No American Flag?

[Pepe_Silvia]

Both were intrinsically racist and preached all manners of racial and ethnic purity.

Same could be said for the North. Lincoln himself preached racism.

Both practiced, in full, slave labor.

As did 4 Union states during the war

Both reviled any instances of basic human rights.

The same could be said about northern states, some of which created laws before the war banning blacks from residing in their states.

Both wore grey uniforms.

Some northern units also wore grey uniforms. So Union soldiers = Nazis???

Both had huge volumes of people that fought and died to protect the interests of a small elite that were not fighting and dying to protect said interests. In fact, slavery was against the interests of most fighting and dying as it deprived them of fair practice access to agricultural jobs. People are still brainwashed even with full access to information today, I can only imagine how easy it was to manipulate an ignorant populace back then.

I agree with the brainwashing part. Case in point: many people still think Lincoln was the greatest president ever, because that's how we in this country are conditioned to think about him from our earliest moments in public education

The common Confederate soldier was not a slave-owner. In fact, most people in the Confederacy were not slave-owners and were misguided to fight and die for an institution they shared no part in. Same with the average German in Nazi Germany.

However, both entities were founded upon vile and evil principles.

I'm sure it probably makes you uncomfortable to be called a Nazi but the talking points of many white supremacy groups share fundamentals with either:

- Late 1800s White Supremacy Groups
- Nazis

I'll leave you to ponder the "why" behind that. And I should also say it wouldn't surprise me if there were some HH/88ers in here geoturfing. Some of y'alls comments are pretty scary in how close to propaganda from that court.

And also the Confederates stated the war "to save their institution". Same with the Germans. Mind you, they invaded Poland to "free ethnic Germans". It was the UK/France's fault they had a defense treaty with Poland. Also, USSR started that war with their own aggression.

Germany also didn't state the oppressive terms of the Versailles Treaty, remember. WW2 is on the French and British shoulders.

So using your "they started a war... but they didn't" thinking you also just defended Nazi Germany. Again.

I can keep going, if you want.

Please, keep going with this tenuous connection between the Confederacy and Nazi Germany

 

[CSpindizzy]

You're not making good points. You're detracting from the real issues. You want to talk about technicalities in statements that have been made, when the point is a good president doesn't deny people food and medicine. You can't argue that, so you question how much impact it actually had, and point out that it wasn't really illegal. Who ****ing cares? If it's wrong, and he did it, that's the point.

I can defend my positions perfectly fine. Orange makes much more constructive opposing points than you, and I'll continue to debate with him. You're a waste of time.

You apply a legal standard that was not even in effect. You call a man a criminal for something that did not exist. It's not a matter of impact. It's a matter of your own application not even existing. It's like accusing Lincoln of violating the charter to the UN. I asked what part of the GC he violated. You mention food and medicine. Just wondering which version of the GC this applies to. The years get pushed back even more.

Denial of food and medicine - again you are saying the south had no access to either?

 

[agent|orange]

You apply a legal standard that was not even in effect. You call a man a criminal for something that did not exist. It's not a matter of impact. It's a matter of your own application not even existing. It's like accusing Lincoln of violating the charter to the UN. I asked what part of the GC he violated. You mention food and medicine. Just wondering which version of the GC this applies to. The years get pushed back even more.

Denial of food and medicine - again you are saying the south had no access to either?

You did.

If you were a man and had enough money, were the right denomination of Christianity and you were the right skin color and ethnic European background.

Sounds like a great place, to be honest.

 

[agent|orange]

Please, keep going with this tenuous connection between the Confederacy and Nazi Germany

The fact that you can make any connection, tenuous or not, to the Nazis is pretty bad.

Yeah, both were misunderstood is all. Both just fought the good fight to keep down a minority group and push back against their villainous liberal neighbors. It wasn't their fault they treated humans like cattle. I mean, their laws supported them doing it so who were these upright and nosy neighbors to tell them "you can't own/torture/incinerate a fellow human".

How dare they, right?

Yeah, keep in mind you're defending a government body that is admired by white supremacy groups (again, one of only 2). If you're comfortable with that, well, that's on you.

 

[hog88]

Are you trying to make a point about debt bondage or are you going to transition to a "the North treated Irish/Polish/Chinese immigrants poorly in textile mills, construction, railroads, etc even in the late 1800s" point?

There are plenty of facets through history to point out wrongs of pretty much any nation. The point is... slavery as a "I bought you. I own you. You are mine to do with what I will" institution was evil and archaic.

And was practiced in 4 union states even after the end of the war.


Just for clarification.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

The fact that you can make any connection, tenuous or not, to the Nazis is pretty bad.

