re: Our University is not woke. Will remove Confederate plaques, study building names

*comes into this thread to see why it's 14 pages*

quote:

---

Be specific please.

Can you provide examples of foreign flagged ships not being allowed to enter Charleston Harbor because of the American garrison on Ft. Sumter?

---

quote:

---

re: Our University is not woke. Will remove Confederate plaques, study building namesPosted on 6/9/20 at 5:58 pm to InGAButLoveBama
quote:
I want to know why those of you who think the CSA battle flag is a symbol of slavery give the Kente cloth a pass
Are you seriously unable to parse the difference between significance of a style of clothing from a centuries old culture where slavery existed as one facet of society versus the battle flag of a failed government that was founded for the express purpose of defending slavery?

quote:
Southern students deserve to have love and respect for their heritage
My ancestors were in the American South over two and a half centuries ago. I have no idea why CSA apologists are locked like a pitbull's jaws around these four years of failed rebellion and incompetent government as the be all end all of my "heritage."

I mean, I do know, but it's sometimes impolite to point it out.
This post was edited on 6/9 at 6:00 pm

---

First, we have gone over this a million times. Slavery existed in both Northern and Southern states DURING the war, so the war did not begin over slavery and you know it. Lincoln even offered to let Southern states keep slavery forever legal. Ever heard of the Corwin Amendment?

Second, that style of cloth from Africa represents African heritage, in particular the attire of the Ashanti Slave Traders (LINK /). African heritage is stained with slavery far more than Southern history. It is also stained by the legacy of vicious inter-tribal violence. I see no reason to respect their African symbols if they choose to demonize mine. The CSA was not just about maintaining slavery. The South had enormous resentment against the North for making it pay 85% of all federal revenue via the tariff. The North also represented a completely different way of life, including forced child labor.

Finally, the battle flag did not represent the CSA government, it was the battle flag representing the soldiers who defending against UNION aggression. Do you really think the majority of troops owned slaves? Hell no they did not. The South fought very well, and in the end was simply outmanned. The problem was never morale.

quote:

---

You choose to demonize your own heritage,

---

As if I give a shite about my racist heritage.

quote:

---

Slavery existed in both Northern and Southern states DURING the war, so the war did not begin over slavery and you know it. Lincoln even offered to let Southern states keep slavery forever legal. Ever heard of the Corwin Amendment?

---

The South seceded from the Union because Lincoln was an anti-slavery candidate who made his opinions on the subject well known before the war. He knew he couldn't secure out and out emancipation but he could limit slavery's expansion into the western territories - which was his stated goal and the platform he ran on. The South could not abide this because they held the view that if slavery couldn't expand it would die. This is why they seceded.

The slave-holding border states remained loyal to the Union due to a combination of political cunning and military coercion. Maryland became a police state, Kentucky had a pro-secession governor and a pro-Union legislature, while Missouri become consumed with sectarian violence and guerrilla warfare.

The Corwin Amendment proves that the South seceded over the question of slavery because why would you introduce a constitutional amendment protecting the institution of slavery if you weren't trying to coax the seceded states back into the Union without a shot being fired in anger?

quote:

---

The Corwin Amendment proves that the South seceded over the question of slavery

---

Multiple articles of secession make that explicitly clear. Any argument of "states rights" revolved squarely around a state's right of self-determination over the right to maintain slavery. Westward expansion and any prohibition of new states from being able to become "slave states" challenged the balance of power the south wanted to maintain. It was taken as unlawful overreach by the federal government.

Ironically, the straw that broke the camel's back and truly triggered secession was the Federal Government's reluctance to enforce non-slave holding states' rights to not enforce the fugitive slave act. So, in a way, the south was mad because the government chose to allow for a state's right to govern as it chose to govern.

Lincoln was very clear that maintaining the Union, with or without slavery, was the key concern. It was the Emancipation Proclamation that changed the face of the war. Although it only addressed slaves freedom in rebel states, the war became less about uniting the Union and more about freedom for slaves for many at that point. It also placed the South in a position that would eliminate reconciliation without total defeat.

quote:

---

re: Our University is not woke. Will remove Confederate plaques, study building namesPosted on 6/10/20 at 2:43 pm to InGAButLoveBama
quote:
First, we have gone over this a million times. Slavery existed in both Northern and Southern states DURING the war, so the war did not begin over slavery and you know it.

Slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War? Someone should have told the government of South Carolina before they issued their declaration of secession:
quote:
...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
Or Alexander Stephens, the CSA's vice-president:
quote:
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.


quote:
It is also stained by the legacy of vicious inter-tribal violence.
As opposed to the CSA, a government whose entire history is wrapped up in a war that killed over 700,000, not including civilians?
quote:
The North also represented a completely different way of life, including forced child labor.
I'll let the realization that you just used "child labor is bad" as an argument in support of a government that sanctioned child slave labor and the selling of children away from their own parents slowly wash over you at this point.

---

I have never defended all that the CSA did or stood for. I have simply pointed out that the Union was not goodness and light, and the South, darkness and evil. I want consistency in evaluation of heritage and history. You want to join the anti White anti Southern bandwagon. I used to be even more vciously anti White and anti Southern than you, till I grew up, and observed how Northerners talked about us, and I realized that no amount of apologies or betraying my heritage would absolve me of their hang ups.

quote:

---

re: Our University is not woke. Will remove Confederate plaques, study building namesPosted on 6/10/20 at 2:46 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
The Corwin Amendment proves that the South seceded over the question of slavery
Multiple articles of secession make that explicitly clear. Any argument of "states rights" revolved squarely around a state's right of self-determination over the right to maintain slavery. Westward expansion and any prohibition of new states from being able to become "slave states" challenged the balance of power the south wanted to maintain. It was taken as unlawful overreach by the federal government.

Ironically, the straw that broke the camel's back and truly triggered secession was the Federal Government's reluctance to enforce non-slave holding states' rights to not enforce the fugitive slave act. So, in a way, the south was mad because the government chose to allow for a state's right to govern as it chose to govern.

Lincoln was very clear that maintaining the Union, with or without slavery, was the key concern. It was the Emancipation Proclamation that changed the face of the war. Although it only addressed slaves freedom in rebel states, the war became less about uniting the Union and more about freedom for slaves for many at that point. It also placed the South in a position that would eliminate reconciliation without total defeat.

---

OMG, this Articles of Confederation nonsense. Do you really believe the CSA soldiers even read those articles? What do they write about in their letters home? They were not defending slavery. They were defending their homes from war criminals. The Union burned UA down for goodness sake, and you want to pretend the rebel soldiers cared more about preserving slavery.

quote:

---

Do you discuss the data with friends and family?

---

Most of us are on the same page.

quote:

---

Have you asked your leaders to address it?

---

This is Alabama. Most of them don't give a shite, and one of the very few that do is likely to get voted out in November, but I'll still vote for him.

quote:

---

If George Floyd's tragic death is so moving and important, surely those of your own race are too?

---

They are. I fricking hate police brutality and the "thin blue line" culture.

Why are you arguing with a Dylann Roof wannabe?