Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by XODUS1914

I didn't assume anything.

Sure.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by XODUS1914

Ironically, the "Confederate Flag" as we know it, is not even the original Confederate flag, but that's another story.

Which has been discussed quite a few times here at GC.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Which has been discussed quite a few times here at GC.

He wants to inform.

Interestingly enough, this goes back to my original statement:
This isn't the Confederate Flag, itself.

[UofM-TKE]

Since you have twice chosen to inform me that I am in error, I will reply again.

An American 'legal perspective' is completely irrelevant to a Human Rights issue. The fundamental Human Right of Self Determination is independent of any court. In particular, it is independent of the American Supreme Court. Humanity has the right to choose their own form of government no matter what the USSC says. They had this right before the USSC came into existence and they will have it when the USSC is history.

Quoting a USSC decision from just after the war is merely Victor's Justice. If Ewell had taken Culp's Hill at Gettysburg, that case would never have been heard. But in any case, the hearing of it or the non-hearing do not effect the right of people to govern themselves.

In logic, we abstract away to get at the underlying form of the argument. Many words that seem different are really the same from the point of view of the analysis of the form of an argument. Saying that secede and revolt are different is ingenuous as born out by the firing on Fort Sumpter, which was surely a revolt. Both words can be abstracted to leave. Then saying that the US has the right to leave GB, but that the South cannot leave the US, is the very definition of Special Pleading.

Saying that the relationship was different, is irrelevant. No mater what the previous form of the relationship, we all have a right to Self Determination which is a right not granted by the USSC, but rather by, in Jefferson's words "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God".

Since you keep using the wrong name for England at that time, I will expand on that. In 1776, our opponent was Great Britain. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland came into existence on Jan 1, 1801, at least from the English point of view. From the Irish point of view, it was meaningless as the native Irish recognized neither the Kingdom Of Ireland nor the UK. The Irish, the Americans and every other country within the British Empire and every other place on earth had the right of Self Determination which did not depend upon any court.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

No, it's not special pleading, it's a different situation to begin with. It's different because SC did not have the same relation to the UK as it did/does to the US. The political relationships were different at the outset.

It's also not the same because SC did not secede from the UK, it revolted. There is a difference between the two. If you'll note, Texas v White pretty much says that states can't secede and that the only way they can sever ties with the Union is with the consent of the other states or revolution. By that Supreme Court holding, it would appear that SC could leave the Union exactly the way it left the UK -- not by secession but by revolution.

I see what you're saying in terms of logical problems and philosophical considerations. But when you term it as "rights," I don't think it's surprising for a response to be framed from a legal perspective.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Maybe some people protest the Confederate flag because of its connection, not necessarily to slavery, but its connection to violence from terrorist organizations that are still allowed to demonstrate hatred towards other Americans (true, but whatever). Just a thought.

And my random thought is I wonder how it would have changed history if the French got involved in the Civil War like they almost did, joining the South. Hmm, we'd probably be divided like European countires. Maybe, maybe not.

Oh dear, France. I think things would have been even worse for the Confederacy if France was involved. They had helped during the Revolutionary War, and had their Revolution, Napoleon had Waterloo, and we were still paying them back borrowed money. There was the whole issue in Mexico and Cinco de Mayo and potentially pissing off the British. I could picture Britain supporting the Union just because France was supporting the Confederacy and well. Britain is still ticked at times about the Battle of Hastings. Of course if Britain hadn't done better in the French and Indian War, things could have been different.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by XODUS1914

This is a common myth, though.

Slavery was practiced worldwide before the Americans did it. That didn't make everyone else right either. America gets the 'Bloodiest Hands" award because of the extremity, not because we did it.

American slavery was far more humane than most forms of slavery (and I say most, because the only one I can think of that might have been more humane is the Russian slaves...which is the etymology of the word..Slavs/Slaves)

American slavery was unique to modern times because of it totality,

What does totality mean? Because there were alot of them? Not really. In the South, slaves consisted of perhaps 45% of the population...maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less depending on your source.

