Charleston Shooting Suspect (Derailed: Confederate Flag Debate)

[Lilllabettt]

held that a states themselves should have the right to make up their own mind regarding it.  This did not make those southerners pro slavery or racist.  It just made them Americans who believed in  a state governance which differed from what those in the Union believed it should be.  Again believe it or not there were also those in the North who were pro slavery but believed in the Unions right to enact laws on the states and believed the states must fall in line with the fed whether they disagree or not.  

 

 

yeah ... that's the point. They thought states should be able to decide whether to have legal slavery or not.

that's no better than people thinking the states should be able to decide whether to have legal abortion or not.

its pure evil. The states never had a "right" to make slavery legal if they wanted anymore than they have a "right" to make partial birth abortion legal if they wanted. Nobody has a right to violate basic human rights.  That's what these "decent guy" Confederates were arguing. They were arguing either that  1. states should have a right to violate basic human rights if they choose OR  2. that slavery is bad but its not a gross violation of basic human rights. THEY WERE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Worst mistake these "decent guy" Confederates ever made. And we honor them for it. un.beh.leevable.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Lilllabettt

[Papist]

The right at stake was a supposed right of individual states to have legal slavery without meddling of the Feds.

People who joined the Confederate army renounced American citizenship, joined a foreign army, and killed loyal American soldiers - all in order to protect their "right" to own other human beings, should they choose.

Why do we have memorials to these people on American soil? At best they were grievously mistaken about the evilness of the cause for which they gave their lives. 

Loyal Americans, think about what this country would be today if the flag of that foreign nation had prevailed against us in war.

Then see if it makes any sense to you that any American should take pride in having it as part of their "heritage."

You make it sound like if it was anything else but slavery, the South would have said, OK Mr. Lincoln if that is what you want, then we will stop doing that.  We still lose a ton of money for decades and decades. But ok, if that is what you want.  As much as you want to believe that, it is a fantasy.

 

 

yeah ... that's the point. They thought states should be able to decide whether to have legal slavery or not.

that's no better than people thinking the states should be able to decide whether to have legal abortion or not.

its pure evil. The states never had a "right" to make slavery legal if they wanted anymore than they have a "right" to make partial birth abortion legal if they wanted. Nobody has a right to violate basic human rights.  That's what these "decent guy" Confederates were arguing. They were arguing either that  1. states should have a right to violate basic human rights if they choose OR  2. that slavery is bad but its not a gross violation of basic human rights. THEY WERE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Worst mistake these "decent guy" Confederates ever made. And we honor them for it. un.beh.leevable.

This is documented where?

[Peace]

You make it sound like if it was anything else but slavery, the South would have said, OK Mr. Lincoln if that is what you want, then we will stop doing that.  We still lose a ton of money for decades and decades. But ok, if that is what you want.  As much as you want to believe that, it is a fantasy.

I suppose I can understand this desire to make the Civil War about "States Rights" and not about slavery. Slavery is abhorrent. Who wants to admit that they were in favor of that? It is the same thing with the pro-choice folks. Who wants to admit that they are favor of killing children? So they try to phrase the reality as some abstract principle such as "a right to privacy" or "a right to control my own body."

The Confederate States were in favor of slavery and their desire to maintain their practice of slavery was the primary reason why they decided to secede from the union. They state as much in their declarations of secession (noted above). Might they have left the union for some other reasons as well? Certainly that is possible. We can hypothesize all day about what may or may not have happened, but that does not change what actually did happen one bit.

[Credo in Deum]

I suppose I can understand this desire to make the Civil War about "States Rights" and not about slavery. Slavery is abhorrent. Who wants to admit that they were in favor of that? It is the same thing with the pro-choice folks. Who wants to admit that they are favor of killing children? So they try to phrase the reality as some abstract principle such as "a right to privacy" or "a right to control my own body."

The Confederate States were in favor of slavery and their desire to maintain their practice of slavery was the primary reason why they decided to secede from the union. They state as much in their declarations of secession (noted above). Might they have left the union for some other reasons as well? Certainly that is possible. We can hypothesize all day about what may or may not have happened, but that does not change what actually did happen one bit.

No one is denying that slavery was part of the Civil War.  What we are saying is that slavery wasn't the ONLY part or that it was the Primary part.  States Rights vs The Fed was the biggest part of the Civil War whether you want to acknowledge it or not.   

