Heritage not Hate

[AntiBlitz]

You're obviously ignorant of what happened and continues to happen in wars where the people fighting it aren't of the same ethnicity, religion, and other tribal identifications. You must be literally fucking retarded, "most horrible war in history"? Do you have any idea what the colonial powers did in the exact same time period? What the average war between "uncivilized" countries led to? You stupid motherfucker.

you do understand that was taken rather out of context right?  It was the deadliest war for American history, and a turn of phrase used by historians to speak of the civil war.  But dont worry, just keep on ranting, you make yourself look stupid.

[Oberyn]

Again, one of the if not the most cleanest modern war on record. My remarks aren't taken out of context, Salad Fork was whining about how the war was the most horrible one in recorded history specifically for the average civilian. I wouldn't have said anything if he hadn't tried to paint it as a somehow particularly destructive war, when the exact fucking opposite is true. The people who died largely died in set piece battles, not the raping of the civilian populace that was common the world over whenever wars between different tribal groups occured. Because the North treating the south with fucking kid gloves (relatively to practically every other war that has ever existed) and the subsequent "reconstruction" efforts (kid gloves occupation) lead to these self-pitying myths about being poor opressed victims by evil northerners endure to this day.

[Grytviken]

You're obviously ignorant of what happened and continues to happen in wars where the people fighting it aren't of the same ethnicity, religion, and other tribal identifications. You must be literally fucking retarded, "most horrible war in history"? Do you have any idea what the colonial powers did in the exact same time period? What the average war between "uncivilized" countries led to? What wars in continental Europe were like? You stupid motherfucker. I notice you didn't respond to my question about civilian casualties. Tell me, what was it, and how comparable is it to any other war in the exact same time period the world over? And every other war before it, since it was, in your estimation, the "most horrible one" yet?
Fuck, just look at what happened after the war. Do you think the northern "occupation" led to to the same sorts of events that occupation after a war usually leads to?

The overall mortality rate for the South exceeded that of any country in World War I and all but the region between the Rhine and the Volga in World War II, does that answer your question?

[Oberyn]

Source?

[Doom_Carrot]

You're obviously ignorant to what 300,000 soldiers will do for food and supplies when they run out. Both Army's foraged the country sides dry leaving the civilians in the south with nothing, on top of an already diminishing surplus of food available for the south because it was completely cut off.

^^^^

Whatever the hell his name was's MARCH TO THE SEA

Look it up. Pretty brutal stuff.

[Teeth]

The overall mortality rate for the South exceeded that of any country in World War I and all but the region between the Rhine and the Volga in World War II, does that answer your question?

The region between the Rhine and the Volga, really?

[Grytviken]

^^^^

Whatever the hell his name was's MARCH TO THE SEA

Look it up. Pretty brutal stuff.

I'm merely playing the devil's advocate here, I am in no way taking a moral stance, just stating facts, the idea that there is always some kind of moral highground / good guy bad guy is played out Oberyn. The South had a MUCH smaller relative population to the North, regiments at the time were composed of men from the same town/counties so when a regiment took high casualties the entire male population in counties disappeared. As the war dragged on for 5 years the south was completely drained of all manpower, on top of that the south did not nearly produce enough food to be self sufficient for the entire war and the civilians suffered horribly. There was a mandatory draft in the south 17-50 years old. The entire south was destroyed by this war hence reconstruction.

http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/national_cemeteries/death.html

[Oberyn]

"50,000 civilian deaths"

So, 50k civilian deaths, compared to 620k military ones. Yeah, I can totally see how fucking horrible it was, most horrible war ever, poor southern victims, totally oppressed innocents, even though the overwhelming majority died on the battlefield. It wasn't a war for survival, as the subsequent northern "occupation" showed, if the absurdly unusual civilian/military casualty ratio wasn't enough of a hint. I can't believe you are seriously trying to play out the south as victims in a war they started and fought to the bitter end over their rights to own other human beings, one in which the heritage they shared with their enemies is the only reason they didn't suffer nearly as much as they would've in any other circumstance.

[AntiBlitz]

can we get back to the real issue, i truly dont give a fuck about this whole dick measuring contest over whose war is cooler.

[Grytviken]

"50,000 civilian deaths"

So, 50k civilian deaths, compared to 620k military ones. Yeah, I can totally see how fucking horrible it was, most horrible war ever, poor southern victims, totally oppressed innocents, even though the overwhelming majority died on the battlefield. It wasn't a war for survival, as the subsequent northern "occupation" showed, if the absurdly unusual civilian/military casualty ratio wasn't enough of a hint. I can't believe you are seriously trying to play out the south as victims in a war they started and fought to the bitter end over their rights to own other human beings.

