It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was it fair to compare the Confederate flag to a Nazi Flag?

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Me and my classmates were debating whether it's fair to compare them or not. The reason i said this because both flag had it's ugly history behind it. I know a lot of people say it's pale comparison because Confederate states did not kill millions of blacks just like the Nazis did with the Jews. However that doesn't change the fact the flags meaning behind it. The purpose of the rebel flag was to protect slavery. This is historic fact and and its documented in the Declaration of Immediate Causes by Confederates States as well as Declaration of Independence from Alabama, Georgia, and Texas. Even Alexander Stephens, Confederate VP from Georgia, said that the government. In it, he declared that slavery was the natural condition of blacks and the foundation of the Confederacy. He declared, "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." This speaks for itself. Slavery was the main issue why state rights was brought up and the main reason why the South secede. I see as unethical and moral unjustification whatsoever just like the Nazis had done with invading countries for no reason and justification of killing the Jews.

Later after American Civil War, the KKK was born out of the South and began a campaign of racial terror upon the black population in the South for more than 100 years. Although racism in non-Southern states is bad, it's a lot worse in the South. Angry over the blacks being free and after Reconstructions, Southern States passed Jim Crow Laws mostly de jure racial segregation(as opposed to de facto segregation in Northern and Pacific Coast states) and hold a powerful position in the Senate which prevented Washington DC in helping out the blacks in the South. The KKK was founded in Tennessee in 1866 and become extremely popular in the South. In 1868-1972, 4835 blacks, mostly innocent, were lynched, 80% of them took place in the South while the KKK and Southern Whites waving the rebel flag proudly

I can see why non-Southern States and it's people were very sensitive about the rebel flag and it's history behind it. Was it fair to compare those two? I can go on and on so what do you think.
edit on 7-7-2012 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-7-2012 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   
The Civil War was fought for states rights. Thinking it was fought over slavery is false. So yes comparing it to a Nazi flag is wrong.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   
I'm not up to speed on all of the details but slavery was definately not the only reason for the civil war.
To any americans who know: Didn't the north hike taxes on the southern states as well?

edit: thank you fractalchaos

edit on 7-7-2012 by HamrHeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Slavery was horrible. There's no denying that.

But, I mean, it's Nazis. These people did more than just exterminate Jews. They did it to pretty much every ethnic minority in Europe, to disabled people, to gays. They slowly starved people to death, slaughtered the parents of small children in front of them, ran ungodly monstrous experiments.

It's not even close. Not. even. close.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by HamrHeed
I'm not up to speed on all of the details but slavery was definately not the only reason for the civil war.
To any americans who know: Didn't the north hike taxes on the southern states as well?


The Economics of the Civil War




Economic Causes of the War

No one seriously doubts that the enormous economic stake the South had in its slave labor force was a major factor in the sectional disputes that erupted in the middle of the nineteenth century. Figure 1 plots the total value of all slaves in the United States from 1805 to 1860. In 1805 there were just over one million slaves worth about $300 million; fifty-five years later there were four million slaves worth close to $3 billion. In the 11 states that eventually formed the Confederacy, four out of ten people were slaves in 1860, and these people accounted for more than half the agricultural labor in those states. In the cotton regions the importance of slave labor was even greater. The value of capital invested in slaves roughly equaled the total value of all farmland and farm buildings in the South. Though the value of slaves fluctuated from year to year, there was no prolonged period during which the value of the slaves owned in the United States did not increase markedly. Looking at Figure 1, it is hardly surprising that Southern slaveowners in 1860 were optimistic about the economic future of their region. They were, after all, in the midst of an unparalleled rise in the value of their slave assets.


blah blah blah...




In the seven states where most of the cotton was grown, almost one-half the population were slaves, and they accounted for 31 percent of white people's income; for all 11 Confederate States, slaves represented 38 percent of the population and contributed 23 percent of whites' income. Small wonder that Southerners -- even those who did not own slaves -- viewed any attempt by the federal government to limit the rights of slaveowners over their property as a potentially catastrophic threat to their entire economic system. By itself, the South's economic investment in slavery could easily explain the willingness of Southerners to risk war when faced with what they viewed as a serious threat to their "peculiar institution" after the electoral victories of the Republican Party and President Abraham Lincoln the fall of 1860.


The Tariff




3. The Tariff. Southerners, with their emphasis on staple agriculture and need to buy goods produced outside the South, strongly objected to the imposition of duties on imported goods. Manufacturers in the Northeast, on the other hand, supported a high tariff as protection against cheap British imports. People in the West were caught in the middle of this controversy. Like the agricultural South they disliked the idea of a high "protective" tariff that raised the cost of imports. However the tariff was also the main source of federal revenue at this time, and Westerners needed government funds for the transportation improvements they supported in Congress. As a result, a compromise reached by western and eastern interests during in the tariff debates of 1857 was to support a "moderate" tariff; with duties set high enough to generate revenue and offer some protection to Northern manufacturers while not putting too much of a burden on Western and Eastern consumers. Southerners complained that even this level of protection was excessive and that it was one more example of the willingness of the West and the North to make economic bargains at the expense of the South (Ransom and Sutch 2001; Egnal 2001:50-52).