Even Huffington Post understands this:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/849066

Oh and tariffs:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-07-06/news/bs-ed-gettysburg-20130706_1_slavery-constitutional-convention-secession

Again as I stated earlier I would have been fine with the removal of the Battle Flag from state grounds had it been for the right reason and NOT for the MYTH that the flag represents a Civil War which was ONLY about a racist slavery loving South and a honorable abolitionist North.  I also neither support the banning of the battle flag for personal ownership and use, on the grounds that it's a racist flag for racist people. 

If you can't accept that then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

Edited July 12, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[veritasluxmea]

No one is denying that slavery was part of the Civil War.  What we are saying is that slavery wasn't the ONLY part or that it was the Primary part.  States Rights vs The Fed was the biggest part of the Civil War whether you want to acknowledge it or not.   

Even Huffington Post understands this:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/849066

Oh and tariffs:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-07-06/news/bs-ed-gettysburg-20130706_1_slavery-constitutional-convention-secession

Again as I stated earlier I would have been fine with the removal of the Battle Flag from state grounds had it been for the right reason and NOT for the MYTH that the flag represents a Civil War which was ONLY about a racist slavery loving South and a honorable abolitionist North.  I also neither support the banning of the battle flag for personal ownership and use, on the grounds that it's a racist flag for racist people. 

If you can't accept that then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

I think what peace is saying is State vs the Fed is only an issue because they wanted to keep slavery, so because slavery is bad, the issue of state vs the fed is bad. It's like a form of the genetic fallacy. Whether or not slavery contributed to the fight for state's rights, state's rights is a serious enough issue on its own, and it technically is separate from the slavery issue, even if racism and slavery was a (the?) motivating factor to bring the issue up and fight over state vs. the fed. 

In the end I'm just glad that the Fed "won". This time. 

[Lilllabettt]

You know, if you read the original documents the idea that they were really upset about states rights being violated, apart from slavery, just falls flat.

E.g. South Carolina goes on and on about how the state law in New York was being followed in contradiction to a federal law about returning runaway slaves. The Federal law said, basically, if you bring your slave cook to NYC so master can eat well while he's seeing a Broadway show, don't worry Southerners, she's still a slave. New York said: "hells bells to that, here's our state law that says if you bring your slave to NYC so master can see a Broadway show, she's free the minute she steps onto New York soil. Put that in your pipe an smoke it."  And the Confederates just complain and complain about how the New York state law is nullifying federal law and they cite that as one of the reasons they're seceding. 

If they gave a rat's derriere about the "principle" of states rights apart from slavery they would be all for New York having its own laws regardless of what the Feds said. But they didn't care about the "principle" of states rights so much as they cared about whether Northern legal activities, whether at the state or federal level, were allowing them to keep their slaves. 

[Peace]

No one is denying that slavery was part of the Civil War.  What we are saying is that slavery wasn't the ONLY part or that it was the Primary part.  States Rights vs The Fed was the biggest part of the Civil War whether you want to acknowledge it or not.   

Even Huffington Post understands this:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/849066

Oh and tariffs:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-07-06/news/bs-ed-gettysburg-20130706_1_slavery-constitutional-convention-secession

Tariffs? OK. Well. We can get into a war of posting news editorials if you want.

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/158670

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/the_south_still_lies_about_the_civil_war/

That does not really get us anywhere now does it?

I posted material from the official secession documents from confederate states.  Again - for example, look at what the State of Mississippi officially wrote in the document in which it declared its secession:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

 It states that "our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." It states that "There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin." I think the implication of that is rather obvious - but if you want to make the argument that slavery was not the primary reason why this state seceded, but that it really seceded because of a generic concern about "states rights" or a tariff, even though the state itself says the complete opposite of that in the document in which they officially declare their reasons for secession, you are certainly free to continue to do so.

Again as I stated earlier I would have been fine with the removal of the Battle Flag from state grounds had it been for the right reason and NOT for the MYTH that the flag represents a Civil War which was ONLY about a racist slavery loving South and a honorable abolitionist North.  I also neither support the banning of the battle flag for personal ownership and use, on the grounds that it's a racist flag for racist people. 

If you can't accept that then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I never said that there were no absolutely no other concrete issues other than slavery (although there were not many). I said that it was primarily about slavery. And given that it was primarily about slavery, African Americans and others are certainly justified at taking offense when people choose to fly that flag. It certainly is a very real symbol of racist beliefs and subjugation to them. If you want to put it on your porch you or anyone else is free to do so. Others are free to consider you or anyone else who puts up the flag to be a jerk for doing so, and to suspect and accuse you of harboring or advancing racist beliefs.

