Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Panthro

If the Rebel Flag is just a sign of southern culture

194 posts in this topic

when did i say all black folk like the flag? you guys are a bunch of fools. who gives a fug what u think?

Ill break it down for you. Because a few black people approve/disapprove of something, doesn't mean its ok with the majority/doesn't make it ok (or wrong for that matter).

Keep in mind I've state my opinion on this already. Just don't really care for the logic you presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when did folks bring logic to the tinderbox?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the Rebel Flag is racist, because the other day I saw one flapping in the wind, and it smacked a black chick on the ass. Wait, I guess that actually makes it sexist, never mind.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would give ya pie and rep if I could!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Maryland and Missouri, Slavery was outlawed by the state constitutions, and the owners received no compensation from either the federal or the state goverment. In Kentucky, slaves were not freed until the ratification of the 13th amendment. I don't know if they received compensation, but I doubt they did.

I also know that that the Union declared slaves to be contraband property, just like anything else that could be used to help the war effort, and therebye nullifying any need to compensate the owners.

But I am not sure what any of this has to do with why the war was fought? If you are saying that the war would not have been fought had the Union offered the owners cash, then well thats laughable.

If you look beyond your current "history" you'll find that Lincoln himself owned slaves and when the northern states "gave up" their slaves, they were paid for them. Long and short of it is that Lincoln paid himself. The north were by no means angels.

The war was fought for many more reasons that just slavery and it's shortsighted, ignorant, and quite offensive to say as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look beyond your current "history" you'll find that Lincoln himself owned slaves and when the northern states "gave up" their slaves, they were paid for them. Long and short of it is that Lincoln paid himself. The north were by no means angels.

The war was fought for many more reasons that just slavery and it's shortsighted, ignorant, and quite offensive to say as much.

Hogwash. You are just making stuff up as you go. I should have known better than to try to have a serious adult conversation with a conspiracy wingnut.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're off your fuging rocker man.

Lincoln didn't have slaves huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're off your fuging rocker man.

Lincoln didn't have slaves huh?

Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lincoln quote

1865:* “I have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves it should be first those who desire it for themselves, and secondly those who desire it for others.* Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.”* ( Lincoln, 1953, v8, p360-1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lincoln was from Illinois which was a slavery free state. If he owned slaves it was somewhere else. I've never actually found a convincing argument that he did own slaves. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson did however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee and Stonewall Jackson were not slave owners. Grant and Sherman were. FACT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites