Confederate flag is racist? So why did 4 NORTHERN states have legal slavery during the Civil War.?

[ShootSpeeders]

the Confederate flag has been hijacked by the white supremacists and the various other incarnations of race hatred.

What evidence do you have for that silly statement. ? And BTW, the only race haters in america are people like you that support affirmative action.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Since 2009 the history of our nation and the traditions, values, and mores of us as a once-united people have suddenly become suspect as if we've been doing everything ass-backwards for the last 239 years.

What has changed?

Could it be the semi-Negro on the woodpile?

That would be the mental disorder OKA: Delusion. Which is now forming into a mass-hysteria among the Relativists, who have no foundation in reality.

The old saw: "Those who believe in Nothing, will believe anything." speaks specifically to this unenviable phenomenon. And it came about as a result of circumstances just like this, which precede every human cataclysm in world history.

Understand that such is the nature of evil... and it is the only means by which evil is manifested.

Which is the reason that civilizations establish rules, sets standards as means to avoid such... and which over time become recognized as traditions and heritage, which come to fall to the wayside, as the 'new generations' spawned among prosperity and peace provided by those rules and standard reject them as 'contrivances' designed to 'control the masses'.

In fact, they are designed to guide the individual, thus by logical extension they guide the collective, until they're no longer recognized as necessary by the hubris of the individual self... and the unbridled ego of those separated from the spirit of God.

Which unhinges the individual from the standards that sustained the collective and inevitably unhinges the collective, through madness... releasing it to its unenviable demise.

At which time, it all comes crashing down around them... .

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Let me add that when the war started, even washington DC practiced legal slavery. Yes - the capital of the North. They did end it midway thru the war.

Its great that DC ended it midway through the war, however is it reasonable to assume then that, since the war was actually initiated in DC, and the orders to commence the fighting came from DC, that it is possible that the war was not started over slavery?
again, slavery did not come into it until the north saw the south trying to get support from France, then the north ditched their slaves and made the war about slavery, why? because France was morally against slavery and the north knew that the Frence would never fight or support any war in order to maintain such an institution.
The war was not fought over slavery.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reader, understand that Nietzsche was the first apostate Christian to gaze fully upon man's loss of faith and its terrifying consequences.

Linda Kimball's said it best as she closed her thesis on the biblical study of this phenomenon:

"Nietzsche was the first apostate Christian to gaze fully upon man's loss of faith and its terrifying consequences. With no living God 'up there' to obstruct his vision, the nihilism he saw was agonizing. As there was no longer any Light from God above, there was only darkness in the hermetically sealed world below. The paralyzing darkness that overtook the mind of the 'new' Christ was spiritual. It was not so much,

"....an exterior phenomenon crowding inward but rather an inner blinding that spread outward." (Ravi Zacharias, p. 27)

This was precisely Nietzsche's point. With the death of the personal God of Revelation the darkness of objective meaninglessness would penetrate every avenue of thought and life, making life itself unbearable with the consequence of hedonism, abortion, euthanasia, sodomy, suicide, drugs, crime and murder becoming virtues.

Speaking through the writings of the 'new' Christ, Zarathustra went on to say that because God had died in the 19th century there would follow two terrible consequences beginning in the 20th century. (Romans 1:18)

First, the 20th century would become one of the most evil century's in history, and second, a universal madness (Romans 1:21, 22) would break out and turn the once glorious W. Europe and America upside-down.

Though apostates and the apostatizing professed themselves wise, their cognitive thought processes would become darkened (vain) and with their conscience dead to sin they would become fools, meaning they would accept and publicly profess incredibly stupid conceptions of themselves (i.e., man is an evolved worm, ape or robot; man is evolving into god).

"And I will give children to be their princes, and the effeminate shall rule over them." Isaiah 3:4

In turning away from the Spirit of God and the truth He has given, 'wise' males will become effeminate cowards and females mannish. They will be adolescent emotional-tyrants in adult-size bodies: sinister, greedy, spiteful, vindictive, treacherous, back-stabbing sophists. They will celebrate Lucifer (the devil) and in their madness actively seek the way of Luciferian initiation because they will be spiritually blind in regard to total reality. Like demons they will flee from the cross of Jesus but exalt the devil as the first free thinker, the genetic creator of man, the seething energy and angel of evolution. Truth will be lies, evil will be good, unfaithfulness will be faith and the 'wise' will preach and blaspheme from pulpits, exercise political power, enact legislation, and wield broken law to plunder, punish, and ruin.