Yeah, both were misunderstood is all. Both just fought the good fight to keep down a minority group and push back against their villainous liberal neighbors. It wasn't their fault they treated humans like cattle. I mean, their laws supported them doing it so who were these upright and nosy neighbors to tell them "you can't own/torture/incinerate a fellow human".

How dare they, right?

Yeah, keep in mind you're defending a government body that is admired by white supremacy groups (again, one of only 2). If you're comfortable with that, well, that's on you.

A tenuous connection can be made between Nazi Germany and the U.S. government at various times in its history. But, if you're comfortable with that, it's on you.

 

[mrorange211]

It says all men not rich white guy.

Yes, because we all know that this country only governs according to the exact words of its political documents.

 

[agent|orange]

And was practiced in 4 union states even after the end of the war.


Just for clarification.

And those Union states were against the practice. Otherwise they would not have sided with the government body that was adamantly against the severance of that practice from being a legal institution.

Period.

Same with the United Kingdom in the early 1800s. Sure, the BEI was allowed to continue practicing it for about 2 decades after the legislation was passed by the UK Parliament that it was to be outlawed on Crown lands... the intent and direction was clear.

It's coming to an end. You can have time to make arrangements for a socially and economically peaceful and smooth transition away from said practice.

And those states showed they were able to end the practice peacefully while maintaining their part in the Union. So why were they able to peacefully end said practice without pushing for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the economic destruction of the South for generations?

It wasn't an integral part of those states economies and the major cities in those states were against the institution. Therefore, there wasn't a central force of wealthy and influential people that were brainwashing the poor rural folks to go die for them. Instead, they convinced the poor rural folks to go die to keep the Union whole.

For the same reason Eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina (very much non-slavery areas) were relatively sympathetic to the Union cause.

States that didn't have slave-owning wealthy elite dominating politics and same with regions even in Confederate states that were very much economically not tied to slavery... and this is just really odd... were opposed to slavery.

You know, it kind of reminds me of modern politics. Oddly enough, the politicians railing for one interest or another usually have large sums of money donated to their campaigns by prominent businesses in the industry their campaigning for.

It's just... weird. It's almost as if interests can be bought with monetary figures and representatives that have no children being sent off to die don't care about the people that do and simply vote out of selfish ambitions.

Instead, wealthy Southern plantation owners stamped their feet and denied that their practice was inhumane and defended it with Scripture. Then they convinced hundreds of thousands of poor non-slaveowners to go die for their coffers.

And the propaganda was so strong it permeates even to this day. Unreal.

 

[agent|orange]

A tenuous connection can be made between Nazi Germany and the U.S. government at various times in its history. But, if you're comfortable with that, it's on you.

I don't defend that.

In the least, actually, if you remember my stance on torture, etc.

This nation has done some despicable things in it's past. I don't try to deny them, run from them or whataboutism them away.

The US was wrong in it's treatment of the Natives.

The US was wrong to imprison US citizens of Japanese ethnicity.

The US was wrong to conduct eugenic and other genetic experiments on US citizens.

I can keep going. I don't deny that history nor do I try to reason it away.

It's your "lost cause, they didn't start it" line that separates the 2 of us.

 

[hog88]

And those Union states were against the practice. Otherwise they would not have sided with the government body that was adamantly against the severance of that practice from being a legal institution.

Period.

Same with the United Kingdom in the early 1800s. Sure, the BEI was allowed to continue practicing it for about 2 decades after the legislation was passed by the UK Parliament that it was to be outlawed on Crown lands... the intent and direction was clear.

It's coming to an end. You can have time to make arrangements for a socially and economically peaceful and smooth transition away from said practice.

And those states showed they were able to end the practice peacefully while maintaining their part in the Union. So why were they able to peacefully end said practice without pushing for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the economic destruction of the South for generations?

It wasn't an integral part of those states economies and the major cities in those states were against the institution. Therefore, there wasn't a central force of wealthy and influential people that were brainwashing the poor rural folks to go die for them. Instead, they convinced the poor rural folks to go die to keep the Union whole.

For the same reason Eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina (very much non-slavery areas) were relatively sympathetic to the Union cause.

States that didn't have slave-owning wealthy elite dominating politics and same with regions even in Confederate states that were very much economically not tied to slavery... and this is just really odd... were opposed to slavery.

You know, it kind of reminds me of modern politics. Oddly enough, the politicians railing for one interest or another usually have large sums of money donated to their campaigns by prominent businesses in the industry their campaigning for.

It's just... weird. It's almost as if interests can be bought with monetary figures and representatives that have no children being sent off to die don't care about the people that do and simply vote out of selfish ambitions.

