I never said that it wasn't a good thing to happen. Yes, human rights are the priority. That is incredibly obvious. What I'm saying is that it wasn't just a bunch of old men getting their panties in a twist because they couldn't own people anymore, and I think that's what Sol was trying (and failing) to explain earlier.

i wasn't referring to you when i said "you"--i was referring to them

the old men who i'm, personally, still convinced were just getting their panties in a twist because they couldn't own people anymore--because like i said, if they were decent, it wouldn't make a difference

that's all i was saying

the old men who i'm, personally, still convinced were just getting their panties in a twist because they couldn't own people anymore--because like i said, if they were decent, it wouldn't make a difference

As it relates to their abilities to make a living. I'm certain that there was a good amount of cases where it did just boil down to not wanting equality; you can see that in the persistence of institutionalized racism in the following decades. But that doesn't mean that it was the only reason why they were against abolition.

People don't just do bad things because they want to do bad things; they justify it however they can. Sometimes there are good-ish justifications (see: post-Iraq justification) and there are bad ones (see: megalomania, racism). Slavery was the behavior, socioeconomic and political issues are the justifications. If you want to prevent things from re-occurring, you have to understand the why. Saying "it was a bad thing, who cares?" is a problem.

Late edit addresses that.

People don't just do bad things because they want to do bad things; they justify it however they can. Sometimes there are good-ish justifications (see: post-Iraq justification) and there are bad ones (see: megalomania, racism). Slavery was the behavior, socioeconomic and political issues are the justifications. If you want to prevent things from re-occurring, you have to understand the why. Saying "it was a bad thing, who cares?" is a problem.

Sure, but I don't think that's what I was doing, or at least, I wasn't trying to. There's obviously many different flavors of racism--and I'd imagine that the individual who says, "I can't be for the abolition, because muh livelihood" doesn't quite realize how very racist that is. But it's still, you know, racist. It's not that I'm saying, "they were evil, therefore who cares"--I'm just calling it what it is.

What you're doing is delineating the types of racism, but then saying... "See, it wasn't just racism". Which only works if someone honestly believes that racism is a one-way street, which, I don't think any of us do. It's like saying, "It's not red, it's scarlet." You're not wrong, but it's like... I dunno. Not pedantic. But I just don't think any of us deny that it was more than just "simple" racism.

Very few subjects can be accurately summarized in two words. Likewise with the Southern secession, "muh slaves" is a very poor way to explain the thought process behind it. Like I've said throughout this discussion, slavery was a big reason why it happened, but that doesn't mean that it is as simple as saying "they wanted to [a]". It is "they wanted to [a] because [x, y, z]."

I'm not justifying the secession, I'm trying to explain the justification for the secession.

Yeah, I got that. Explaining the thought process behind it all is important, but I really think some things are just tautological. Racism is still racism, no matter how nuanced it is.

But yeah, now we're speaking the same language.

I mean, we're all adults--we've all took this course. Hopefully, everyone understands that there are reasons for these things. But how important are those reasons in this particular discussion, anyway? That's why we just use blanket speech. The details aren't incredibly important.

i mean, this thread was once about cake

Which was derailed into a discussion on whether or not the backlash against the rebel flag is justified.

I personally don't care, but I'm kind of biased since I live in the South where it's just an easy way for people to say "look how big of a redneck I am!"

Not really.... bothered if I say so myself.

To be absolutely honest, that's not even an ISIS flag. It's now widely associated with ISIS, but that flag is actually quite old.

It's called the "Seal of Muhammad." In fact, the Ottoman's used something similar and they even used the same exact seal (the Muhammad rasul'allah part in the middle of the flag) as their official government seal.

But at any rate, this is dumb.

Quote from: SgtMag1 on July 01, 2015, 03:22:03 PM

To be absolutely honest, that's not even an ISIS flag. It's now widely associated with ISIS, but that flag is actually quite old.

It's called the "Seal of Muhammad." In fact, the Ottoman's used something similar and they even used the same exact seal (the Muhammad rasul'allah part in the middle of the flag) as their official government seal.

