty minimal. Compared to the population numbers in the south, it's a lot more likely they've had more interactions with minorities than I have. I just wasn't raised in a racist atmosphere.

Best anecdote I have: My best friend's father once gave me an instructive lesson on the use of the term ****** from his days doing construction in the south. I still bust his balls about the incident to this day.



Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
Stuff like this is why I was looking into starting a church in the Pacific Northwest.
That's bold.

Edit: I didn't realize we star the n word here.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 01:15 PM
 
Am I imagining the thing where Apple just pulled all its Civil War games because of the flag?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Am I imagining the thing where Apple just pulled all its Civil War games because of the flag?
I didn't read about it, but given their past hare-brained censorship, its believable.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 01:25 PM
 
That's almost beyond Apple harebrained.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 01:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That's almost beyond Apple harebrained.
Not really, it's along the same theme of other banning – take an issue and apply it over-broadly. Didn't they ban playboy for being porn at some point?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 01:31 PM
 
Yes, but I can kinda sorta argue the Playboy one.

This is robot-like behavior.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 01:32 PM
 
And Confederate memorials all over the country have been vandalized by the ignorant intolerant ass canyons.
I;m so sick of the immature reactions and the violence when they 'feel offended'. They really need to grow up. I think its impossible for a segment of our population.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 01:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Yes, but I can kinda sorta argue the Playboy one.

This is robot-like behavior.
That's fair.

Perhaps whoever was in charge of removal played things wide rather than be seen as lax.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 01:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That's fair.

Perhaps whoever was in charge of removal played things wide rather than be seen as lax.
Or, now that you say it, may not be someone who "gets" wargaming.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 02:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Edit: I didn't realize we star the n word here.
I've complained about it before. It serves no purpose I can fathom.

The only time it ever gets used here is in legit conversation, which then needs to be clarified.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:59 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,