8 dead in SC church shooting

[BmorePat87]

No one is saying the flag caused anything. People are just finally being vocal about how backwards it is to honor a flag used by treasonous criminals who attacked this country to maintain their immoral lifestyle that was dependent the enslavement of a whole group of people.

If you're waving the stars and bars and think it is representing anything other than that awful history, you're wrong. It's a shame that it took a fringe racist terrorist trying to bring this country back to those days to finally wake us up.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-24-2015, 09:58 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: You are so out of touch.

That flag is up at a civil war memorial. Not as the state's main flag.

It's more of an issue of the state's who put that into their state flags to protest the civil rights act. That is something to have an honest discussion about.... But a flag at a civil war memorial isn't.... Even with the memorial being at the capital.

[SteelCitySouth]

(06-24-2015, 10:49 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: That flag is up at a civil war memorial.  Not as the state's main flag.    

It's more of an issue of the state's who put that into their state flags to protest the civil rights act.   That is something to have an honest discussion about....    But a flag at a civil war memorial isn't....   Even with the memorial being at the capital.

That flag was placed at the top of the capital dome as a show of defiance for desegregation in 1962.  It was finally removed in 2000 as a compromise and was placed near the entrance along with a memorial.  If they want ot honor the states involvement with the confederacy why not use the stars and bars or even the states flag, which was the states confederate battle flag during the war.  I bet I know why.

[Belsnickel]

(06-24-2015, 10:07 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If you're waving the stars and bars and think it is representing anything other than that awful history, you're wrong. It's a shame that it took a fringe racist terrorist trying to bring this country back to those days to finally wake us up.

We're not talking about the Stars and Bars here, we're talking about the Southern Cross.

There was an article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch recently that touched on some of the things going on around us. We're having the battle flag removed from license plates here and we will likely see removals of the flag in other places. There were some that made mention of the statues around the state of Confederate leaders and how they view them the same way. Streets, schools, etc. The thing is that these men weren't fighting to maintain slavery.

R.E. Lee is as contradictory on the topic as Jefferson, but his fight was because his state had seceded. Jackson, Lee's right hand man for much of the war, was opposed to the institution and while he owned slaves for a portion of his life the records indicated they were not treated as such. He also established a school for them (illegally) and was a proponent of their literacy. These men were fighting in defense of Virginia, not in defense of slavery. Most of the men hoisting the muskets to their shoulders were not likely to ever own slaves themselves and they held no more prejudice towards people of color than those in the north.

The slavery aspect of the Civil War was the game of the politicians. Even so it is interesting to think of it in such a way because Lincoln wasn't going to emancipate the slaves and said as much. He knew how catastrophic that would be to the country and so was willing to take a more moderate approach to things. Anyway, it was about slavery to the politicians, but to the thousands upon thousands that made the grass red through the war on behalf of the CSA it was about defending their homes. They did not, and still do not, see secession as a treasonous act. They saw, and still see, the federal government as the aggressive force. They were no more criminals than the colonists during the American Revolution and are only seen as such because their revolution was not successful. Had the colonists failed during their war for independence history would be viewing our entire country the same way the North views the South.

[BmorePat87]

(06-24-2015, 11:16 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: We're not talking about the Stars and Bars here, we're talking about the Southern Cross.

There was an article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch recently that touched on some of the things going on around us. We're having the battle flag removed from license plates here and we will likely see removals of the flag in other places. There were some that made mention of the statues around the state of Confederate leaders and how they view them the same way. Streets, schools, etc. The thing is that these men weren't fighting to maintain slavery.

R.E. Lee is as contradictory on the topic as Jefferson, but his fight was because his state had seceded. Jackson, Lee's right hand man for much of the war, was opposed to the institution and while he owned slaves for a portion of his life the records indicated they were not treated as such. He also established a school for them (illegally) and was a proponent of their literacy. These men were fighting in defense of Virginia, not in defense of slavery. Most of the men hoisting the muskets to their shoulders were not likely to ever own slaves themselves and they held no more prejudice towards people of color than those in the north.

