Take down the #ConfederateFlag at the SC Capitol.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Your wrong, you have misrepresented the documents at every turn, we both know it, so does anyone who can read.
Mississippi Secession Convention

"Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention, it is not the purpose or policy of the people of the State of Mississippi to re-open the African slaveTRADE."

Passed 67-13

Debates in Miss, Miss requires the following to joing the CSA.


http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/missconv/missconv.html
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE ADDITIONS:


1st. The President may veto any separate appropriation, without vetoing the whole bill in which it is contained.


2d. The African slave trade is prohibited.


3d. Congress is empowered to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of this Confederacy.


4th. All appropriations must be upon the demand of the President, or heads of departments.


CSA Constitution that bans the international slave TRADE.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp
Article I Section 9(1)The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

Undeniable fact does not mean what you think it means.

You're citing a completely different thing to what I did, Mississippi's Declaration of Succession, their official reasoning for their betrayal. Who do you think you're kidding?

[Jom]

Historical fact is that any flag that existed for a long time can be tied to something bad that was done by powers who used it. With your logic Union Jack and the current US flag could be easily tied all sorts of atrocities, you are just cherry-picking the negative things about CSA to further your claim, which is based on more emotions then facts. And let's not forget that Lincoln was as racist as that Roof kid. If anything, Union's leadership's views resembled what modern left refers to "white supremacism" far more then CSA's, which wanted to maintain slavery for purely pragmatic economic reasons.

Can't really be comparable for a huge number of obvious reasons.

This isn't a valid analogy. As has been pointed out to you several times, the several states only joined the CSA to fight to be able to continue to keep slaves, thus the whole political entity itself owed its entire creation in part to slavery and the pro-slavery stance of its members. I can't think of how you can say the same for Great Britain or the US and therefore say that their flags represent similar things. Sure, atrocities were carried out during their existence, but they weren't formed for the express purpose of defending such an abhorrent institution as slavery, whilst the CSA was and this is why the flag will be irrevocably tied to that.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Ferrets is a hurricane of strawmen, cherrypicking points, and ad hominems. Y'all are ed.

Can you actually quote me making a strawman?

[Hanny]

You're citing a completely different thing to what I did, Mississippi's Declaration of Succession, their official reasoning for their betrayal. Who do you think you're kidding?

Incorrect you made a claim and i have sourced where that claim is shown to be incorrct, its how you demonstare where another is being dishonest.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Incorrect you made a claim and i have sourced where that claim is shown to be incorrct, its how you demonstare where another is being dishonest.

Nowhere in the source does it say that they're not fighting for the maintenance of the institution of slavery - because that's exactly what they were doing. The African (notice that this is specified) trade is not relevant, and it would be impossible for the CSA to engage in the African slave trade as those waters were controlled by the British navy and the rebels wanted the UK to intervene on their side.

[Raubritter]

You people should all read more books.

Meanwhile Amazon is pressured to pull all the CSA flags from its merchandise, and i'am looking at the weekly sales for Holbein Knives and other sorts of Nazi Daggers. Hmmmm.... SA Dagger with Belt Hanger for only 99,95. Guess i'am taking this with some Soviet Flaggs, a Che Shirt and the collected Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Ah finally. The mind of the forum. The zeitgeist of the people. The person we've all been waiting on to weigh in and settle the matter. The one. The only. Raubie Rauberton Raubritter.






The world inhales...

You people should all read more books.

Meanwhile Amazon is pressured to pull all the CSA flags from its merchandise, and i'am looking at the weekly sales for Holbein Knives and other sorts of Nazi Daggers. Hmmmm.... SA Dagger with Belt Hanger for only 99,95. Guess i'am taking this with some Soviet Flaggs, a Che Shirt and the collected Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung.

GOD ING DAMNIT RAUBRITTER NO T SHIRT OF CHE FLIES FROM SOUTH CAROLINAN GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

[Hanny]

Nowhere in the source does it say that they're not fighting for the maintenance of the institution of slavery - because that's exactly what they were doing. The African (notice that this is specified) trade is not relevant, and it would be impossible for the CSA to engage in the African slave trade as those waters were controlled by the British navy and the rebels wanted the UK to intervene on their side.

