Social The Confederate Flag still flies proudly over South Carolina's state Capitol grounds.

[The Diplomat]

Robert Lee was actually a pretty moderate guy, he was debating about whether to join the north or south, and chose the south because he was from Virginia and wanted to protect his state. By the end of his life he knew that slavery was wrong, and having taught so long afterwards, he was famous for saying that the greatest mistake of his life was becoming a "military" guy, as he would have much rather been an academic professor.

I've been raised in the south my whole life, and I can tell you that I would have joined the North if it was a matter of ending slavery. The ends justified the means, imo.


One thing I always argue with my southern peers, is that they always say "Slavery was bound to end anyways" which I agree (to a certain point, anything is bound to end if you wait long enough) and disagree with. Many nations ended slavery, years before us. Ohio ended it in 1802. It took 100 years after the civil war and slavery for segregation to be ended in the south. It took a WAR for us to end slavery, and they can't seem to grasp that.

 

[Edgar Allan Hoe]

People are trying to rewrite history and idiotically pretend the Civil War wasn't fought because of slavery even though it very obviously was.

The Confederate flag there should just be burned anyway. Even putting up the last flag the Confederates used would be an improvement:

Ignorance. Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He gave fuck all about the slaves. He even offered the states a deal for them to keep a number of slaves to prevent them from succeeding.

Robert Lee was actually a pretty moderate guy, he was debating about whether to join the north or south, and chose the south because he was from Virginia and wanted to protect his state. By the end of his life he knew that slavery was wrong, and having taught so long afterwards, he was famous for saying that the greatest mistake of his life was becoming a "military" guy, as he would have much rather been an academic professor.

I've been raised in the south my whole life, and I can tell you that I would have joined the North if it was a matter of ending slavery. The ends justified the means, imo.


One thing I always argue with my southern peers, is that they always say "Slavery was bound to end anyways" which I agree (to a certain point, anything is bound to end if you wait long enough) and disagree with. Many nations ended slavery, years before us. Ohio ended it in 1802. It took 100 years after the civil war and slavery for segregation to be ended in the south. It took a WAR for us to end slavery, and they can't seem to grasp that.

And yet slavery still exists today, so...

 

[Medusas Weave]

I've been raised in the south my whole life, and I can tell you that I would have joined the North if it was a matter of ending slavery.

I am not buying this. Meaning, if you were born in the olden oldy times and grew up in in the south just before the civil war there is no telling who you would be then.
Don't believe me?
Look at all the posters supporting gay marriage. For the ones who have been here a long time, see how many have posts supporting gay marriage before 2010.
Have you ever read what Abraham Lincoln said about the blacks? Not very nice.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I don't have any lost cause argument. It's historical fact that only around 12% of southerners owned slaves - while nearly everyone's ancestors fought under the battle flag. The heritage is the fact that our great gradfathers fought with Lee and Stonewall and nothing you could say will make us think any less of them.

You can spout all you want, but the fact is that people still considered themselves loyal to their state over their country at the time and right or wrong - to use a southern expression - I can call my brother an idiot, but you best keep your mouth shut about him.

How many Southerners owned slaves is irrelevant, the fact is had they won they would've defended the institution of slavery. They may not have been defending their own right to own slaves but they were defending the right of those 12% to own slaves.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

A psych major. Majored in psychology at University

I feel like I know you in real life "A Psych Major"

 

[Islam Imamate]

A psych major. Majored in psychology at University

I feel like I know you in real life "A Psych Major"

We psychology majors are truly a rare bunch, few dare enter this difficult field.

 

[James Keith]

One thing I always argue with my southern peers, is that they always say "Slavery was bound to end anyways" which I agree (to a certain point, anything is bound to end if you wait long enough) and disagree with. Many nations ended slavery, years before us. Ohio ended it in 1802. It took 100 years after the civil war and slavery for segregation to be ended in the south. It took a WAR for us to end slavery, and they can't seem to grasp that.

It took more than a 100 years for segregation to be ended in the north and west too. The correlation with slavery isn't quite so compelling anymore.

