CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Gee, it could be because it was the flag that represented a pseudo-nation whose very existence was based on defending their right to employ slave labor.
Edit: Additionally, arguing that "other things are racist" is not evidence that the Stars'N'Bars somehow lacks racism, or is any less racist. Lincoln should not be venerated the way he is, in my opinion (especially here in Illinois), and the U.S. flag (as well as the country itself) does have a very racist history. But that does not negate or mitigate the racism of the Confederacy.
Being that the Civil War was not about slavery, but about northern aggression against the south, not sure about your first point. The argument can be made that the American north at the time of the Civil War had the same outlook on blacks as the southern people did. And it was the north who bought the slaves here in the first place. So I believe the racism was on both sides of the border
You are wrong,my friend;as in the sources you have provided. The Washington Post is widely known to skew historic/current facts in favor of a liberal point of view. Using the Washington Post as a reference in this debate is just as side-favoring as asking Donald Trump his views on a topic such as abortion...Obviously the source is biased,you cannot argue the legitimacy of a source that affiliates itself with a specific party.
That is some silly ad hominem right there. If the source was biased to the point of the article in question being illegitimate, then you should demonstrate how it is. Otherwise, you have done nothing to illegitimize what DaveR has said.
I completely agree! Everyone points their finger at the south today in reminiscence of the slavery days,however, nobody ever brings up the stories of how awfully free African Americans were treated in the North United States. The South viewed the slaves as profit makers where as in the North, African Americans were viewed as partially human. Poor kids don't know much these days I assume.
Being that the Civil War was not about slavery, but about northern aggression against the south
Oh please. The South was threatened by the possibility of slavery being outlawed, something that their economy fundamentally relied upon, and rebelled, claiming it was about their right to self determination.
The argument can be made that the American north at the time of the Civil War had the same outlook on blacks as the southern people did.
I wouldn't say the same, but certainly not far off, which has to do with why I don't understand why people venerate Lincoln like they do, especially considering his suspension of Habeus Corpus and his appointment of Grant, one of the most horrifying figures in U.S. history.
And it was the north who bought the slaves here in the first place. So I believe the racism was on both sides of the border
No, not really. It was the Thirteen colonies, some of which made up the Confederacy, that did so. The South disproportionately relied upon said slaves for their economy, even before we became a country, however.
Racist President Lincoln said on March 4, 1861 His first inaugural Address” “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution. This as a law he mentions is H.R. 80 to keep slavery as a state right.
Abraham Lincoln: What They Wont Teach You in School
it very much does ..the civil war had NOTHING to do with slavery.the reason for the civil war was to keep the union together by FORCE!do you know where all those slave ships docked and who sold the slaves to the south?ill give you a hint .it was not the south.
You didn't think this through. The Union was split in large part because the North had begun to impose limitations upon slavery, the predominant economic force of the South. The South claimed they had a right to self-determination, and seceded from the Union in order to maintain their desired system, which, again, relied upon slavery. To say that it had nothing to do with slavery is bafflingly ignorant, if not an outright lie.
There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ...
2. On shipping blacks back to Africa:
Lincoln said:
In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and in their places be, pari passu [on an equal basis], filled up by free white laborers."
3. On outlawing slavery in the south (before the rebellion).
Lincoln said:
I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
4. On equality:
Lincoln said:
I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.
5. On inter-racial marriage:
Lincoln said:
Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.
None of what you said contradicted my previous post in any way. I have said multiple times that I recognize Lincoln was not a good man, and I oppose the way he is venerated today. I have also recognized that the North wasn't some bastion of abolitionist sentiment. None of that counters my previous point, however.
Lincoln didn't want to immediately abolish slavery, he wanted to go down the path of ending it through amending the Constitution.
But, citing Lincoln's opinion presupposes that Lincoln started the Civil War, which he did not. The states that seceded did, and they stated specifically that it was to preserve slavery.
You are confused. This was a political move by Lincoln. Seven states had seceded. They had threatened secession during the election because the Republican platform would stop western expansion of slavery. He gave this speech in the hopes that the seven states would rejoin the US and avoid a bloody war.
Lincoln's personal opinion regarding slavery was closer to: "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other." Lincoln's 'House-Divided' Speech in Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858.
I honestly can't tell if people like you are just stupid or have extreme confirmation bias. Yes offense.
it was to keep the union together nothing more nothing less ..he didnt care about slaves or the American people ..control in the government hands is was his goal
Racist President Lincoln said on March 4, 1861 His first inaugural Address” “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution. This as a law he mentions is H.R. 80 to keep slavery as a state right.
And I already explained to you that the speech was addressed to the seven states that had already seceded at that point. It did not reflect his actual intentions because it was a political gesture.
There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ...
2. On shipping blacks back to Africa:
Lincoln said:
In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and in their places be, pari passu [on an equal basis], filled up by free white laborers."
3. On outlawing slavery in the south (before the rebellion).
Lincoln said:
I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
4. On equality:
Lincoln said:
I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.