It was for you to show where they said they were dong what you claimed.

Not relavent again, was the Union fighting top end slavery before 62?, if so why was it returning slaves to their owners. Gotcha. Is everything that shows you to be wrong irelavent?

i have already explicitly sourced the Mississippi declaration of succession, that explicitly states that the ban on the slave TRADE is among its reasons for betraying the Union:

And i have sourced it and MISS debates on Secession and the requirement for Misss entry into the CSA, and the CSA Constitution, that forbade interntaional slavery.

I cannot answer a question based on faulty reasoning to begin with, excepting proving you are wrong by demonstrating the rebels were against the ban on the slave trade. I have backed this with primary source material, and again, is undeniable fact.

Except of course you again have been shown to be misunderstand primary source material and procded to post that which is not to be found in any historical document.
[QUOTE=Ferrets54;14577970]
I explicity quoted where they highlight they are rebelling for the ban on the slaveTRADE. I will do it again:/quote]
Mississippi Secession Convention

"Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention, it is not the purpose or policy of thePEOPLE of the State of Mississippi to re-open the African slaveTRADE."

Passed 67-13

Debates in Miss, Miss requires the following to joing the CSA.


http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/missconv/missconv.html
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE ADDITIONS:


1st. The President may veto any separate appropriation, without vetoing the whole bill in which it is contained.


2d. The African slave trade is prohibited.


3d. Congress is empowered to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of this Confederacy.


4th. All appropriations must be upon the demand of the President, or heads of departments.


CSA Constitution that bans the international slave TRADE.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp
Article I Section 9(1)The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

[removeduser_487563287433]

It was for you to show where they said they were dong what you claimed.

That's what my source, their declaration of succession, does. That's how sourcing things work mate - I make a claim and I back it up with a source. It's not I make a claim, you ignore the source, provide something irrelevant, and demand I use it as a source instead.

Not relavent again, was the Union fighting top end slavery before 62?, if so why was it returning slaves to their owners. Gotcha. Is everything that shows you to be wrong irelavent?

I can't see how any of this is relevant. Looks like the two wrongs make a right fallacy again.

And i have sourced it and MISS debates on Secession and the requirement for Misss entry into the CSA, and the CSA Constitution, that forbade interntaional slavery.

Well you can keep on doing it until the blacks steal your gater farm it will still be irrelevant.

[Hanny]

That's what my source, their declaration of succession, does. That's how sourcing things work mate - I make a claim and I back it up with a source. It's not I make a claim, you ignore the source, provide something irrelevant, and demand I use it as a source instead.

No it does not, here is why it does not. It works like this you make a claim and support it with evidence, i then show you that and further evidence that contradicts your claim, showing that Miss was against the International slave trade, and so was the CSA.

Nowhere in the source does it say that they're not fighting for the maintenance of the institution of slavery - because that's exactly what they were doing. The African (notice that this is specified) trade is not relevant, and it would be impossible for the CSA to engage in the African slave trade as those waters were controlled by the British navy and the rebels wanted the UK to intervene on their side.

It was for you to show where they said they were dong what you claimed.

Not relavent again, was the Union fighting top end slavery before 62?, if so why was it returning slaves to their owners. Gotcha. Is everything that shows you to be wrong irelavent?

i have already explicitly sourced the Mississippi declaration of succession, that explicitly states that the ban on the slave TRADE is among its reasons for betraying the Union:

And i have sourced it and MISS debates on Secession and the requirement for Misss entry into the CSA, and the CSA Constitution, that forbade interntaional slavery.

I cannot answer a question based on faulty reasoning to begin with, excepting proving you are wrong by demonstrating the rebels were against the ban on the slave trade. I have backed this with primary source material, and again, is undeniable fact.

Except of course you again have been shown to be misunderstand primary source material and procded to post that which is not to be found in any historical document.

