Why the Confederate flag still flies in South Carolina

Are you really being so obtuse that you think the south saw Lincoln elected and on that day decided to secede? You think the documents and everything else occurred in one day? Please tell me you're not espousing this stupidity.

Your ridiculous assertion is that they seceded because Lincoln was elected. Tell me EXACTLY how Lincoln could have stopped slavery. I can't wait to hear this lol

- - - Updated - - -

Yes actually it does. Not only are they allowed to keep them but the constitution says if one of them runs away to a free state then they have to be returned.

Further given that the constitution provided zero rights to black people, they had no grounds upon which to challenge according to the constitution and the SCOTUS.

 

Quit dancing and answer the question. Is slavery wrong?




​

 

Slavery is wrong. But I believe morality is objective.

So now your turn. Is morality subjective?

 

I'm ok with tougher gun laws. Fine - go for it.

I'm also ok with less stringent gun laws. Fine - go for it.

Either way, it's too late. Even if the sale of guns - ALL guns - was entirely banned by law today, do the political loudmouths seriously believe it would have an impact on the random, violent acts of crazy people. Will urban gangs suddenly lose their ability to kill each other with a gun???

Get real! There's more than enough guns permeating society to permit gangs, criminals, and sociopaths to continue their slaughter. So do whatever, but we'll still have to address the root cause down the line - maybe when leaders decide to deal with reality instead of spewing partisan bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

I'm ok with eliminating confederate flags. Adios.

I'm ok with keeping them wherever the local people want to do that. Whatever.

Regardless of their decisions, I understand the reasons that both sides have so whatever they decide is fine. However, either way they choose, it's not going to affect psychos from walking into public gatherings and killing lots of people. And it's not going to stop thieves, murderers, and gangs from wreaking havoc on society.

The bottom line is this - why don't we Americans, of both Left and Right persuasions, insist that our political party's bullshirt artists and their butt-boy media propagandists quit minimizing the discussion of such problems by forcing them into such secondary, peripheral areas. The gun didn't decide to kill 9 people in that Charleston, SC church, and the flag didn't force the holder of the gun pull the trigger. So make whatever laws you want - more guns or less guns, flag, no flag - it ain't gonna solve the problem of gun violence and will have little effect on how people regard people of different color! But the bs surrounding the grandstanding will probably get people elected or not elected, and that's really what all the political claptrap is about.

We ALL better be insisting with a VERY loud voice that our so-called leaders start dealing with root causes instead of merely yapping about and hyping politically expedient strawmen.

 

Do you think it's a coincidence that states started seceding right after Lincoln's election?

 

What the south did was a bad thing.




​

 

No it wasn't. Because I was referring to their rebellion.

Now answer the question. Is morality subjective? Or is the cowardice of watching your argument get completely destroyed scaring you?

- - - Updated - - -

I think it was in the makings for a long time. The south was hoping that they would get someone in power who would stop the constitutional usurpation that was occurring. They did what they were supposed to do. They attempted to solve the issue at the voting booth first. When that failed and their rights provided by the constitution were going to continue to be trampled on and the constitutions power usurped.. Their hand was forced and they had to act.

 

What objective source do you use for that?

 

Lincoln wasn't going to violate the constitution. He opposed abolitionism and support state's rights. The only problem was that he opposed the expansion of slavery, which was a major problem, since the south needed more slave states to keep the balance of power.

 

Jesus never advocates that slavery is okay. In fact Jesus tells us that you must RELEASE those people. But you don't release slaves. You release indentured servants. So Jesus' doctrine does not give an allowance for slavery.

- - - Updated - - -

But his opposition of slavery would mean nothing. He can't change the constitution. He can't force the congress to change the constitution. He can't force the SCOTUS to declare it unconstitutional. What could he do except for whine and complain about it? I mean other than continue to engage in blatantly unconstitutional behavior. Which is what the south was rejecting.

- - - Updated - - -

Come on you're not scared your argument is going to fall apart are you?

Is morality subjective or not?

 

Slavery is a bad thing.



​

 

Lets watch on how many stores are forced to stop selling the flag.

 

That means nothing until you answer the question of whether or not morality is subjective. But you don't want to answer that because you believe that morality IS subjective. And if morality is subjective then someone saying slavery is right is just as correct as someone who says its wrong.

So again. Is morality subjective?

 

The North set up 'contraband camps' for the newly (cough) liberated slaves. The average mortality rate in these camps was 25%.

 

To some.



​

 

I wasn't asking some. I was asking you.

Is morality subjective or not.

 

They shouldn't have been -- but they were.

And most states DID secede and even commenced hostilities before Lincoln ever stepped foot in the White House and took his oath.

 

Yeah what they don't tell you is that over a quarter of the slaves died from malnutrition and disease after being liberated. Because the north didn't give one damn about the slaves. They simply used them as propaganda and when their role as the useful idiot was no longer useful, they cast them aside and didn't help them.

 

Then what is the specific genetic profile of each "race" that is common to all members?

Just like a witch doctor can "identify" evil spirits years after someone has died. By creating meaningless criteria for said spirits and then "identifying" them on that basis.

Also, the American Anthropological Association and the American Association of Physical Anthropologists both reject the concept of race.

You're begging the question. You haven't even established the existence of "race" in any meaningful sense.

 

The Confederates fought for states rights exactly as stated in the Constitution. Slavery was a side issue and the civil war had gone on for over two years before Lincoln even bothered to free the slaves. So, if you want to spit on the memory of men who died to defend the rights of states and the Constitution then enjoy Obama's big side show. Every dog must have his day.

 

zero, some may decide to stop selling the hateful flag, but it's their choice

this killer made many question their support of the flag, the reverse of his intentions

.
.

 

No, they pretty much said well before -- if a Republican was elected, they would secede.

The previous presidential election of 1856, they were saying a lot of the same thing - and warned if it happened, the "South would burst forth in a Carnival of Blood."

The southern states didn't even allow Lincoln on the ballot!

One of my beloved quotes of Lincoln, when the South was harrumphing about how if they didn't get their way they would take their marbles and go home, is this quote - which I have said on a number of occasion, was not only prescient, but describes some of the the teaper nutjobbers today:

"You will not abide the election of a Republican president!

In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us!

That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!'"
[February, 1860 - Cooper - Union Speech]

 

Is this supposed to mean something, or are you just being evasive again?

 

Sure, if I value my unalienable rights - one of which is not slave ownership.

The most that can be said for them in that respect is that they were fighting in defense of a constitutional provision which was in violation of the laws of Nature and of Nature's God, which in the end could only serve to deny the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

A patent absurdity, since the US Constitution became irrelevant to every state the day it seceded.

 

Those groups don't reject race based on scientific evidence. They reject the notion of race based upon political correctness. They'll even tell you so. Their reasoning is not because of any science they source but because of the social implications that occur.

Here's a source for differences http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7163193/