5. On inter-racial marriage:
Lincoln said:
Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.
There are so many stories made up to excuse the slavery that was the REAL reason for the war. Sorry, no excuses. Whatever, the war crime against America and its Constitution BY those who made the excuses is enough to make it America's swastika. Nothing against those who fought under it, just the reasoning they were raised to believe....like the black man (or woman) was only 3/5ths of a person, had no rights (including voting), could be sold as "property" as well as USED as such. There is no place in America, outside of museums and personal property (including cemetery space), for this flag.
It's a symbol of the self reliant and rugged pioneers whose innovation and enterprise made the U.S.A., the greatest nation on earth. The adoption of the liberal's fanciful and romantic notion that all men are born is the sole reason why the U.S, is a nation in decline and continues to sink. To adapt a quote from George Orwell's Animal farm, 'all animals are born equal, it's just that some animals are more equal than others. The same principle applies to people. Natural selection is the evolution of mankind and the other animals with which we share this planet. To deny that fact and meddle with the natural order of things is an enormous mistake with disastrous results. No one made the sub classes inferior, that's just the way they are, they must be allowed to become extinct so the strong can flourish and become stronger.
(1) It is entirely possible for a symbol to have multiple meanings. While the Confederate flag may symbolize the pseudo-historical "self reliant and rugged pioneer" to you, it has also long been the standard of white supremacist organizations actively classified as racially motivated terrorist groups.
(2) The concept of the "liberal" today is utterly different than what it would have been during the era of the Civil War. Your reliance upon a false dichotomy in the context of contemporary affairs is bad enough; that you insist upon classifying everything you disagree with as "liberal" when the application of the term is entirely useless is just ingenious.
(3) While evolution favors intra-species differentiation it also favors inter-species. Which is to say that while human groups naturally stratify into varying degrees of power and status, too great a variation or too great an abuse of the lower status demographic(s) is destabilizing to the collective. Despite your objections, evolution appears to be selecting gradually towards more equitable and democratic social organization. I harbor no delusions that actual equality or actual democracy are probable or even possible, but then again I do not think that is why evolution selects favorably for it. The concepts of equality and democracy create more fluidity within the established hierarchy, allowing gifted individuals to rise from lower ranks when they otherwise would not be able to absent the aforementioned concepts.
(4) The manner in which you have (mis)applied the Animal Farm quote indicates that you fundamentally lack an understanding of the book itself, and certainly of Orwellian philosophy at large. Animal Farm is a dark satire rebuking the very argument you are trying to advance.
Well, now, that is the pot calling the kettle black. I may engage with whomever I like without it necessarily conferring a presumption of credibility upon them; case in point, my exchanges with you. I suggest you focus on developing your own views before presuming to criticize the credibility of others, or my decisions to engage with them.
No, I am employing a common rhetorical device that calls out hypocrisy. A point which should have been evident by the context in which that sentence was made, which you have notably ignored altogether. I will close this one out simply by saying: mind your own business and stop suggesting who warrants my time and who does not; your own standing is tenuous enough.
Well, I wouldn't say the Confederate battle flag is inherently racist. The Confederacy itself is viewed in a negative way since it was formed by seven slave states. The flag itself is just a battle flag. I think there was a different flag that represented the Confederacy, but I'm not entirely sure. I guess in conclusion the fact that the Confederates fought for the continuation of slavery (mostly for economical reasons) makes the flag a negative thing.
I can settle the argument with a challenge. If someone does not believe that the Confederate flag is racist, let he or she walk through a neighborhood in Baltimore or Ferguson parading with one and see what happens.
So your idea of deciding if a controversial symbol that can only be understood for its meaning,by means comprehensive research, should be to parade it around an area that is known to be of the lesser educated portion of the United States? On top of that, a region that is prone to violence of mob mentality? I am not supporting or neglecting any race/ethnicity in particular,however, there were numerous repots of blacks attacking whites during those "protests" JUST because of the color of their skin;you'd be blind and ignorant if you thought the issues we face today lay with one side. Something to think about is that 1 black male is killed by a white police officer (Not to mention the media failed to provide his criminal record (Baltimore) which consisted of multiple felony charges), and the country goes nuts; approximately a quarter of the potential African American population is terminated via Birth Control/ Planned Parent Hood, not a whisper... This is coming from a European perspective. Media will do anything and everything in its power to cause controversy just for ratings an if you believe you are establishing a decent argument off the basis of mainstream media outlet "facts", then go ahead and keep sipping your kool-aid.
Whilst the flag may be used by minority groups that support racism I would pose the idea that it is a symbol of resistance.
In a previous post I wrote "As far as I have read it appears that it was the revolution in 1776-1778 that created the US in the first place and because that event did not resolve the issue of whether the US would have a central government or be a confederation of states it was the Civil War nearly a hundred years later that decided the outcome.
The states that sided with a central government became the North and those who opposed became the Confederacy or the South. The end of the Civil War did determine the issue of slavery, though the way I read it, it was the unity of the US that was at stake and the fundamental issue of why they went to war.