But at any rate, this is dumb.

This is mostly the same logic used with the Confederate flag, too. "It's not the Confederate flag, it's the battle flag of blahblahblah"

yeah but max

^This is actually the Stars and Bars.

Quote from: DAS B00T WILL RISE AGAIN on July 01, 2015, 05:30:52 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on July 01, 2015, 05:13:41 PM

Quote from: SgtMag1 on July 01, 2015, 03:22:03 PM

To be absolutely honest, that's not even an ISIS flag. It's now widely associated with ISIS, but that flag is actually quite old.

It's called the "Seal of Muhammad." In fact, the Ottoman's used something similar and they even used the same exact seal (the Muhammad rasul'allah part in the middle of the flag) as their official government seal.

But at any rate, this is dumb.

This is mostly the same logic used with the Confederate flag, too. "It's not the Confederate flag, it's the battle flag of blahblahblah"

yeah but max

^This is actually the Stars and Bars.

Then why isn't THAT flag flying on people's trucks and over capital buildings?

Because it's only marketed to a very niche group of reenactors and memorabilia collectors.
The battle flag of the army of northern Virginia is actually square, too, and did appear on the last two iterations of the CSA's flags (the stainless flag and the bloodied banner)

The commonly seen and well remembered design is the battle flag of the army of Tennessee, also the second Confederate naval jack. It became a popular icon through media and commercialism, and that's why the army of Tennessee's flag is remembered as the stars and bars over the actual  Stars and Bars.

Quote from: DAS B00T WILL RISE AGAIN on July 01, 2015, 05:51:10 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on July 01, 2015, 05:42:31 PM

Quote from: DAS B00T WILL RISE AGAIN on July 01, 2015, 05:30:52 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on July 01, 2015, 05:13:41 PM

Quote from: SgtMag1 on July 01, 2015, 03:22:03 PM

To be absolutely honest, that's not even an ISIS flag. It's now widely associated with ISIS, but that flag is actually quite old.

It's called the "Seal of Muhammad." In fact, the Ottoman's used something similar and they even used the same exact seal (the Muhammad rasul'allah part in the middle of the flag) as their official government seal.

But at any rate, this is dumb.

This is mostly the same logic used with the Confederate flag, too. "It's not the Confederate flag, it's the battle flag of blahblahblah"

yeah but max

^This is actually the Stars and Bars.

Then why isn't THAT flag flying on people's trucks and over capital buildings?

Because it's only marketed to a very niche group of reenactors and memorabilia collectors.
The battle flag of the army of northern Virginia is actually square, too, and did appear on the last two iterations of the CSA's flags (the stainless flag and the bloodied banner)

The commonly seen and well remembered design is the battle flag of the army of Tennessee, also the second Confederate naval jack. It became a popular icon through media and commercialism, and that's why the army of Tennessee's flag is remembered as the stars and bars over the actual  Stars and Bars.

So what your'e saying is that the whatever flag of wherever has become the de facto confederate flag, accepted by most people.

Essentially.
I don't understand your argument here though, since I've only heard history nerds try to correct people on that (because that's what they do) and not rednecks using it to dodge allegations of racism.

Quote from: SgtMag1 on July 01, 2015, 03:22:03 PM

To be absolutely honest, that's not even an ISIS flag. It's now widely associated with ISIS, but that flag is actually quite old.

It's called the "Seal of Muhammad." In fact, the Ottoman's used something similar and they even used the same exact seal (the Muhammad rasul'allah part in the middle of the flag) as their official government seal.

But at any rate, this is dumb.

This is mostly the same logic used with the Confederate flag, too. "It's not the Confederate flag, it's the battle flag of blahblahblah"

That wasn't what I was going for at all.

If I had it my way, the fucking Confederate flag would be banned outright.

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 30, 2015, 10:49:40 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 30, 2015, 10:37:10 AM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 30, 2015, 10:35:14 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 30, 2015, 10:30:14 AM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 30, 2015, 09:49:56 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 30, 2015, 08:42:50 AM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 10:52:26 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 09:48:56 PM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 09:45:31 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 09:42:18 PM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 09:40:56 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 09:27:20 PM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 09:16:46 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 08:54:01 PM

The North wasn't some crystal clear shining beacon of moral light sure, I agree, but the state rights the South wanted to cling on to was the right to own slaves and traffic humans.

