Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    29 Jun '15 11:29
    Originally posted by st dominics preview
    from yours?
    everybody has the right to determine their own future. if a group of people can exist as a country, they have the right to become a country.
  2. wherever I am needed
    Joined
    13 Dec '12
    Moves
    40201
    29 Jun '15 11:353 edits
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "Were Ukraine, Belarus etc 'treasonous' to leave the old USSR? "
    from the ussr's point of view? yes.

    treason is subjective. and strictly speaking, the confederates were treasonous.


    slavery is not subjective. the southern states were pro slavery. their economy depended on it.
    I see we both edited

    Were the South treasonous? When I first saw your use of that word, I thought that they would have to be described as such, because they were rebelling 'against' their existing government. However, I have since looked up the definition in Oxford English Dictionary , and I cannot see 'trying to break away and form a separate country' defined as treason.

    It is especially 'trying to overthrow the existing government' Were they trying to overthrow the existing government ? (from the definition in Oxford Dictionary.)

    Weren't they 'just' trying to break away?

    Of course, the North werent racist at all. No slaves in the northern states, No sir. And, of course, if the South had won, we would still have slaves picking cotton in 'Ginny now.

    Honest
  3. wherever I am needed
    Joined
    13 Dec '12
    Moves
    40201
    29 Jun '15 11:36
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    everybody has the right to determine their own future. if a group of people can exist as a country, they have the right to become a country.
    And the Confederate states believed that they could.

    But the North could not afford for them to secede
  4. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    29 Jun '15 12:23
    Originally posted by st dominics preview
    And the Confederate states believed that they could.

    But the North could not afford for them to secede
    they still treasonous.
  5. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    29 Jun '15 12:28
    Originally posted by st dominics preview
    I see we both edited

    Were the South treasonous? When I first saw your use of that word, I thought that they would have to be described as such, because they were rebelling 'against' their existing government. However, I have since looked up the definition in Oxford English Dictionary , and I cannot see 'trying to break away and form a separate ...[text shortened]... course, if the South had won, we would still have slaves picking cotton in 'Ginny now.

    Honest
    "Of course, the North werent racist at all"
    north's racism is not an issue here. south's is. north abolished slavery, south wouldn't and couldn't.

    the confederate flag stood as a symbol for a "nation" whose only accomplishment was to support slavery and get destroyed in the war.
  6. wherever I am needed
    Joined
    13 Dec '12
    Moves
    40201
    29 Jun '15 12:38
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "Of course, the North werent racist at all"
    north's racism is not an issue here. south's is. north abolished slavery, south wouldn't and couldn't.

    the confederate flag stood as a symbol for a "nation" whose only accomplishment was to support slavery and get destroyed in the war.
    Of course, slavery is abhorent. I am not advocating slavery. These were different times. Does anyone actually believe that if the South had seceded and formed their own country, they would still have slavery now? Of course not.

    They 'couldn't afford' to abolish slavery? Another debate altogether. Do you know how much a slave cost vs the wage that they would pay a labourer in the fields?

    I like your comment about having the right to form a separate country ~ don't you think that applies exactly to the Confederate states?
  7. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    29 Jun '15 13:12
    Originally posted by st dominics preview
    Of course, slavery is abhorent. I am not advocating slavery. These were different times. Does anyone actually believe that if the South had seceded and formed their own country, they would still have slavery now? Of course not.

    They 'couldn't afford' to abolish slavery? Another debate altogether. Do you know how much a slave cost vs the wage ...[text shortened]... ght to form a separate country ~ don't you think that applies exactly to the Confederate states?
    "don't you think that applies exactly to the Confederate states?"
    sure it does.

    "Do you know how much a slave cost vs the wage that they would pay a labourer in the fields"
    i would say less. i doubt the southerners couldn't do math and were keeping slaves because they were economically challenged sadists
  8. wherever I am needed
    Joined
    13 Dec '12
    Moves
    40201
    29 Jun '15 13:17
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "don't you think that applies exactly to the Confederate states?"
    sure it does.

    "Do you know how much a slave cost vs the wage that they would pay a labourer in the fields"
    i would say less. i doubt the southerners couldn't do math and were keeping slaves because they were economically challenged sadists
    just racist sadists

    Actually, I don't think there is a great deal in it. Of course, if the 'slaves' were employed by the plantation owner, they would have had to PAY to live in their 'barracks' on his land.