I explicity quoted where they highlight they are rebelling for the ban on the slaveTRADE. I will do it again:

Mississippi Secession Convention

"Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention, it is not the purpose or policy of thePEOPLE of the State of Mississippi to re-open the African slaveTRADE."

Passed 67-13

Debates in Miss, Miss requires the following to joing the CSA.


http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/missconv/missconv.html
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE ADDITIONS:


1st. The President may veto any separate appropriation, without vetoing the whole bill in which it is contained.


2d. The African slave trade is prohibited.


3d. Congress is empowered to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of this Confederacy.


4th. All appropriations must be upon the demand of the President, or heads of departments.


CSA Constitution that bans the international slave TRADE.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp
Article I Section 9(1)The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

[removeduser_487563287433]

No it does not, here is why it does not. It works like this you make a claim and support it with evidence, i then show you that and further evidence that contradicts your claim, showing that Miss was against the International slave trade, and so was the CSA.

But... the fact that the rebels didn't seek to overturn the ban on the slave trade doesn't contradict my claim that the rebels fought to maintain the institution of slavery itself.

Like... how am I having to explain basic reasoning here? What went wrong with great Southern education?

[Hanny]

This isn't a valid analogy. As has been pointed out to you several times, the several states only joined the CSA to fight to be able to continue to keep slaves, thus the whole political entity itself owed its entire creation in part to slavery and the pro-slavery stance of its members.

Yes it is.

The colonies united to form a poltical Union to win independence from the UK with slavery in almost every State, they enter into Union goverened by the AoC which garentees slavery and protects it over the whole Union. Exactly the same as how the CSA came into being, and largely for the same reason as rebelling against unlawfull excericise of powers in both instances.

I can't think of how you can say the same for Great Britain or the US and therefore say that their flags represent similar things.

The US/CS flag represent exactly the same thing a union, created at onset, that has posistive law to hold property rights in men.

Sure, atrocities were carried out during their existence, but they weren't formed for the express purpose of defending such an abhorrent institution as slavery, whilst the CSA was and this is why the flag will be irrevocably tied to that.

Actually both the new Union and the CSA Union came about from simiar pressures and both had slavery at inciption, and both aserted their intention to hold people to service, ie slaves, but neither came into being for the express purpose of owning a slave.

But... the fact that the rebels didn't seek to overturn the ban on the slave trade doesn't contradict my claim that the rebels fought to maintain the institution of slavery itself.

No it shows for pages you were willing to be dishonst, it shows you misuderstood the primary source documents and were basing a claim on the complet opoisite of the facts, thats undeniably a fact l, see how to use it correctly?

Like... how am I having to explain basic reasoning here? What went wrong with great Southern education?

Not an American,what went wrong with yours that you cant read or comprehend the Miss and CSA posistion on the slave trade?

One reason the rebels fought to maintain the rights of the constitution to hold slaves and only have them freed by a constitutional amendemnet Basic reasoning then. Here you are refering to events in 1860

I am aware of all the above and none of it changes my point, that the rebel flag is the symbol of an insurgency that fought to maintain the institutional and systematic reduction of human beings to the state of property, to maintain the legitimisation of rape, murder, oppression, and once these rebels were defeated became a symbol of terrorists.

Here you are refering to the creation of the AoC.

I am aware of all the above and none of it changes my point, that the National flag is the symbol of an insurgency that fought to maintain the institutional and systematic reduction of human beings to the state of property, to maintain the legitimisation of rape, murder, oppression, and once these rebels were independednt and created a new Union, based on slave ownership, became a symbol of terrorist attacks on slaves over the union

More basic reasoning the North did not goto war over slavery it went to war to preserve the Union,( POTUS and Congress said so) the CSA met that invasion to maintain the same property rights the North had, had them returned for 18 months as slaves, untill as a war measure they withheld them as property used in inuserection, unless they stopped fighting and then they could keep them. Post war the slaves became free after and only with the 11 CS states voting for the 13th and 28 of 36 States had to ratify, 25 free states was not enough to pass it. Ergo while the CS fought the WBTS over rights, one being the right to hold men in bondage, same as the north was fighting for, the other being that Congress or POTUS had no authority to end slavery, only an amendment could do that, and still further rights as inumerated under the seperate sttaes secession ordinces, at wars end it was CS votes that ended slavery, not Northern.