The slavery aspect of the Civil War was the game of the politicians. Even so it is interesting to think of it in such a way because Lincoln wasn't going to emancipate the slaves and said as much. He knew how catastrophic that would be to the country and so was willing to take a more moderate approach to things. Anyway, it was about slavery to the politicians, but to the thousands upon thousands that made the grass red through the war on behalf of the CSA it was about defending their homes. They did not, and still do not, see secession as a treasonous act. They saw, and still see, the federal government as the aggressive force. They were no more criminals than the colonists during the American Revolution and are only seen as such because their revolution was not successful. Had the colonists failed during their war for independence history would be viewing our entire country the same way the North views the South.

Thanks for the clarification. Forgot that "stars and bars" is used for the actual Confederate Flag. I understand that most Southerners could not afford to own slaves and that they incorrectly believed the Union was the aggressor, but that really doesn't excuse them. It's really not different from the "just following orders" excuse for Nazis. I mean... they believed the Jews were to blame for their economic woes...

[Belsnickel]

(06-24-2015, 11:36 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Thanks for the clarification. Forgot that "stars and bars" is used for the actual Confederate Flag. I understand that most Southerners could not afford to own slaves and that they incorrectly believed the Union was the aggressor, but that really doesn't excuse them. It's really not different from the "just following orders" excuse for Nazis. I mean... they believed the Jews were to blame for their economic woes...

So what does that say about the state of Maryland, that wanted to secede as well?

The difference between the Nazis and the South is that the Nazis were an invading force. They wanted to conquer. The South just wanted to be left alone.

[BmorePat87]

(06-24-2015, 11:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So what does that say about the state of Maryland, that wanted to secede as well?

The difference between the Nazis and the South is that the Nazis were an invading force. They wanted to conquer. The South just wanted to be left alone.

Half of the state wanted to do something illegal, yea. They would have been wrong if they did.

Also, the South illegally attacked the Union first. Nothing about what they did was legal.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-24-2015, 09:39 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yeah it is about those 8 people .  Yet all your focused on is a flag that carries no significance.

You are the one focused on the flag.  I am focused on your denial of it's significance.

Quote:Glad you have your priorities .

I am asking you for the second time, what are my priorities?  I know you won't answer the second time so I will answer for you.  You don't know.  You're just doing a pretty piss poor job of attacking my character by disparaging my priorities without any knowledge of what my priorities actually are.

[Belsnickel]

(06-24-2015, 11:56 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Half of the state wanted to do something illegal, yea. They would have been wrong if they did.

Also, the South illegally attacked the Union first. Nothing about what they did was legal.

The Southern viewpoint is that they offered them the option of vacating the fort peacefully, thus removing themselves from their territory. They informed the federal government than resupplying would be considered a hostile action. Then Lincoln sent supply ships.

Like I've said, the American Revolution was illegal as well, we just don't view it as such because we like the outcome. In the mind of the Southerners the Union was a hostile, invading force.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-24-2015, 11:36 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Thanks for the clarification. Forgot that "stars and bars" is used for the actual Confederate Flag. I understand that most Southerners could not afford to own slaves and that they incorrectly believed the Union was the aggressor, but that really doesn't excuse them. It's really not different from the "just following orders" excuse for Nazis. I mean... they believed the Jews were to blame for their economic woes...

The fact that they couldn't afford slaves doesn't mean that they didn't aspire to one day be able to buy a few of them.

[fredtoast]

(06-24-2015, 12:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The Southern viewpoint is that they offered them the option of vacating the fort peacefully, thus removing themselves from their territory. They informed the federal government than resupplying would be considered a hostile action. Then Lincoln sent supply ships.

Like I've said, the American Revolution was illegal as well, we just don't view it as such because we like the outcome. In the mind of the Southerners the Union was a hostile, invading force.