But that's not a high percentage of the population whatsoever especially according to Encylcopaedia Brittanica's "Guide to Black History"

Among some of the various Islamic Berber Tuareg peoples of the Sahara and Sahel, slavery persisted at least until 1975. The proportions of slaves ranged from around 15 percent among the Adrar to perhaps 75 percent among the Gurma. In Senegambia, between 1300 and 1900, about a third of the population consisted of slaves. In Sierra Leone in the 19th century close to half the population was enslaved. In the Vai Paramount chiefdoms in the 19th century as much as three-quarters of the population consisted of slaves. Among the Ashanti and Yoruba a third were enslaved. In the 19th century over half the population consisted of slaves among the Duala of the Cameroon, the Ibo and other peoples of the lower Niger, the Kongo, and the Kasanje kingdom and Chokwe of Angola.

http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24157

it's brutality,

Brutality? Nah, not really. It had it's bad spots, as slavery does but it's no where near as brutal as the Jews, during the Khmer Empire, or a few others. (Koreans in Japan)

it's lenght

I mentioned the Jews...the helots in Sparta I believe were enslaved much longer as well as about twenty other people's. The human race is cruel.

and it's depth.

I don't know what that means?

No other race in modern times was killed and/or enslaved on sight, and subjugated to a systematical erasure of it's culture,history and religion. Not to mention the whole raping thing.

Assuming that race is real (I don't know that I believe it) and thus ignoring that part of the argument, you are an absolute fool. I guess you have forgotten all of Central and South America. Perhaps, you should read Bartolome De Las Casas "Destruction of the Indies".

It has been well documented the differences between pre-colonial slavery and the Middle Passage. More than a few researchers have concluded that the Africans who sold other Africans into slavery simply could not fathom the level of brutuality that was to occur, simply becasue it hadn't happened since Biblical times.

Except it has. Repeatedly. Human nature can be cruel. I would argue that even more so, the African-to-America experience was far less brutal than the African-to-other parts of Africa. I mean, you do know what brought the majority of the slaves to the ports...right?

I would argue that America has bloodied hands for three reasons. It is politically viable for certain demogogues to "blood-up-the-hands", sort of the "bloody flag" theory. Secondly, it is more noticeable than most of the other slavery attempts in that the skin color is almost a signifier whereas in Russia with the serfs, Greece with the Helots, and Africa with the various slavery systems, the skin color is not a signifier of slavery (it's not really here, as we have African immigrants...but the majority are not recent African immigrants). Lastly, because rights weren't fully given and African-Americans had to work to gain them.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

American slavery was far more humane than most forms of slavery (and I say most, because the only one I can think of that might have been more humane is the Russian slaves...which is the etymology of the word..Slavs/Slaves)


Except it has. Repeatedly. Human nature can be cruel. I would argue that even more so, the African-to-America experience was far less brutal than the African-to-other parts of Africa. I mean, you do know what brought the majority of the slaves to the ports...right?

Im sorry...I just have to disagree with you.

How do you figure that the chattel system in the US was 'humane'? when the effects are still being felt TODAY?

As to the 2nd passage you do realize that the reason why there is no accurate number of how many were brought to these shores is due to the huge amounts of people thrown (or jumped) overboard ships.

Show me one example of this ' humane ' treatment you refer to.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Im sorry...I just have to disagree with you.

How do you figure that the chattel system in the US was 'humane'? when the effects are still being felt TODAY?

As to the 2nd passage you do realize that the reason why there is no accurate number of how many were brought to these shores is due to the huge amounts of people thrown (or jumped) overboard ships.

Show me one example of this ' humane ' treatment you refer to.

Have you heard of Doug Wilson and his writings on how slavery was beneficial for the slaves, and they were better off? He lives in my town and hosted a conference about it. No lie, google him.

http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Slave.../dp/188576717X You can inter-library loan it or something.

[DaemonSeid]

@VandalSquirrel I heard of him and if I remember correctly he had to retract a whole lot of that hooey he said.

He's anti gay too if memory serves...

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Im sorry...I just have to disagree with you.