Zarathustra has been right on both counts. First, apostatizing W. Europe and America, though dotted here and there by small islands of Light, decency and sanity, are becoming darkened, satanically inverted places ruled by the 'wise,' hence boiling over with madness, particularly Hollywood, academia, mainstream media and the highest, most powerful political offices in the land.

Second, Nietzsche was made to show the 'wise' what is in store for them by spending the last eleven years of his life, insane.

Nihilism and Satanic inversion godless America s new reality of non-self and madness

 

[NYcarbineer]

the Confederate flag has been hijacked by the white supremacists and the various other incarnations of race hatred.

What evidence do you have for that silly statement. ? And BTW, the only race haters in america are people like you that support affirmative action.

Gee I don't know...

 

[BULLDOG]

Since 2009 the history of our nation and the traditions, values, and mores of us as a once-united people have suddenly become suspect as if we've been doing everything ass-backwards for the last 239 years.

What has changed?

Could it be the semi-Negro on the woodpile?

Nope. It's racist right wingers who just can't accept a black president, and the total loss of integrity by the GOP

We can accept a black president, why, we can even accept one that really IS black, not just a slim margine of black.
That black that will get the acceptance however will have to be one that is a non-socialist POS thats only intent is to destroy the United States. And I suspect that that American Black President that is supported by the right will not be married to a transvestite that thinks that its ok for the average person to live on less that 40k a year while he/she flies around the world on lavish taxpayer funded vacations.
But, you keep thinking what you want. If you and yours ever actually get the U.S to a place that you think is good, You are going to be in a very bad postion when you realize there is nobody left to pay for your lifestyle.

The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples money

God you are a stupid parrot.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Since 2009 the history of our nation and the traditions, values, and mores of us as a once-united people have suddenly become suspect as if we've been doing everything ass-backwards for the last 239 years.

What has changed?

Could it be the semi-Negro on the woodpile?

Nope. It's racist right wingers who just can't accept a black president, and the total loss of integrity by the GOP

We can accept a black president, why, we can even accept one that really IS black, not just a slim margine of black.
That black that will get the acceptance however will have to be one that is a non-socialist POS thats only intent is to destroy the United States. And I suspect that that American Black President that is supported by the right will not be married to a transvestite that thinks that its ok for the average person to live on less that 40k a year while he/she flies around the world on lavish taxpayer funded vacations.
But, you keep thinking what you want. If you and yours ever actually get the U.S to a place that you think is good, You are going to be in a very bad postion when you realize there is nobody left to pay for your lifestyle.

The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples money

God you are a stupid parrot.

That's actually pretty funny coming from a welfare sucking liberal.
without talking points, you and those like you would never be able to function.

 

[Syriusly]

KY MD DE and MO all had legal widespread slavery during the 4 years of the Civil War. Around 400,000 slaved combined in the 4 states. How could the CW possibly be about slavery then???

The idea that the CW was about slavery is not just wrong, it's absurd. But most americans have been brainwashed into believing it.

The North did not go to war to end slavery, but the South did go to war to protect slavery.

The use of the Confederate Battle Flag in Southern States dates to the 1960's- just coincidentally the same era as the big battles for ending racial discrimination laws.

 

[Rogue 9]

KY MD DE and MO all had legal widespread slavery during the 4 years of the Civil War. Around 400,000 slaved combined in the 4 states. How could the CW possibly be about slavery then???

The idea that the CW was about slavery is not just wrong, it's absurd. But most americans have been brainwashed into believing it.

Those states were not Northern and someone from one of them at the time would have been insulted had you said so; they were loyal. There's a difference.

As to your second point, the idea that the Civil War was about slavery is not just right, it's absurd to believe otherwise. But some Americans have been brainwashed into believing it wasn't. Check this out.

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."


Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

And this.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

And also this.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association.

And even this!

I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery. This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery.