So herein lies a tale of political intrigue that through war firmly established the "United" States of America and whilst the abolition of slavery was the torch bearer, the underlying goal was a unified country under a central government
If you think about it the Confederate State represented the heart and soul of America. When England demanded too much from the colonies they rebelled. The same thing occurred once we were a nation. The northern states which were more cosmopolitan demanded more and more from the southern states which were agricultural (there for requiring more physical labor to produce goods, which required the already established practice of slavery to accomplish). So the southern state wanted to secede from the northern (richer) states, or to revolt against them, or to maybe rebel. Hey, if we are gonna rebel, we should get our own flag. Maybe we should call it a rebel flag, gee I hope people don't simplify it later and call us assholes and redneck cause we didn't like producing all the food for the Yankees and being treated like shit and just trying to follow the model upon which this country was founded.
Your post would have more legitimacy if the confederacy were the ones actually producing the agricultural goods you are referring to, as opposed to defending slavery as the means of said production.
What are you talking about? The south was where the farming was done to supply the cities in New England. Do you think that cotton, corn and tobacco were grown in New York City?
Re-read my post. The Confederacy itself was made up exclusively by Caucasians, while the agriculture was done by African slaves. Your previous post made it sound as if the Confederacy was a bunch of put upon, blue collar farmers fighting for their rights, which was not the case.
poor put upon southern farmers.... give me a break.
like conservatives today, they wanted to have their cake and eat it too... they were not willing to PAY these workers a living wage as FREE ppl ... and the STILL are not willing.
It was in the best interest of the plantation owners to keep their slaves fed and healthy (for the time). And many slave owners were reasonable kind to them (again for the time); which is why after they were freed many slaves stayed on at the plantation as a share cropper, where they would do the same exact thing before they were freed and share the profits with the people who owned the land they worked.
You are confusing social/ethical standards of today with those from a time you cannot imagine living in.
If you want to get indignant about slavery, try talking about the Chinese brought over to build the railroads, now that was fucked up.
It was in the best interest of the plantation owners to keep their slaves fed and healthy (for the time).
Fed, not well fed, and only healthy enough so that they could serve as labor while they were young.
And many slave owners were reasonable kind to them (again for the time); which is why after they were freed many slaves stayed on at the plantation as a share cropper, where they would do the same exact thing before they were freed and share the profits with the people who owned the land they worked.
No, that would be because they had literally no other prospects. There was nothing else they could do, they had no options.
You are confusing social/ethical standards of today with those from a time you cannot imagine living in.
In the time we are referring to, there existed plenty of people that espoused the social and ethical standards being employed, and thus he is not "confusing" anything.
If you want to get indignant about slavery, try talking about the Chinese brought over to build the railroads, now that was fucked up.
Nowhere near as "fucked up" as chattel slavery, which is, to date, the worst form of slavery the world has ever seen.
I don't think it is. Slavery wasn't all the confederacy stood for. And after all, the civil war is a huge part of American history, taking down the flag would be one step toward forgetting our own history. At least, I think it's a reminder, if nothing else, of what would have happened had the confederacy seceded from the union. But in reality, the confederacy was a whole lot more than just slavery.
not only is it the BATTLE flag of traitors, but it has since come to SYMBOLIZE white supremacy and racial hatred.
it has no place on display in any public place where government dollars are at work.
you want to put it up over your fireplace to show ppl when they come to dinner, fine.... that way they can know where you are coming from and walk out, if they have any sense.
It is a symbol of the confederacy. The confederacy was formed in order to protect slave owners. By what reasoning is this flag deserving of display on government property? Remember now, slavery has been abolished.
The confederacy was not formed to protect slave owners, how were they to protect the slave owners in the north and border states that still had slaves. Slavery has not been abolished, look at the progressives and liberals today, they still enslave the blacks, just today they enslave them to government dependency
The Confederacy was created because they believed they did not have sufficient power to protect what they believed to be their right to self determination and feared the North was going to limit if not outright abolish slavery which would have completely destroyed their economic system.
It was formed to protect slavery as an economic system, not to protect slave owners themselves.
The rest of your post is just partisan nonsense. Calling social welfare programs slavery is beyond hyperbolic.
The actual information: numerous groups formally classified as white supremacist organizations use the Confederate flag as their standard, rendering it a symbol of white supremacy and racial hatred.
where the hell do you get that they were anything but?
they revolted against the duly elected government of the United States and went to WAR with it.....
... and LOST.
that's about the DEFINITION of traitor.
how much more treasonous does a population have to become before YOU call them traitors?
do they have to join ISIS or something?
AND, if you what to get more contemporary, the Counsel of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) which inspired the recent actions of a man in SC is as much of a terrorist recruiting organization as ISIS is.
So that would make every United states of America citizen a traitor, or descendant there of; since that is exactly what happened when the Colonies declared independence from the British Empire. If anything it makes the confederacy super American.