How do you figure that the chattel system in the US was 'humane'? when the effects are still being felt TODAY?

I didn't say that it was humane.

I said that it was "more humane." Large difference. At that point it can be very inhumane, but still more humane than others. And you can argue about whether or not the effects are being felt, I disagree (at least on the psyche of being a slave...not necessarily the greater socio-economic effects).

As to the 2nd passage you do realize that the reason why there is no accurate number of how many were brought to these shores is due to the huge amounts of people thrown (or jumped) overboard ships.

That doesn't debunk my statement.

Originally Posted by AZ1897

Dude are you kidding me? It's obvious you don't like black people, I get that. Some of the other shit you've posted makes that more than obvious. Just grow a set of balls and say it.

I'm not sure anything I wrote says anything to that effect. The poster had absolutely no idea what he was talking about in regards to the history of slavery. Would you care to debunk it?

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

@VandalSquirrel I heard of him and if I remember correctly he had to retract a whole lot of that hooey he said.

He's anti gay too if memory serves...

Oh the school he runs is just strange, I love the code of conduct about narcing on others and not listening to popular music.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

I didn't say that it was humane.

I said that it was "more humane." Large difference. At that point it can be very inhumane, but still more humane than others. And you can argue about whether or not the effects are being felt, I disagree (at least on the psyche of being a slave...not necessarily the greater socio-economic effects).


That doesn't debunk my statement.

It's like you was saying water is 'more wet'.

Either way what you said just doesn't make sense. When people are systematically killed and their culture is wiped out after living on these shores, humane is the farthest word that comes to mind.

It's like saying a man is 'more humane' because he beats his dog a little less.

Chattel slavery in the US was far from 'humane'.

What exactly is compassionate about keeping slaves?

"I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of the land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels. Never was there a clearer case of 'stealing the livery of the court of heaven to serve the devil in.' I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show, together with the horrible inconsistencies, which every where surround me. We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members. The man who wields the blood-clotted cowskin during the week fills the pulpit on Sunday, and claims to be a minister of the meek and lowly Jesus. . . . The slave auctioneer’s bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in the slave-trade go hand in hand together. The slave prison and the church stand near each other. The clanking of fetters and the rattling of chains in the prison, and the pious psalm and solemn prayer in the church, may be heard at the same time. The dealers in the bodies and souls of men erect their stand in the presence of the pulpit, and they mutually help each other. The dealer gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit, and the pulpit, in return, covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity. Here we have religion and robbery the allies of each other—devils dressed in angels’ robes, and hell presenting the semblance of paradise."

~Frederick Douglass

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

I'm not sure anything I wrote says anything to that effect.

It didn't. But, you do dislike the difference between "it's" and "its."

As for what you said, I disagree with people's (usually white people's) need to quantify and compare everything. Slavery can stand alone without being compared to anything. It was a shitty practice regardless of the fact that slavery existed outside of North America and whether or not conditions were as horrendous as reported. It (both ideologically and economically) served as the foundation for the racist ideologies and practices that still have a hold on societies (N.America and others).

I liken this discussion to that of the Holocaust. Sure, there are people here and there who will claim that it wasn't all it was cracked up to be and that the conditions of the Jews paled in comparison to that of (insert bullshit comparison). Jews, in general, are quick to put a foot up your ass if you EVER try to lessen the horrendousness of this experience and act as though they, as a group, have no reason to be outraged.

With all of that said, still fuck Lincoln and the horse he rode in on--and I'm not offended by the Confederate Flag ITSELF.

ETA: Oh yeah, fuck Frederick Douglass with his posthumously inducted Alpha Phi Alpha ass.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AZ1897

As far as I'm concerned, you don't know what you're talking about. Were you a slave? I've been on here before, and I've seen some of the dumb shit you've posted about black people. Just based on some of your posts alone, your opinion isn't credible at all.

Shut up.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AZ1897

Haha how's it goin' sweet pea?

Better than you.

ETA: If this is my annoying cyber-boo Xanthus, I meant the "shut up" but you can add a to lighten the tone.