People don't like to be forced to do things at gunpoint, especially when it causes social upheaval. You get a backlash.

^^ Boston 1976 riot over court-ordered desegregation. Hey look at the symbol used by the racists.

 

[James Keith]

Not everyone who carries the flag is a white supremacist or a racist or anything negative, true.

But when white supremacists can all agree that the symbols of the KKK, the Confederate flag, and the Nazi's are clear and proper conveyors of the white supremacist ideology then it becomes a little silly for someone else to say that those symbols symbolize something else. Especially when the original history supports the white supremacists and not the something else'ers.

I'm not getting this argument at all. When all white supremacists finally get together and agree on something, it must be the truth?

If we look for the things fringe groups in any category agree on, whether the category is a religion, a country, or whatever, does it really say jack squat about the others not in those fringe groups? I mean they could have joined the damn group if they wanted to but didn't. So they must think differently.

This game of forcing groups to be associated with each other so you can transfer blame around just seems like a lot of lying with half-truths to me. It also seems like the basis for all political science, sociology, and many other liberal arts subjects.

 

[OldGoat]

How many Southerners owned slaves is irrelevant, the fact is had they won they would've defended the institution of slavery. They may not have been defending their own right to own slaves but they were defending the right of those 12% to own slaves.

You have no ability to discern why the average Southerner fought.

 

[OldGoat]

It took more than a 100 years for segregation to be ended in the north and west too. The correlation with slavery isn't quite so compelling anymore.

People don't like to be forced to do things at gunpoint, especially when it causes social upheaval. You get a backlash.

^^ Boston 1976 riot over court-ordered desegregation. Hey look at the symbol used by the racists.

Using facts and logic to argue with those who are inherently intellectually dishonest doesn't work.

 

[Islam Imamate]

You have no ability to discern why the average Southerner fought.

I never claimed to. The Nazi soldiers could've had countless different reasons for fighting, I'm sure some didn't care either way about the fate of the Jews, but doesn't change the fact that they were part of a war machine that propagated genocide.

So regardless of the individual motivators for the Confederate soldiers they were fighting to defend the institution of slavery. Had they won the Southern states would've remained separate from the North and been able to continue to allow slavery regardless of the personal feelings of the soldiers who would've made it possible.

 

[James Keith]

I never claimed to. The Nazi soldiers could've had countless different reasons for fighting, I'm sure some didn't care either way about the fate of the Jews, but doesn't change the fact that they were part of a war machine that propagated genocide.

So regardless of the individual motivators for the Confederate soldiers they were fighting to defend the institution of slavery. Had they won the Southern states would've remained separate from the North and been able to continue to allow slavery regardless of the personal feelings of the soldiers who would've made it possible.

But it was only partway into the war that Lincoln changed his stance on allowing slavery to continue in the south.

Sort of like arguing that Iraqi's fighting the American invasion were fighting to defend the institution of dictatorship. You know because bush eventually switched to democracy over WMD's for PR and other obvious reasons. And look he followed through and made them democratic. So score one for the forces of good over evil. Everyone who doesn't like the Iraq war must hate democracy.

 

[JadeOwl]

But it was only partway into the war that Lincoln changed his stance on allowing slavery to continue in the south.

That's irrelevant.

Lincoln got into the war to preserve the Union. Nobody disputes that. And he could

 

[James Keith]

That's irrelevant.

Lincoln got into the war to preserve the Union. Nobody disputes that. And he could

 

[in the]

Can't believe this thread is still going.

It took more than a 100 years for segregation to be ended in the north and west too. The correlation with slavery isn't quite so compelling anymore.

People don't like to be forced to do things at gunpoint, especially when it causes social upheaval. You get a backlash.

^^ Boston 1976 riot over court-ordered desegregation. Hey look at the symbol used by the racists.

Not to mention that in many places in the north, segregation has and still exists. They were just more sly with their segregation, namely red lining and gentrification.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I think you're missing a key aspect of changing a stance. A stance that lacks the element of ending slavery would have, in the most obvious interpretation, implied a policy that did not include the ending of slavery.