You can find the rest at
eh.net...

I'd have to say that slavery was a pretty big deal... as it impacted economics.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Is a baseball bat an instument used to play a game and hit a baseball... or is it a weapon used to brutally beat someone... depends on how it is used and on which side of the bat you are standing on.

Likewise... the Confederate BATTLE Flag is just as divisive. Some see it as a symbol of rebellion and heritage.... others see it as a symbol of oppression and slavery. Again, it depends on which side of the flag you are standing on.

A case can be made to compare the Nazi Flag to the Confederate Flag... both were used by their respective governments to wage war, oppress a people or peoples, were a symbol of national or regional identity and pride.

On the other hand... slavery as an institution was on it's way out. Read the letters of Robert E Lee and others in the Confederate government. There were proposals in place, and given time they would have been instituted, to free slaves, incorporate them into the CSA armies, and allow them the same rights as whites. And the CSA government was not devoted to racial purity, racial extermination, nor to religious fervor to the state at the expense of other religions... be it Christianity or Judaism...quite a few Jews in the Confederate Armies... as well as blacks..

that's right... blacks fought for the South. Oh, and there were actually slaves in the North. And when many slaves were "freed" and "liberated"... they went North only to try and escape back South... so much so that General Grant issued orders that any freed slaves seen heading south were to be shot...

As for comparing flags to Nazi flags...What would you say about a flag, whose government invades countries with vital resources... using subterfuge and trickery... that uses drones that kills innocent peoples at B-Day parties... kills enemies of the state in multiple countries with no respect to borders...calls anyone that opposes them 'Terrorists" and denies civil liberties to even it's own citizens... and like Hitler... uses the government to buy private businesses, tells other private businesses how to run their business...I think it is called fascism... and uses the state to provide all means to it's populace... uses endless surveillance by all means of interception... has security personal checking "your papers please" and giving you the pat down... just like in the old black and white movies at airports and rail terminals... and now public events...

I think we can make a case for another flag being more suitable to compare to the Nazi Flag than the Confederate Flag.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyBuff
The Civil War was fought for states rights. Thinking it was fought over slavery is false. So yes comparing it to a Nazi flag is wrong.


Ya but the thing is Slavery was the main issue of the States Rights. Slavery then got jettisoned into States rights. But many historians agree had there been no slavery then the Civil War would have not happened. There is a well fact that the CSA was planning on expanding slavery in Latin America and elsewhere months before the Civil War started which bolsters the argument that the war was about slavery. I have proof of documents if you want to know.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
Slavery was horrible. There's no denying that.

But, I mean, it's Nazis. These people did more than just exterminate Jews. They did it to pretty much every ethnic minority in Europe, to disabled people, to gays. They slowly starved people to death, slaughtered the parents of small children in front of them, ran ungodly monstrous experiments.

It's not even close. Not. even. close.


Like i said i know that but given it's history behind it's flag and not to mention a lot of people in non-Southern States like me are pretty sensitive regarding the issue of the rebel flag. And those people are not PC either.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paulioetc15

Originally posted by ConspiracyBuff
The Civil War was fought for states rights. Thinking it was fought over slavery is false. So yes comparing it to a Nazi flag is wrong.


Ya but the thing is Slavery was the main issue of the States Rights. Slavery then got jettisoned into States rights. But many historians agree had there been no slavery then the Civil War would have not happened. There is a well fact that the CSA was planning on expanding slavery in Latin America and elsewhere months before the Civil War started which bolsters the argument that the war was about slavery. I have proof of documents if you want to know.


The slavery issue was interjected after the civil war was already being fought. There are numerous examples of freed slaves fighting for the CSA. The above post about the economics of why the civil war started is the bigger picture.
edit on 7-7-2012 by ConspiracyBuff because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-7-2012 by ConspiracyBuff because: damn smartphone



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
Me and my classmates were debating whether it's fair to compare them or not. The reason i said this because both flag had it's ugly history behind it. I know a lot of people say it's pale comparison because Confederate states did not kill millions of blacks just like the Nazis did with the Jews. However that doesn't change the fact the flags meaning behind it. The purpose of the rebel flag was to protect slavery. This is historic fact and and its documented in the Declaration of Immediate Causes by Confederates States as well as Declaration of Independence from Alabama, Georgia, and Texas. Even Alexander Stephens, Confederate VP from Georgia, said that the government. In it, he declared that slavery was the natural condition of blacks and the foundation of the Confederacy.






A more accurate comparison would be between the Nazi banner and the Stars-n-bars (US flag) over much of the last last century -- but especially the last 50 years. The purpose of the US flag today is perpetual war -- on and off the battlefield -- for resources, corporate interest and geopolitical control. This has been documented by Smedley Butler (General), John Perkins (Confessions of an Economic Hit Man) and far too many others to count.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Seen as some blacks see no qualms to don the stylish confed flag on their car its not all that fair.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join