.

Beaubonic

Well-Known Member
You are very wrong and why would you ever think of something so immorally disgusting? I never have and never will support slavery.

Why would I think of something so immorally disgusting? Because racism is still a large issue, and I was in the south for a month, one month, and you have no idea how many times I heard the "N Word" used and how many times I heard people say things along the lines of "Slavery wasn't all that bad" and "Maybe things would be easier if we had slaves again". So maybe I can think of something so immorally disgusting, because it exists...
 

StTheo

Well-Known Member
That I agree with. Slavery was not the central premise for the Civil War, if you take/took any well-taught U.S. History course you would know that. We had a whole thread debating this actually..
Yes we did, and as I recall: when Admiral360 brought up a comeback, you "liked" it. When I proved that comeback wrong, you criticized me for being off topic. You also condescendingly criticized me for pointing out that slavery was, according to the confederate states themselves, a main cause for secession. I have taken a well taught U.S. history course, and it is a historical fact that slavery was the central premise for secession, and subsequently, the Civil War.

The "Confederate States of America" is dead, will never come back, and will never be justifiable. No amount of historical revisionism and denial of facts will change that.

Projecto claims out that Lincoln and Grant had slaves.
Screen shot 2012-05-12 at 9.07.32 AM.png

I point out that Lincoln did not have slaves, and that Grant's slavery issue was taken out of context. Admiral360 claims that Grant "got rid of" his slaves after the war and 13th amendment. I point out that William Jones - the man Admiral360 only knew of as "Grant's slave" - was freed years before the war had even begun.
Screen shot 2012-05-12 at 9.11.01 AM.png

Projecto criticizes me for going off topic (i.e. proving both his and Admiral360's assertions wrong).
Screen shot 2012-05-12 at 9.07.09 AM.png
 

MiniCacti

Well-Known Member
In the section of the Declaration of Independence that lists the natural rights of man, he presciently includes, “That to secure these [natural rights] rights, 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.”

Lincoln also maintained a third position (modifying his pro- and anti-secession rhetoric) in which he believed that the right of secession was legitimate only as a reaction to government tyranny and oppression. Since that was not the case, Lincoln reasoned, in the United States circa 1860, the Southern secessionist movement was an illegitimate response and thus impermissible. Of course, and perhaps unwittingly on the part of Lincoln, the underlying implication is that should a state actually suffer from “government tyranny and oppression,” secession would be an appropriate course of action – and, accordingly, a legal remedy.

Ironically, Lincoln was no stranger to the concepts of government tyranny and oppression. During his presidency, he “illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus; launched a military invasion without consent of Congress;…imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies; arrested dozens of newspaper editors and owners and, in some cases, had federal soldiers destroy their printing presses; censored all telegraph communication;…ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections; deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln’s unconstitutional behavior; confiscated private property; confiscated firearms in violation of the Second Amendment; and eviscerated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.”

All from this site http://www.historyvortex.org/LegalitySecession.html
I would really love to have a discussion with you about this sometime, perhaps message me?
Same here.
 

RemOfShadows

Well-Known Member
I'm strongly not sure if you're trying to subtly troll us. By your reasoning we should ban any symbolism associated with any country, and any skins of any political or military leaders. I can see how someone like Mikey (being from a FSU country) might feel uncomfortable with such things, (stalin being linked to communism, premier of the soviet union etc) but it really is not directly offensive in any way.

To sum up, and if tl'dr..

Notsureifsrs.jpg
well i actually find those symbols quite annoying, since my country was occupied by the Soviet Union, which resulted in a lot of Latvians being deported to Siberia etc.etc. i mean i don't really want to get too much into that, it's just that i find it mildly offensive that people would still be praising those symbols.
 

xHallucinationx

Well-Known Member
well i actually find those symbols quite annoying, since my country was occupied by the Soviet Union, which resulted in a lot of Latvians being deported to Siberia etc.etc. i mean i don't really want to get too much into that, it's just that i find it mildly offensive that people would still be praising those symbols.
Not too many people act stupid with it though like they do swastikas. I mean, there are a bunch of offensive symbols for almost anything. O P is probably trolling because he picked that out of everything.
 

avroom

Well-Known Member
If we had to censore countries which started wars / were in a war, there would be no single flag that would be allowed.
Swastika should stay censored, it's part of history, a dark part of history, and I think we don't want to see it anymore.
 
Top