Confederate Flag on Truck at La Crosse Campus Stirs Debate

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Nothing you are saying here changes the fact that slavery was the center piece of the aggression between the two regions of the country. Slavery wasn't dying in the South and the North didn't have the means to end it. The South wanted to maintain Slavery because it was a cheap source of labor.

Putin must be laughing his butt off. The Soviet Cold War strategy was to destroy the United States from within.

Look around you. Socialism won.

originally posted by: Restricted
Putin must be laughing his butt off. The Soviet Cold War strategy was to destroy the United States from within.

Look around you. Socialism won.

Correction, Capitalism took over the political system allowing for exorbitant corruption on the highest level, allowing a select few to create a necessity for socialism by destroying an entire population of working men and women.

They have 25 houses now, you may be comfortable with one, but there are several without and with no hope other than to die. Thanks capitalism, you're the grand ole fella you promised to be!

I dont understand why people put themselves out there to intentionally insult other people. Find a new way to spend your energy. I live in Houston. Saw a guy yesterday with a rebel flag in the back of his 4x4 truck speeding around town. Now Im white and I dont think the rebel flag connotates racism I think the cival war was about states rights to govern themselves. But black people do connotate it with racism. So why put something on your truck that offends someone. Same thing goes for bumper stickers with political views. Guess what? You piss someone off with a sticker they will key your car some may even target you. Its stupid. Yes its a free country. But why put yourself out there as a target. Guess what theres someone out there more opinionated than you with the opposite ideology and they will be capable of blowing a fuse when they see you driving around . Common sense.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Very true. Very true. Especially the drinking beer part. If I get pissed off cause I hate my boss I go play grand theft auto 5 and wail on people in virtual reality because you go to jail if you do it in real life. And there is no better stress reliever than hitting a virtual reality boss with a baseball bat while drinking a sixpack. Yup.....

What if the truck driver had a gay pride flag on his bumper and as a straight heterosexual male I felt offended and wanted the sticker taken off because it threatened my religious and moral beliefs? Oh no! Am I allowed to feel offended then? But I bet the standards eouldnt be to ask the gay person to take his sticker off because it was offensive right? Stupid.

a reply to: Vector99
Life is so funny. I just saw an interesting video that says a lot of the same things you are saying, but it says you are quite wrong.

What makes it even more interesting, is that it was made as in instructional video at Harding College about 50 years ago.

I think you will get a kick out of it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you saying that the Union was fighting to end slavery?

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

No. If you've gotten far enough in the thread to jump into the middle of the conversation from that post, I request that you read further into the thread to get my full opinion on the matter. I promise you it is there. If, after you've read these other posts, you still have the same question then I'll elaborate again, but until then hop to it.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

You REALLY need to go and read the letters of succession those states made. Some states, like South Caolina, told you they were leaving because they wanted to keep their slaves.

Others states did it cuz they felt the gov was over reaching. But the fear of losing their slaves is what caused the south to wig out and leave the union for the most part.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've been checking in on the thread here and there, can't say I've read every post. I'm just wondering how slavery could be the "centerpiece of aggression" if one side was fighting to keep it and the other side wasn't fighting to end it.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

It's complicated. Towards the end of the war, Lincoln decided that ending slavery was key to ending the Civil War so the focus shifted. To be honest, we'd have to have a sit down and talk about it. This is a very complicated and complex situation that very few on ATS understand properly. Even I'm not sure I understand it fully, and I've been studying the Civil War my whole life (seriously... The Civil War got talked about a LOT during the time I lived in Mississippi and was attending school and I studied it in college too).

But to downplay the significance of slavery is just history revisionism. It's there if you sit and read your history books properly. You have all the turbulent situations that lead to the animosity between the north and south (john brown's raid, dred scott decision, missouri compromise, etc) which ALL involved slavery in some form. Like I said earlier in the thread, the South wouldn't have even joined the UNION if they didn't make concessions for slavery in the Constitution. Hell that's the whole theory behind the "States' Rights" argument. Because the South forced the North to write slavery into the Constitution, it became a matter of defending the right to own slaves to Southerners.

Though if you are really curious about this and not just trying to fish for internet points, I can walk you through the history up through the Civil War to show you why it was all about slavery. We'd have to start in 1776 though.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I do appreciate the thoughtful response. I'm certainly not trying to downplay the role of slavery in the Civil War. It just seemed to me that slavery was one of the main causes of the secession, but the secession was the sole cause of the war. It may seem like a minor distinction, but I make that distinction because I believe states should have the right to secede from the Union. Especially when the Federal Government imposes debt-slavery programs like the Federal Reserve Bank and Obamacare.

I guess I still hold on to the false hope that one day enough Americans will be so opposed to this type of slavery to hold a 10 Million Gun March on Washington, DC. As it stands, too many people are still too comfortable with our current form of slavery.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

I think secession is a completely immature response to trying to fix a government. Revolutions and civil wars more often then not result in LESS freedoms for the people upon successful uprising, not more. The USA was an exception, but look at the French Revolution. They got Napoleon.