Mr. President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. There are now in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that race? To remove them from amongst us is impossible. History gives us no account of the exodus of such a number of persons. We neither have a place to which to remove them, nor the means of such removal. They therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint, they would either be destroyed by our own hands - the hands to which they look, and look with confidence, for protection - or we ourselves would become demoralized and degraded. The former result would take place, and we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves. To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse, we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin; and we must, therefore, this day elect between the Government formed by our fathers (the whole spirit of which has been perverted), and POVERTY AND CRIME! This being the alternative, I cannot hesitate for a moment what my duty is. I must separate from the Government of my fathers, the one under which I have lived, and under which I wished to die. But I must do my duty to my country and my fellow beings; and humanity, in my judgment, demands that Alabama should separate herself from the Government of the United States.

If I am wrong in this responsible act, I hope my God may forgive me; for I am not actuated, as I think, from any motive save that of justice and philanthropy!

Because as we all know, genocide is just and philanthropic.

Need I go on? Because there's reams and reams of this. The historical record is overwhelmingly clear; the Slave Power seceded to preserve and expand the institution of slavery.

 

[BULLDOG]

Since 2009 the history of our nation and the traditions, values, and mores of us as a once-united people have suddenly become suspect as if we've been doing everything ass-backwards for the last 239 years.

What has changed?

Could it be the semi-Negro on the woodpile?

Nope. It's racist right wingers who just can't accept a black president, and the total loss of integrity by the GOP

We can accept a black president, why, we can even accept one that really IS black, not just a slim margine of black.
That black that will get the acceptance however will have to be one that is a non-socialist POS thats only intent is to destroy the United States. And I suspect that that American Black President that is supported by the right will not be married to a transvestite that thinks that its ok for the average person to live on less that 40k a year while he/she flies around the world on lavish taxpayer funded vacations.
But, you keep thinking what you want. If you and yours ever actually get the U.S to a place that you think is good, You are going to be in a very bad postion when you realize there is nobody left to pay for your lifestyle.

The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples money

God you are a stupid parrot.

That's actually pretty funny coming from a welfare sucking liberal.
without talking points, you and those like you would never be able to function.

Nope, I've been luck enough to make it without welfare, but when I was younger, it was close a time or two.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

KY MD DE and MO all had legal widespread slavery during the 4 years of the Civil War.

.

Those states were not Northern and someone from one of them at the time would have been insulted had you said so; they were loyal. There's a difference.

.

OMG - what a brazen liar you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They most certainly were northern. Their govts chose to stay in the union and they fought for the north and they participated in the 1862 and 1864 northern elections. And yet they practiced slavery. That is proof positive that the CW was NOT about slavery.

The four border states could have gone to the south but chose not to. If they had, there would have been no war because the north wouldn't have had a chance.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

. The historical record is overwhelmingly clear; the Slave Power seceded to preserve and expand the institution of slavery.

No - slave power didn't. Four of the slave states stayed in the union. How do you explain that?? If lincoln's goal was to free the slaves why didn't he order the four northern slave states to end slavery or join the south. THINK

 

[Mr. H.]

Oh, and on a lighter note, how funny is it when one of USMB's premiere racists starts a thread to tell us how not-racist something is?

lol

You do realize that the environmental movement mostly hurts blacks, minorities, and the poor?

Which makes you... a racist.

 

[williepete]

 

[Syriusly]

KY MD DE and MO all had legal widespread slavery during the 4 years of the Civil War.

.

Those states were not Northern and someone from one of them at the time would have been insulted had you said so; they were loyal. There's a difference.

.

. And yet they practiced slavery. That is proof positive that the CW was NOT about slavery.

Once again you demonstrate your lack of a grasp of logic.

The North did not go to war to free slaves, or over slavery- but the South seceded because they believed(stupidly) that they were doing so to protect their right to own slaves.

The 4 states that did not secede did so for their own self interest- and that has nothing to do with why the Confederate States chose to start the war.

 

[Syriusly]

. The historical record is overwhelmingly clear; the Slave Power seceded to preserve and expand the institution of slavery.

No - slave power didn't. Four of the slave states stayed in the union. How do you explain that?? If lincoln's goal was to free the slaves why didn't he order the four northern slave states to end slavery or join the south. THINK

Lincoln's goal was never to 'free the slaves'- no one other than you is making that claim. Lincoln's goal was to preserve the Union. Later- freeing the slaves in the rebellious states furthered that goal and that ultimately led to freeing all of the slaves in the United States.

Lincoln never had any authority to order any state not in rebellion to end slavery- he was only able to do so with the Confederate States that were still in rebellion by calling on his authority as Commander in Chief.