You can't just argue that any viewpoint is excusable because the people who held that belief felt they were correct.  The people who owned slaves did not think they were wrong.  That does not excuse their actions.

The American Revolution was illegal, but it was a revolt against the exploitation of a colonial overlord.  Therefore I feel it was justified.  I don't just think it was justified because we won. If there was a war like this today that did not involve my country I would be against the exploitation of a colonial power.


And I also realize that most of the southerners who took up arms were just defending their "homeland", but they were on the wrong side.  Not because they lost, but because their side started a war for the wrong reasons.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-24-2015, 12:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can't just argue that any viewpoint is excusable because the people who held that belief felt they were correct.  The people who owned slaves did not think they were wrong.  That does not excuse their actions.

The American Revolution was illegal, but it was a revolt against the exploitation of a colonial overlord.  Therefore I feel it was justified.  I don't just think it was justified because we won.  If there was a war like this today that did not involve my country I would be against the exploitation of a colonial power.


And I also realize that most of the southerners who took up arms were just defending their "homeland", but they were on the wrong side.  Not because they lost, but because their side started a war for the wrong reasons.

Indeed.  There has been a lot of talk about "state rights", but ultimately it was their "state right" to own other people without interference from non-slave states and the government they were fighting for.  

[BmorePat87]

(06-24-2015, 12:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The Southern viewpoint is that they offered them the option of vacating the fort peacefully, thus removing themselves from their territory. They informed the federal government than resupplying would be considered a hostile action. Then Lincoln sent supply ships.

Like I've said, the American Revolution was illegal as well, we just don't view it as such because we like the outcome. In the mind of the Southerners the Union was a hostile, invading force.

I can steal your car and tell you it is a hostile action to take it back. Doesn't make me right.

At the heart of it, whether or not your attempts to form a new government are "right" depends on your grievances and whether or not the government isn't truly living up to its end of the social contract. I would say a far better argument was made in 1776 to justify their actions. A far nobler one too.

[Belsnickel]

(06-24-2015, 12:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can't just argue that any viewpoint is excusable because the people who held that belief felt they were correct.  The people who owned slaves did not think they were wrong.  That does not excuse their actions.

The American Revolution was illegal, but it was a revolt against the exploitation of a colonial overlord.  Therefore I feel it was justified.  I don't just think it was justified because we won.  If there was a war like this today that did not involve my country I would be against the exploitation of a colonial power.


And I also realize that most of the southerners who took up arms were just defending their "homeland", but they were on the wrong side.  Not because they lost, but because their side started a war for the wrong reasons.

Whether it be a colonial overlord across the Atlantic or a government a few hundred miles north, it was the same issue at hand to the southern states. The reason is the same, the catalyst is what was different.

Also, the South maintains the North started the war. Not saying one way or the other, but in their perspective Lincoln initiated the war by sending in supply ships to Sumter. Had he not done that, then the CSA would have just peacefully seceded.

[Belsnickel]

I should point out here that all I am really trying to say with all of this is that because of this southern perspective on the events that transpired leading up to, during, and after the Civil War there is never going to be a complete sanitation of the reverence with which the citizenry looks upon folks like Lee, Jackson, and all the rest. They legitimately do not see it as being all about slavery but as a noble fight against a government that tried to take away the sovereignty of their states. That is not going to change any time soon. Discussing the battle flag is one thing, many southerners recognize that it has been latched onto by hate groups and so recognize the issues surrounding it. But the rest of it? You'd have better luck proving or disproving the existence of God, and create just as much animosity among the people here in doing so.

[BmorePat87]

(06-24-2015, 12:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Also, the South maintains the North started the war. Not saying one way or the other, but in their perspective Lincoln initiated the war by sending in supply ships to Sumter. Had he not done that, then the CSA would have just peacefully seceded.

Yea, but the rest of us are smart enough to see how stupid that sounds.

[*jason*]

On a lighter note...  Does anyone else think this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jREUrbGGrgM is one of the greatest songs ever?