    The 'canny sadistic ex slave owner' could 'pay' his labourers $1 a month, and then charge them $1 a month to live on his property, bed and board. AND have the bonus of not having to buy him in the first place.

    Maybe they werent so 'canny' after all!!
  9. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    29 Jun '15 13:37
    Originally posted by st dominics preview
    just racist sadists

    Actually, I don't think there is a great deal in it. Of course, if the 'slaves' were employed by the plantation owner, they would have had to PAY to live in their 'barracks' on his land.

    The 'canny sadistic ex slave owner' could 'pay' his labourers $1 a month, and then charge them $1 a month to live on his property, bed ...[text shortened]... e bonus of not having to buy him in the first place.

    Maybe they werent so 'canny' after all!!
    "The 'canny sadistic ex slave owner' could 'pay' his labourers $1 a month"
    except they would have been then free to find work elsewhere
  10. wherever I am needed
    Joined
    13 Dec '12
    Moves
    40201
    29 Jun '15 13:49
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "The 'canny sadistic ex slave owner' could 'pay' his labourers $1 a month"
    except they would have been then free to find work elsewhere
    indeed. might have been the start free labour in the South

    not too sure what their options would have been to go elsewhere and find work!

    You can equate it to Victorian factory workers over here in the UK. They were 'free to go and find work elsewhere' But millions of them continued to work in disgusting, dangerous conditions to live.

    They were different times. You are trying to equate it to modern life.
  11. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    29 Jun '15 16:55
    Originally posted by st dominics preview
    indeed. might have been the start free labour in the South

    not too sure what their options would have been to go elsewhere and find work!

    You can equate it to Victorian factory workers over here in the UK. They were 'free to go and find work elsewhere' But millions of them continued to work in disgusting, dangerous conditions to live.

    They were different times. You are trying to equate it to modern life.
    "They were different times."
    yes, bad times. and a symbol of those bad times has no place in official buildings when the group of people that suffered through those bad times are citizens of the US.
  12. wherever I am needed
    Joined
    13 Dec '12
    Moves
    40201
    29 Jun '15 17:031 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "They were different times."
    yes, bad times. and a symbol of those bad times has no place in official buildings when the group of people that suffered through those bad times are citizens of the US.
    we will have to agree to disagree

    I am UK, and although I will visit the Civil War battlefields one day, I havent until now.

    You seem to think the 'stars and bars' represents slavery/racism. It doesnt to me.

    It signifies a set of States that put up an amazing fight, for 4 years against over whelming odds, to break free from what they saw as an unfair Central Government.

    Led by military geniuses such as Robert E Lee and, in particular, Thomas Jackson.

    As someone said earlier, it represents different things to different groups.
  13. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    29 Jun '15 17:15
    Originally posted by st dominics preview
    we will have to agree to diasgree

    I am UK, and although I will visit the Civil War battlefields one day, I havent until now.

    You seem to think the 'stars and bars' represents slavery/racism. It doesnt to me.

    It signifies a set of States that put up an amazing fight, for 4 years against over whelming odds, to break free from what they saw ...[text shortened]... Thomas Jackson.

    As someone said earlier, it represents different things to different groups.
    he has refused to acknowledge why it was never used at white supremacy and racist marches in the USA in the early part of the 20th century and has little to no interest in attempting to explain why his position is morally inconsistent.
  14. wherever I am needed
    Joined
    13 Dec '12
    Moves
    40201
    29 Jun '15 17:18
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    he has refused to acknowledge why it was never used at white supremacy and racist marches in the USA in the early part of the 20th century and has little to no interest in attempting to explain why his position is morally inconsistent.
    fair enough, Robbie

    Would you say the Confederate flag is used over here for racist purposes?

    I cant think of any..used by Country music fans, and generally people interested in the country life (especially big trucks!).

    Happy to be corrected...no recollection of the NF or other pond life using it?
  15. Account suspended
    Joined
    02 Jan '15
    Moves
    10189
    29 Jun '15 18:36
    As the 37 year old woman with 15 children says in the video :
    " Sumwun need to PAY fo' all dis...all dese chilrun".
    Certainly not her or all her "baby-daddys"

    YouTube
Back to Top