 

[Syriusly]

KY MD DE and MO all had legal widespread slavery during the 4 years of the Civil War.

.

Those states were not Northern and someone from one of them at the time would have been insulted had you said so; they were loyal. There's a difference.

.

OMG - what a brazen liar you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They most certainly were northern. .

Ask someone from Maryland or Kentucky today whether they are Northern states or Southern States.

They will disagree with you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, and on a lighter note, how funny is it when one of USMB's premiere racists starts a thread to tell us how not-racist something is?

lol

You do realize that the environmental movement mostly hurts blacks, minorities, and the poor?

Which makes you... a racist.

There are more poor whites in America than blacks.

 

[longknife]

. The historical record is overwhelmingly clear; the Slave Power seceded to preserve and expand the institution of slavery.

No - slave power didn't. Four of the slave states stayed in the union. How do you explain that?? If lincoln's goal was to free the slaves why didn't he order the four northern slave states to end slavery or join the south. THINK

Lincoln's goal was never to 'free the slaves'- no one other than you is making that claim. Lincoln's goal was to preserve the Union. Later- freeing the slaves in the rebellious states furthered that goal and that ultimately led to freeing all of the slaves in the United States.

Lincoln never had any authority to order any state not in rebellion to end slavery- he was only able to do so with the Confederate States that were still in rebellion by calling on his authority as Commander in Chief.

And Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation DID NOT FREE A SINGLE SLAVE!!!! It was only directed at southern states over which he had absolutely no control.

 

[Syriusly]

. The historical record is overwhelmingly clear; the Slave Power seceded to preserve and expand the institution of slavery.

No - slave power didn't. Four of the slave states stayed in the union. How do you explain that?? If lincoln's goal was to free the slaves why didn't he order the four northern slave states to end slavery or join the south. THINK

Lincoln's goal was never to 'free the slaves'- no one other than you is making that claim. Lincoln's goal was to preserve the Union. Later- freeing the slaves in the rebellious states furthered that goal and that ultimately led to freeing all of the slaves in the United States.

Lincoln never had any authority to order any state not in rebellion to end slavery- he was only able to do so with the Confederate States that were still in rebellion by calling on his authority as Commander in Chief.

And Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation DID NOT FREE A SINGLE SLAVE!!!! It was only directed at southern states over which he had absolutely no control.

Actually that is a tired old false claim.

Lincoln issued the Executive Order by his authority as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution.

Although most slaves were not freed immediately, the Proclamation brought freedom to thousands of slaves the day it went into effect in parts of nine of the ten states to which it applied (Texas being the exception).

Additionally, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for the emancipation of nearly all four million slaves as the Union armies advanced, and committed the Union to ending slavery, which was a controversial decision even in the North. The proclamation did not name the slave-holding border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession, and so it did not free any slaves there. Additionally, federally controlled lands in the South (W Va, most of TN, New Orleans, etc.) were exempted.

However, in other Union-occupied areas of Confederate states besides Tennessee, the Proclamation went into immediate effect and at least 20,000 slaves were freed at once on January 1, 1863. Hearing of the Proclamation, more slaves quickly escaped to Union lines as the Army units moved South. As the Union armies conquered the Confederacy, thousands of slaves were freed each day until nearly all (approximately 4 million, according to the 1860 census) were freed by July 1865.

Although implicitly granted authority by Congress, Lincoln used his powers as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, "as a necessary war measure" as the basis of the proclamation, rather than the equivalent of a statute enacted by Congress or a constitutional amendment.

It is common to encounter the claim that the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave. This statement may be found at such government and media websites as a National Park Service page, and a user-generated wiki run by the BBC. However, the claim directly conflicts with multiple eyewitness accounts of celebrations where thousands of blacks were informed of their new legal status of freedom, for example at Hilton Head, South Carolina and Port Royal, South Carolina.

Estimates of the number of slaves freed immediately by the Emancipation Proclamation are uncertain. But "a contemporary estimate put the 'contraband' population of Union-occupied North Carolina at 10,000, and the Sea Islands of South Carolina also had a substantial population. It seems likely therefore that at least 20,000 slaves were freed immediately by the Emancipation Proclamation." (Keith Poulter, "Slaves Immediately Freed by the Emancipation Proclamation" North & South vol. 5 no. 1 (December 2001), p. 48)