I think we should work within the system to make it better, not completely tear it down and rebuild it. That's a quick way to prove the adage, "out of the frying pan and into the fire".

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I can appreciate your position on the matter.

I just wanted to add; I apologize for coming across as being adversarial on this. You seem to be well informed on your history, and I know you know two things. History is written by the victor, and the real reasons for war are almost never the stated reasons. It seems to me that history taught today is as much social engineering as it is facts and events.

It could just be my over-active conspiracy mindset, but I see the push to say “The Civil War was about slavery and only slavery” as an attempt to associate secession with racism and slavery. “You think states should be allowed to secede? You must be a racist that wants to bring back slavery!” That sort of thing.

I believe that at least some states have legal ground to secede, notably New York, Virginia, and Texas. Of course, you couldn’t win in a US court. You would have to take it to an international court as a contract dispute between two sovereign nations. But I wouldn’t expect the US to abide by the decision if they lost. The Federal Reserve wouldn’t give up their debt slaves without a fight, any more than the Confederacy would.

I also apologize to all for drifting so far off topic

Fact is the confederate flag is associated with hate and racism. Why would anyone want it on their truck unless they were trying to cause trouble?

Is there any GOOD reason to have that flag on his truck?

For example, there're many people in the US who hate and there're bad things the US has done. But does that mean nobody should have the US flag on their car? Of course not. Because we know there's lots of good associated with the US flag. If the same can be shown for the confederate flag then why should it be hidden or banned?

The confederate flag is obviously associated with something bad, but not everything bad is as obvious. Hence:
en.wikipedia.org - Microaggression theory...

www.theatlantic.com - How Trigger Warnings Are Hurting Mental Health on Campus...

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I can appreciate your position on the matter.

I just wanted to add; I apologize for coming across as being adversarial on this. You seem to be well informed on your history, and I know you know two things. History is written by the victor, and the real reasons for war are almost never the stated reasons. It seems to me that history taught today is as much social engineering as it is facts and events.

It's fine. I've dealt with worse.

Though about your point on "history is written by the victor." That isn't ENTIRELY true. The expression should really go, "History textbooks are written by the victor". REAL history is written by the people who lived it. Historians and Sociologists study MANY primary, secondary and tertiary sources to get a feel for the nuances and conflicts of history. My history professor in college told me that History shouldn't be looked at as a sequential line of events. It should be a series of conflicts. Each conflict had a victor and a loser. Both sides had their reasons for being on the side and both sides are part of history.

The problem arises when governments step in and want to history "taught" in schools. Well the government, being the government wants to make itself look good so it white washes everything removing all the controversy. This is why everyone hates history class while in school. It's boring, without conflict, and we all know what happens in the end anyways.

Sorry about that tangent there. It's just a pet peeve of mine when someone says that expression.

It could just be my over-active conspiracy mindset, but I see the push to say “The Civil War was about slavery and only slavery” as an attempt to associate secession with racism and slavery. “You think states should be allowed to secede? You must be a racist that wants to bring back slavery!” That sort of thing.

Now hold on a second. I said that the primary motivator for the war was slavery, there were DEFINITELY other reasons for the war. There is never one reason for anything on the world stage. I'm just trying to say that slavery was at the forefront of the discussion and reasons for secession.

I believe that at least some states have legal ground to secede, notably New York, Virginia, and Texas. Of course, you couldn’t win in a US court. You would have to take it to an international court as a contract dispute between two sovereign nations. But I wouldn’t expect the US to abide by the decision if they lost. The Federal Reserve wouldn’t give up their debt slaves without a fight, any more than the Confederacy would.

I really don't have much insight into this regard. While I feel that I have a better understanding than most on Constitutional and state law, I would never argue to be an expert on the matter.

I also apologize to all for drifting so far off topic

Heh. It's fine, I just did the same thing in this post.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Slavery was not the center piece of the civil war! The southern states leaving the union
was the real cause of the war.The slavery issue was an excuse used to justify it.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

I believe that at least some states have legal ground to secede, notably New York, Virginia, and Texas. Of course, you couldn’t win in a US court. You would have to take it to an international court as a contract dispute between two sovereign nations. But I wouldn’t expect the US to abide by the decision if they lost.

I understand your point, but it seems like it would have to be a little more complicated than a State just seceding. Using New York, Virginia, and Texas as examples. If they became sovereign nations to themselves, would they be able to be bought or conquered, by another country like say, France or Mexico?

Would not it put all the states in peril, if we were to dis-unite? While I can see where it may benefit a particular State in the short haul, financially or by independence of rights, would the cost of the freedoms be worth the risk? Or would they still expect to be under the protections of the country that they seceded from?

I am not being a smart ass. I really would like to understand just how that would work. I know America was once under the ownership of several different countries before it became the United States. I am just not sure how that would play out today. I know that Canada is making it work to some degree.

I just hope I have gone on to greener pastures before anything that even looks like that plays out here.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Good points, all.