Even more basic?, the Norths laws allowed slavery outside the CSA States to exist, unmoloested, and only CSA votes ended it there.


Even more?, WBTS was only about slavery in so far as it was who had the right to limit or abolish it.Both sides constitutions allowed it in the entire war.

Lastly, rape, murder, oppression, occured under the national flag for a lot longer than the CSA existed.

[Jom]

Yes it is.

The colonies united to form a poltical Union to win independence from the UK with slavery in almost every State, they enter into Union goverened by the AoC which garentees slavery and protects it over the whole Union. Exactly the same as how the CSA came into being, and largely for the same reason as rebelling against unlawfull excericise of powers in both instances.

The US/CS flag represent exactly the same thing a union, created at onset, that has posistive law to hold property rights in men.

The Thirteen Colonies didn't unite in insurrection against Great Britain because they thought George III was going to take away their right to own slaves. It wasn't a prime mover in the same way it was in the creation of the CSA. That's the distinction you seem to be willfully ignoring: that the CSA came about - in the case of some states secession - entirely based around the issue of slavery. It would be ludicrous to argue the same for the Thirteen Colonies.

[Hanny]

6 Companies Ban Confederate Flag Sales after shooting -Walmart, eBay, Sears, Target, Etsy, Amazon. The e-commerce giant said Tuesday that it plans to remove all flags and related merchandise, according to Reuters and The Washington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7648614.html

And yet imnterestingly little movement to ban or limit the sales of weapons to derranged murderous people, who can buy them in shopping mals up and down the USA. There are always going to be hateful people but I would rather have them holding a flag than holding a gun.

Professors: US flag symbolizes racism, should not be displayed on campus
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/...on-campus.html

The Thirteen Colonies didn't unite in insurrection against Great Britain because they thought George III was going to take away their right to own slaves.

Lord Mansfield had set out that UK fundamental law was to abolish slavery in the Empire. Crown did take away their right to own slaves, this isa UK law on insurection copied verbatim into the American codes on insurection. So yes they did know an insurection would cost them their slaves if they lost.

It wasn't a prime mover in the same way it was in the creation of the CSA.

No anolgy is perfect, but is a close enough fit. It fits very well for the creation of teh aoC and the new Union under the constitution, so yes the anolgy is close enough.

That's the distinction you seem to be willfully ignoring: that the CSA came about - in the case of some states secession - entirely based around the issue of slavery. It would be ludicrous to argue the same for the Thirteen Colonies.

Nope, because those States had a right to maintain the property rights as per the Constitution, so they were not in insuretion but maintaining one of the States right.

[Jom]

Lord Mansfield had set out that UK fundamental law was to abolish slavery in the Empire. Crown did take away their right to own slaves, this isa UK law on insurection copied verbatim into the American codes on insurection. So yes they did no an insurection would cost them their slaves if they lost.

No anolgy is perfect, but is a close enough fit. Nope, because those States had a right to maintain the property rights as per the Constitution, so they were not in insuretion but mainating a egal right.

Funny how the Declaration of Independence makes no reference to property rights or slavery, whilst some of the Confederate States' declarations of secession do, isn't it? So why is it that the Union flag represents a defense of slavery just like the Confederate one again?

[Hanny]

Funny how the Declaration of Independence makes no reference to property rights or slavery, whilst some of the Confederate States' declarations of secession do, isn't it? So why is it that the Union flag represents a defense of slavery just like the Confederate one again?

This DOI or some other one that is not a declaration of leawfull secesion? because the US DOI contains "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction, of all ages, sexes and conditions.



Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.