But anyway you must agree with my statement about the Iraq war?

Also the Brits ended slavery in overseas colonies well before the civil war. So that means those who fought in the American Revolution were fighting to prolong slavery too.

The American revolution's main cause was taxation without representation, have you read the secession documents?

 

[UpaLoompa]

I don't have any lost cause argument. It's historical fact that only around 12% of southerners owned slaves - while nearly everyone's ancestors fought under the battle flag. The heritage is the fact that our great gradfathers fought with Lee and Stonewall and nothing you could say will make us think any less of them.

The fact that the south seceded in order to protect the institution of slavery should make you think less of the confederacy. That you don't says more about you than your ancestors. Talking about "heritage not hate" is loads of bullshit, the heritage was hate. Why can't you say "My great-grandfather might have been a good person but what he fought for was reprehensible."?

Of course you also continue to ignore the secession documents because they're inconvenient.

 

[UpaLoompa]

The American revolution's main cause was taxation without representation, have you read the secession documents?

Facts are inconvenient.

 

[UpaLoompa]

But it was only partway into the war that Lincoln changed his stance on allowing slavery to continue in the south.

Your persistent disingenuousness on this topic is tiresome. When presented with discussions of the South's motivations for secession you quickly shift to a discussion of the North's motivations for fighting and ignore the point about the South's motivations. The South seceded to protect the institution of slavery. The North fought to preserve the union. That's it, quit your bullshit.

 

[Arkain2K]

With Confederate flag down, South Carolina open for NCAA business
May 20 2016

The city of Columbia is bidding to host NCAA men’s basketball tournament games at Colonial Life Arena in Columbia​

Earlier this month, a traveling party from the S.C. Sports Alliance journeyed to NCAA headquarters in Indianapolis. Its mission: To scout out hosting opportunities for NCAA championship events.

“It was interesting, because it was the first time any of us had gone there in 15 years,” said Kathleen Cartland, executive director of the Charleston Area Sports Commission.

Indeed, for 15 years there had been no reason for sports commission types to bother with the trip to the NCAA’s symposium on hosting championships. With the Confederate flag flying on Statehouse grounds in Columbia, the NCAA’s ban on holding “pre-determined” events in South Carolina rendered pointless any such trips.

But when the Confederate flag came down last July — the result of the tragic killing of nine people at Charleston’s Emanuel AME Church by an avowed flag-wielding racist — the NCAA dropped its Palmetto State ban.

With the bid process for NCAA championship events in the four-year cycle from 2018-19 to 2021-2022 getting underway in June, South Carolina is once again open for NCAA business.

“It’s a whole new world,” said Scott Powers, executive director of the Columbia Regional Sports Council. “We’ve been waiting a long time. I’ve been in this business quite a while, and we haven’t been able to bid on NCAA events.”

At the NCAA symposium on May 4, state officials learned that there are 90 championships in 24 sports across three NCAA divisions held each year. For the four-year period from 2018-19 through 2021-22, more than 400 sites for NCAA championship events are up for bid.

“That’s a lot of business,” said Powers.

The most lucrative of NCAA business is the men’s basketball tournament, where the economic impact of a weekend of tournament games can range from $10 million to $15 million. Both Columbia and Greenville are bidding to host tournament games during the 2018-19 to 2021-22 cycle, Greenville at the 16,000-seat Bons Secours Wellness Arena and Columbia at the 18,000-seat Colonial Life Arena.

The bid process opens June 6, with selection committees meeting in the fall and host sites announced in December.

Ron Morris, a longtime journalist and former columnist at The State newspaper in Columbia, is working as a consultant to the city of Columbia on its bid.

“As soon as the flag came down, we went to the city and told them that they cannot afford to miss this chance,” Morris said. “I think it’s safe to say that Columbia has never hosted an effect that can produce that kind of economic impact for one weekend.”


http://www.postandcourier.com/20160...ag-down-south-carolina-open-for-ncaa-business