I'm not racist, but....

[Josh]

Of course. I highlighted that as an obvious example.

I would suggest that the ideals of America as reflected in the Constitution are noble. The outlaw of slavery, equal protection for all under the 14th Amendment, Upholding Indian treaties as the highest law under the land under Article 6. But in practice we often fall far far short of those ideals.

That is in direct contrast to the Confederate cause which by their own words was premised on the exact opposite principles.

In what parallel universe was the Constitution an anti slavery document?

The one that includes the 13th Amendment. Why do you look it up and tell us what it says.

… which wasn’t part of the Constitution for a century.

[Ken]

In what parallel universe was the Constitution an anti slavery document?

The one that includes the 13th Amendment. Why do you look it up and tell us what it says.

… which wasn’t part of the Constitution for a century.

Yes, it is a living document isn't it? Just how the founders intended.

[Sudsy]

I frankly don't fly the American flag either. But be that as it may, the American flag doesn't represent a nation premised on racism and defense of slavery. To the contrary.

Huh. I was sure that… we were told a minute ago that American was founded on the two original sins of racism and white supremacy.

Ideals and reality often differ dramatically don't they?

The question for all of is is which side are we on? Because there are, indeed sides. Do we seek to uphold our ideals and follow the "better angles of our nature" to quote Abraham Lincoln? Or do we seek to whitewash our history and perpetuate those inequities? That is a choice all of us have.

The way I see it is our choices are to follow Jesus or follow the ways of this world. Scripture says that although He (Jesus) came to His own (the Jews) and they did not receive Him, to those who would (both Jews and Gentiles, non-Jews) He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name. If Jesus received everyone, regardless of race, colour, whatever, so should we. What the governments and kingdoms of this world do has nothing to do with what we do as Kingdom Citizens. This world is not our home and the less we can make it such, the better.

[Soloist]

Wanted to make sure it is clear, the south may have fought for states rights, but predominantly that was the right to have slaves. The commoner would have not been fighting for slavery though. The south was brutal to slaves and while my upbringing was very pro-confederacy, it was primarily centered on Lee and his actions. He was always presented in books as an honorable man who disliked slavery but fought for his home of Virginia. He was in command of the Virginia army before it joined the confederacy.
Now, older and a little wiser, I’m not so impressed with his life choices and I never liked Davis.
All in all, I cannot support the confederacy, I’m not ignorant of their evil.
I don’t want someone to think I’m pro confederate or a southern sympathizer. I like their coffee and food. That’s about as far as it goes. I object to characterization of them as evil and how much worse they are then the side that won. Against slaves, they committed atrocities, and that is not in question. I am a palled whenever I run across a Mennonite that’s a southern sympathizer, which happened more in the north than the south ironically.

[Neto]

Humanity possesses an inordinate capacity for brutality, no matter where they are found.

[Ken]

Wanted to make sure it is clear, the south may have fought for states rights,

And what rights were southern states seeking that they felt were being denied to them?

In point of fact, other than the right to own slaves, southern states actually opposed any notion of states rights and instead promoted a strong Federal government that they controlled in order to infringe on the rights of Northern states to choose their own separate directions. If you read the articles of secession of various southern states, they were alarmed by the election of Abraham Lincoln because they thought he would grant too much power to individual northern states to restrict slavery within their borders and to refuse to accommodate southern slavery. Southerners were agitated by northern states refusing to allow slavers to transport slaves across their territories, for refusing to cooperate with the fugitive slave act, for allowing Blacks to vote, and various other sundry grievances. Southerners also wanted to block new states like Kansas from choosing to outlaw slavery through popular vote because they sought to expand slavery westward.

So the whole "states rights" argument is a canard promoted by Confederate apologists long after the civil war ended. We know exactly why southern states seceded. They told us so loudly and publicly. And other than the right to own slaves, it had little to do with state's rights.

And yes, slavery was utterly evil as was any society organized around and based on slavery. And worse still, chattel slavery based on race. There is simply no getting around that fact. That does not make the north or United States into any sort of perfect and virtuous society. It clearly was not. But there was a right and wrong side in the civil war. That fact is undeniable. And the racism that served as the foundation for southern slavery still echoes onward today.

[Josh]

Ah, yes, war is OK as long as the “good guys” win.

[Ken]

Ah, yes, war is OK as long as the “good guys” win.

We can certainly make moral judgments about the reasons why societies go to war. The civil war was launched by the south. They told us exactly why. The defense of and expansion of race-based slavery. And it was folly from the start as General Sherman pointed out to southern politicians in New Orleans on the eve of the war

You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it … Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.

- William Tecumseh Sherman, 1860.

[ken_sylvania]

Ah, yes, war is OK as long as the “good guys” win.

We can certainly make moral judgments about the reasons why societies go to war. The civil war was launched by the south. They told us exactly why. The defense of and expansion of race-based slavery. And it was folly from the start as General Sherman pointed out to southern politicians in New Orleans on the eve of the war

Why did the north go to war?

[Soloist]

Wanted to make sure it is clear, the south may have fought for states rights,

And what rights were southern states seeking that they felt were being denied to them?

Do you read my post? Or selectively stop once you have something to attack?