You are a shining fuckin' beacon of swallowing whatever you're told.

Abolition WAS NOT going to happen by the end of the 1860s in the united states.
There was nowhere near enough support for the movement.

The only reason it did is because Lincoln used the war that the Union started and the deaths of people's sons that were his fault as a way to demonise the south, and he wanted to cripple them economically and made the emancipation proclimation. He basically made people put five and three together like they were two and two and people still buy into it to this day.

Is slavery an evil thing that still goes on?
Yes.

Was it the MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM that was causing our national government not to function AT ALL in the 1850s?

No.

That was an abhorrent and sudden increase in federal power that most states weren't ready for, and Lincoln was literally a dictator, and only made matters worse. The country was always before that, a much looser gathering of states than it is today, and I'm not saying that the current system is a bad one, I'm saying that the country was just not ready for it, and it was going to cause the ultimate failure of the nation.

Read a god damned book.

I want slavery apologists to leave.

Whatever the implications of the Confederate flag are is the by the bye, and is clearly something subjective that we all disagree on.

Slavery however, is demonstrably a lot less divisive.

You have literally just tried to justify the South's "right" to own people simply because it would cause economic ramifications to the nation. I want you to acknowledge this. Whatever the North's intentions were, it's irrelevant. Slavery was abolished, and the South, on aggregate, didn't want it to happen because the economy and political stability was more important than human liberty. That's morally, and objectively wrong. No two ways about it.

>"btu u should jus read a book"
>"muh state rights"

This kind of shit is precisely why people construe Southern pride and Southern culture with racism.

Did I not specifically state that slavery was evil in my post?

And you were right, telling you to read a book was the wrong response, because most of the books you might read are the very sources of your misinformation.

Its classic changing history, and because of it nobody knows why the civil war started.

But no, go on about how I'm a slavery apologist.

What about the South's attempt at secession wasn't to do with slavery? Please, elaborate without referring to state rights.

Well, the aboltion movement, (though much smaller than many are led to believe) certainly didn't help in the retention of southern states, but its ludicrous for you to ask me to tell you why something happened without reffering to the core causes of that event.

It's ludicrous to require you demonstrate your assertions? Are you deliberately attempting to be obtuse?

It's a simple yes or no question. Was the South's attempted secession to do with slavery or not?

Well its yes and no.
It didn't happen because of slavery, but slavery affected the way it happened.

You can't discredit all of someone's problems just because they were wrong about one thing, and then blow up the situation to make it seem like that's the only thing they were upset about, when really it was lesser because it wasn't as big of a problem to them as you're trying to make it out to be.

The question you are trying to ask is: would the southern states have tried to secede if slavery had been abolished?

The answer is yes.

However before the war and propaganda, slavery was nowhere near being abolished, it would have taken a decade or longer after it actually happened without that war.

So the fear of the abolition of slavery was not something to secede over in the year 1860, but it was something they would have seceded over if the final action had ever been taken or neared approval. Which it eventually would have, but at that point, who can say what would have happened?

Even the south would have changed in those fifteen years, and with the political stranglehold they were getting under, they probably would've reach forum adapted. Nobody can really say.

What matters is that they seceded, because they had lost a lot of state power that had been something they enjoyed historically, and while a result of the stranglehold would have been making the abolition of slavery easier when the time came for it, the immediate effect was that state legislators felt useless and the people felt voiceless, which is the reason the US declared independence in the first place.

And the final straw was when they actually elected a dictator president.

So yes then, the South did indeed try to secede because they were afraid they were going to lose their slaves, thank you for clarifying.

I'm not asking for the moral positioning of the North and whether they were a political stranglehold on the South or not, that's irrelevant. If you want to talk about the totalitarian behavior of the Union that's for another discussion.

That's not what I said and it's not true, but I can't stop you from being delusional if you want to be.