"In June 1776, the Convention of Virginia formally declared, that Virginia was a free, sovereign, and independent state; and on the 4th of July, 1776, following, the United States, in Congress assembled, declared the Thirteen United Colonies free and independent states; and that as such, they had full power to levy war, conclude peace, etc. I consider this as a declaration, not that the United Colonies jointly, in a collective capacity, were independent states, etc. but that each of them was a sovereign and independent state, that is, that each of them had a right to govern itself by its own authority, and its own laws, without any control from any other power upon earth." WARE v. HYLTON


"After the declaration of independence, in 1776, each state, at least before the confederation, was a sovereign independent body. Each had the right to enact laws which no other power could revise; each could make war or conclude peace, without reference to the other; each could raise armies or maintain a navy, without consulting the others; and, in fine, possessed every faculty of sovereign power, as effectually and entirely as either France or England or any of the kingdoms of the old world, and equally as untrammelled." PRIGG v. COM. OF PENNSYLVANIA


"By the declaration of independence the several states were declared to be free, sovereign and independent states; and the sovereignty of each, not of the whole, was the principle of the revolution; there was no connection between them, but that of necessity and self defence, and in what manner each should contribute to the common cause, was a matter left to the discretion of each of the states. By the second article of the confederation the sovereignty of each state is confirmed, and all the rights of sovereignty are declared to be retained which are not by that instrument expressly delegated to the United States in congress assembled." FLETCHER v. PECK

Because under that flag the same laws applied, the same oppression/rape etc occured, only for a lot longer, did you not read that the first time i posted it?

[jackwei]

The Civil War in the US was about the South using states rights to defend the institution of slavery using the 10th amendment as means to defend it and slavery alive as they feared its survival since they restriction of it moving in the new territories won in the Mexican-American War but also the South themselves before had more states than the North who kept on getting their way in Congress by bullying the free states into concessions despite the 1850 Compromise and when the North for the first time had an equal amount of states this time they stood stand up to the Southern States and asked them to compromise this time but they didn't like it so ended up leaving the Union because they never got their way fearing for the survival of slavery grounds for succession as it was seen as necessary evil and positive good by the Southerners at the time.

Slavery of African American was fragmented into religion and politics of the time believing that slavery is the natural and normal condition of these people is subordination to the white race as Alexander Stephens implies quote about the foundations of the CSA look at the cornerstone speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech, plus yes the North fought to preserve the Union as Slavery wasn't an issue at first as the lives of the slaves didn't matter but then it became a war goal to destroy the South's economy is dependent on slavery labor as without slaves their country will fall apart.
About the border states they had slavery but stayed in the Union so the North allowed slavery as they needed their support to defeat to the CSA as without them the War would've been lost.

Anyway that flag as the heritage of the bravery of the soldiers who fought for the CSA that cannot be argued they fought well but to maintain slavery despite the majority of them not having any slaves plus it was about white supremacy and to keep the African Americans in a state of submission to them so it wouldn't threaten their livelihoods or jobs as the top of the ladder is the South is to become a plantation owner which was the goal for the people who someday dreamed to be that and if the South won the war then African Americans would be slaves in those lands until this very day even if their were factories. If you believe oh the flag doesn't represent racism, oppression, white supremacy and slavery to an entire race of people who's natural condition is to be that way according to the philosophy and ideology of the time and no compromise of surrender to that way of life then you're ignoring lots of factors to why it has been used by supremacists.

There were questions about the slavery from the beginning of the union its formation as Washington has President had a hard time keeping it together from the beginning and they all knew that one day the slavery question will come up for generations later to decide on this issue as Jefferson tried but gave up kept in his slaves and views on supremacy which was the norm of the day he knew that the Union could break up slavery and Washington's farewell is proof how fragile could be when talking about those who try to separate parts of the country.

[Hanny]

plus yes the North fought to preserve the Union as Slavery wasn't an issue at first as the lives of the slaves didn't matter but then it became a war goal to destroy the South's economy is dependent on slavery labor as without slaves their country will fall apart.

This bit intersts me, how many slaves do you estimate died as a result of the WBTS?

[Big War Bird]

@Jackwei



C'mon man!

[jackwei]

@Jackwei



C'mon man!

Haha very funny I feel sad and very bad about myself.