50,000 that is recorded.. and 620k military, that is almost the entire population of Mississippi at the time. I am in no way trying to play out the south as victims, but it's important to remember that there were many more reasons to fight in the war than just slavery, it was a personal grudge between the Southerners and Northerners, and slavery was part of that grudge. At the start of the war the US government had no intentions whatsoever of dissolving the institution of slavery in the South, but to preserve the Union and keep the US economy intact and punish the South for their rebellion.

[Oberyn]

Yes, you're right, everything is grey and meaningless, the north had no redeeming qualities that made it inherently superior to the south, the cassus beli of being entitled to own other human beings because they are biologically inferior was just as valid, and the only reason the union went to war was for material realpolitiks reasons, despite the 30 years tension lead up to the war being entirely about the issue of slavery and the war itself about the issue of slavery. The mealymouthed political speeches about preserving the union being paramount weren't just about placating the southern state governments without enraging their constituents who, obviously, didn't support slavery as an instution at all and didn't see it as an integral part of their cultural identity. That's why the emancipation proclamation never happened, because once it was clear the north was going to easily win the war and the southern states still would not surrender, the north had absolutely no incentive to abolish slavery at all. After all, it was all about punishing the south and money, so slavery was not a target.

[Grytviken]

Yes, you're right, everything is grey and meaningless, the north had no redeeming qualities that made it inherently superior to the south, the cassus beli of being entitled to own other human beings because they are biologically inferior was just as valid, and the only reason the union went to war was for material realpolitiks reasons, despite the 30 year lead up to the war being entirely about the issue of slavery, the war itself about the issue of slavery. The mealymouthed political speeches about preserving the union being paramount weren't just about placating the southern state governments without enraging their consitutuents who, obviously, didn't support slavery as an instution at all and didn't see it as an integral part of their cultural identity.

I think you are ignoring the fact that the majority of Northerners were just as racist if not more racist than southerners. There was no boycott of cotton sold to the north, in fact they were trying to get a cheaper price than Great Britain by creating tariffs on trade. A northerner invented the cotton gin which amplified the production of cotton and created an even bigger demand for slaves than there had ever been before, and Northerners profited off of this by greatly expanding textile manufacturing to meet this demand. The point i'm trying to make is the south was not alone guilty in the abuse of slavery, and the traitor flag is a nice distraction from the actual realities of this period in time.

http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/291/cotton-and-the-civil-war

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/why-was-cotton-king/

The famous General Grant tried to run a plantation that failed before the war in Missouri with 15 slaves he borrowed from his uncle, should his statue be removed? Is he racist? I'm merely stating facts, almost the entire country at the time was racist and did not care at all for slaves, only the highly intellectuals did, both north and south, and had no idea what to do with the issue of slavery other than contain it.

[Grytviken]

Maybe the goodies should wear white hats and the baddies should wear black hats, just so that the kids at home dont get confused about which side they should be supporting.

So when people are vocal about abolition they're being honest, when they're being vocal about the union they're lying to hide their real agenda? My mind must be full of pure fantasy to imagine a nation going to war over territorial and political divides, everyone knows that wars of the 19th century were made for humanitarian reasons as part of a relief effort to save those poor poor slaves. Thank god for those white knight northern states who selflessly gave their lives so that later post-war they could pass a war that abolished slavery so that black people could remain hated and jobless on the streets. Such noble selfless souls that allowed this to come to pass.

Agreed, many Southerners knew it was evil but still convinced themselves it was a necessary evil sanctioned by god through religion, and it was for the good of both whites and blacks in the south. They saw Northern cities full of poor immigrants and homeless bums, European indentured servants and filthy Germans ( Germans were by far the most hated immigrants of this period), and claimed that their slaves were better mannered, paid, and dressed than the average Northerner, so how could their society and ideology be superior? When Lincoln won the election with a 40% majority the South knew it would forever be at the mercy of Northern politics from that point on.

The North on the other hand saw the Southerners as traitors who gloated about their riches built by a filthy institution, who attacked Federal installations built by their hard earned tax money, and should be rightfully taught a lesson for their treason. As casualties piled up it was imperative to end the war in any way possible as so many lives had already been invested in the struggle, they won through sheer resolve.

Alright i'm done, have a nice day, stay in school kids.

[AntiBlitz]

[CrazyCracka420]

At best/minimum, the traitor flag represents treason and sedition.  At worst is represents treason, sedition, systemic racism, and bigotry.

What else is there to discuss?  You're acting proud because your ancestors fought against the very country you live in, so they could oppress other human beings?  Sounds like a heritage to not only be proud of, but to fly over the capital of a state in this country. 

Thinking, it's not for everyone.