I've done everything I can to point out to you that they version of history you're subscribed to is heavily revised, but if you're comfortable with what you're told and don't have any interest in accuracy, then you can go on being sheeple.

You literally just told me the South wanted to secede because they got bootytickled over the fact they weren't going to have slaves anymore. I'm not sure what else to say to you.

The fact that the North was expansionary, or whatever you think the North wanted to accomplish is irrelevant, but I'm willing to entertain a separate discussion on that issue. The fact of the matter is the South wanted to secede to continue owning slaves. End of.

I didn't say any of that.

You're just terrible at paying attention.

Explain how one long winded and apologetic post trying to justify "fuck you, don't take my right to own slaves" translates to me not paying attention.

That's uh... The reason they were long winded.

Because I spent the last day explaining and a half explaining exactly why slavery was not the underlying cause of southern secession.

There's explaining something which I asked you specifically to explain (which you haven't at all done) and then trying to tenuously justify something which isn't ethically or objectively justifiable. You have literally just danced round my question this entire discussion and then gave some half assed answer as to why the South was entitled to own slaves.

I think I objectively stated several times that slavery is evil.
So I'm not sure where you're getting any of this, but I guess I'll have to go to school and get a degree in psychology to understand the logical pathways of an autistic child, then I will come back and discuss things with you in a manner you can understand.

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on July 02, 2015, 04:06:06 AM

I think I objectively stated several times that slavery is evil.

I never disputed your ethical position on slavery. Time and time again I've asked you to prove why the attempt at secession wasn't about slavery and so far you've given me tenuous at best answers, including why they were somehow entitled to slaves.

Quote

So I'm not sure where you're getting any of this, but I guess I'll have to go to school and get a degree in psychology to understand the logical pathways of an autistic child, then I will come back and discuss things with you in a manner you can understand.

Oh no, trust me, you don't need a degree in anything for that mate.

But I did state numerous times that the secession was not about slavery.

Honestly I'm not sure you care enough to read anyone else's posts because you're just a stubborn ass.

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on July 02, 2015, 06:14:13 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on July 02, 2015, 06:11:57 AM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on July 02, 2015, 04:06:06 AM

I think I objectively stated several times that slavery is evil.

I never disputed your ethical position on slavery. Time and time again I've asked you to prove why the attempt at secession wasn't about slavery and so far you've given me tenuous at best answers, including why they were somehow entitled to slaves.

Quote

So I'm not sure where you're getting any of this, but I guess I'll have to go to school and get a degree in psychology to understand the logical pathways of an autistic child, then I will come back and discuss things with you in a manner you can understand.

Oh no, trust me, you don't need a degree in anything for that mate.

But I did state numerous times that the secession was not about slavery.

Honestly I'm not sure you care enough to read anyone else's posts because you're just a stubborn ass.

Stating something over and over again and then giving half assed answers doesn't automatically make something true. I thought this was obvious.

If that's the case how can you explain your behaviour throughout this entire thread?

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on July 02, 2015, 06:30:09 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on July 02, 2015, 06:23:00 AM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on July 02, 2015, 06:14:13 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on July 02, 2015, 06:11:57 AM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on July 02, 2015, 04:06:06 AM

I think I objectively stated several times that slavery is evil.

I never disputed your ethical position on slavery. Time and time again I've asked you to prove why the attempt at secession wasn't about slavery and so far you've given me tenuous at best answers, including why they were somehow entitled to slaves.

Quote

So I'm not sure where you're getting any of this, but I guess I'll have to go to school and get a degree in psychology to understand the logical pathways of an autistic child, then I will come back and discuss things with you in a manner you can understand.

Oh no, trust me, you don't need a degree in anything for that mate.

But I did state numerous times that the secession was not about slavery.

Honestly I'm not sure you care enough to read anyone else's posts because you're just a stubborn ass.

Stating something over and over again and then giving half assed answers doesn't automatically make something true. I thought this was obvious.

If that's the case how can you explain your behaviour throughout this entire thread?

I'm not the one asserting anything ridiculous here last I recalled.

You seem to be misremembering.