Instead, wealthy Southern plantation owners stamped their feet and denied that their practice was inhumane and defended it with Scripture. Then they convinced hundreds of thousands of poor non-slaveowners to go die for their coffers.

And the propaganda was so strong it permeates even to this day. Unreal.

Are you fing clueless? Lincoln promised at the onset that he had no intention of ending slavery.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Whether Lincoln had intentions or not at the offset of the war, the south driving force was to keep it, protect it, and ensure it lasted even longer. As the war went on Lincoln saw the opportunity to strike at that mindset directly in the heart. He took it.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

And those Union states were against the practice. Otherwise they would not have sided with the government body that was adamantly against the severance of that practice from being a legal institution.

Those Union states were against slavery but didn't bother to abolish it?

 

[agent|orange]

Are you fing clueless? Lincoln promised at the onset that he had no intention of ending slavery.

And Bush said we went into Iraq to free the people there.

I suppose you believe that line too?

 

[hog88]

Whether Lincoln had intentions or not at the offset of the war, the south driving force was to keep it, protect it, and ensure it lasted even longer. As the war went on Lincoln saw the opportunity to strike at that mindset directly in the heart. He took it.

Correct, he used it as a rallying point. The war had become extremely unpopular and he needed something.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

I don't defend that.

In the least, actually, if you remember my stance on torture, etc.

This nation has done some despicable things in it's past. I don't try to deny them, run from them or whataboutism them away.

The US was wrong in it's treatment of the Natives.

The US was wrong to imprison US citizens of Japanese ethnicity.

The US was wrong to conduct eugenic and other genetic experiments on US citizens.

I can keep going. I don't deny that history nor do I try to reason it away.

It's your "lost cause, they didn't start it" line that separates the 2 of us.

I'm not a "Lost Cause" advocate. Nor, contrary to what I was conditioned to believe in public school, do I believe the North's war effort was glorious and just.

 

[hog88]

And Bush said we went into Iraq to free the people there.

I suppose you believe that line too?

No, never did. Next.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Lincoln's 1863 Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the border states. Of the states that were exempted from the Proclamation, Maryland (1864),[11] Missouri (1865),[12] Tennessee (1865),[13] and West Virginia (1865)[14] abolished slavery before the war ended. However, Delaware[15] and Kentucky did not abolish slavery until December 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified.[16] -- Wikipedia

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

Whether Lincoln had intentions or not at the offset of the war, the south driving force was to keep it, protect it, and ensure it lasted even longer. As the war went on Lincoln saw the opportunity to strike at that mindset directly in the heart. He took it.

The abolition of slavery was simply a means to an end for Lincoln. He's not the saint many people make him out to be.

 

[Obsessed]

Are you fing clueless? Lincoln promised at the onset that he had no intention of ending slavery.

He placed no value on blacks.

 

[agent|orange]

Those Union states were against slavery but didn't bother to abolish it?

Ending something cold turkey is how you end up with a pink sock. Does stopping anything cold turkey ever work?

Every other nation in the world that ended slavery did so in a transitional setting. It's not ideal, but it's the best way to slowly transition a large number of people peacefully into your society and not cause large amounts of economic damage in the process.

The US had the chance to start transitioning away from slavery once the slave trade ended 50 years before the Civil War. Again, as per the Constitution.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

Ending something cold turkey is how you end up with a pink sock. Does stopping anything cold turkey ever work?

Every other nation in the world that ended slavery did so in a transitional setting. It's not ideal, but it's the best way to slowly transition a large number of people peacefully into your society and not cause large amounts of economic damage in the process.

The US had the chance to start transitioning away from slavery once the slave trade ended 50 years before the Civil War. Again, as per the Constitution.

I'm talking about the 4 slave states that never seceded and didn't abolish slavery until late in the war.

 

[CSpindizzy]

The abolition of slavery was simply a means to an end for Lincoln. He's not the saint many people make him out to be.

I'm not here arguing over Lincoln's sainthood. My point has been on the CSA and slavery. The "noble cause" is not exactly what people make it out to be either.

 

[Grand Vol]

He placed no value on blacks.

Sure he did. How else would his wife's family have gotten by otherwise?

Also, some interesting facts.

5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

I'm not here arguing over Lincoln's sainthood. My point has been on the CSA and slavery. The "noble cause" is not exactly what people make it out to be either.

I agree. I don't know if there ever really has been a truly "noble cause" in any war.

 

[hog88]

I'm not here arguing over Lincoln's sainthood. My point has been on the CSA and slavery. The "noble cause" is not exactly what people make it out to be either.

I agree, defending slavery was not a noble cause.