If you can't accept that then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

[Archaeology cat]

 

Tariffs? OK. Well. We can get into a war of posting news editorials if you want.

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/158670

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/the_south_still_lies_about_the_civil_war/

That does not really get us anywhere now does it?

I posted material from the official secession documents from confederate states.  Again - for example, look at what the State of Mississippi officially wrote in the document in which it declared its secession:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

 It states that "our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." It states that "There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin." I think the implication of that is rather obvious - but if you want to make the argument that slavery was not the primary reason why this state seceded, but that it really seceded because of a generic concern about "states rights" or a tariff, even though the state itself says the complete opposite of that in the document in which they officially declare their reasons for secession, you are certainly free to continue to do so.

I never said that there were no absolutely no other concrete issues other than slavery (although there were not many). I said that it was primarily about slavery. And given that it was primarily about slavery, African Americans and others are certainly justified at taking offense when people choose to fly that flag. It certainly is a very real symbol of racist beliefs and subjugation to them. If you want to put it on your porch you or anyone else is free to do so. Others are free to consider you or anyone else who puts up the flag to be a jerk for doing so, and to suspect and accuse you of harboring or advancing racist beliefs.

If you can't accept that then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Primary sources FTW

[Socrates]

The right at stake was a supposed right of individual states to have legal slavery without meddling of the Feds.

People who joined the Confederate army renounced American citizenship, joined a foreign army, and killed loyal American soldiers - all in order to protect their "right" to own other human beings, should they choose.

Why do we have memorials to these people on American soil? At best they were grievously mistaken about the evilness of the cause for which they gave their lives. 

Loyal Americans, think about what this country would be today if the flag of that foreign nation had prevailed against us in war.

Then see if it makes any sense to you that any American should take pride in having it as part of their "heritage."

 

Those fighting for the Confederate States were certainly not fighting for a "foreign army," but were fighting in the army of their own native states, which most Americans at that time regarded as their actual primary country, rather than the Union.

These were American soldiers fighting for American states--its not like they went off and joined the British or the French Army--and most of them saw themselves as defending their homeland against Yankee aggressors, whom they would regard as the foreigners.

In fact, nearly all of them would regard it as treason to join the Union Army to fight against their home state. It was for that reason that both Lee and Jackson, among others, who had formerly sided with the Union, decided to fight for the Confederacy when their home state was under attack.

You're imposing modern, post-war standards of loyalty on these men who believed in the older ideal of state as homeland and country.

(And interestingly, Lincoln and many of those in the Union who actually fought the Confederates in the war do not share the utter contempt and disrespect you show towards those who fought for the South.)

It's quite evident that most of the people on here trashing and spitting bile on everyone who fought on the Confederate side have never actually read about or studied the war and its history in any serious way.

But of course, it's easy to sit back in our comfy chairs and trash and impugn the character of men who died long ago, and aren't alive to defend their own honor, then smugly pat ourselves on the back for our own superior political correctness.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Socrates
formatting issues

[Peace]

I think what peace is saying is State vs the Fed is only an issue because they wanted to keep slavery, so because slavery is bad, the issue of state vs the fed is bad. It's like a form of the genetic fallacy. Whether or not slavery contributed to the fight for state's rights, state's rights is a serious enough issue on its own, and it technically is separate from the slavery issue, even if racism and slavery was a (the?) motivating factor to bring the issue up and fight over state vs. the fed. 

In the end I'm just glad that the Fed "won". This time. 

Not quite. I do not think there was much of a significant concern by the states about "states rights". The main issue at dispute was slavery. A general concern about states rights was of secondary consideration, and much less so. Heck, if you look at the South Carolina secession declaration that I posted above - you can see that the state argues against states rights. SC asserts that the Northern States should not be allowed to prohibit the transit of slaves through their territories, and suggests that the Federal Government had an obligation to require them to allow it. That sounds like a state that is concerned with upholding a right to own slaves, not a state that is concerned about government interference with the rights of states.

You know, if you read the original documents the idea that they were really upset about states rights being violated, apart from slavery, just falls flat.

E.g. South Carolina goes on and on about how the state law in New York was being followed in contradiction to a federal law about returning runaway slaves. The Federal law said, basically, if you bring your slave cook to NYC so master can eat well while he's seeing a Broadway show, don't worry Southerners, she's still a slave. New York said: "hells bells to that, here's our state law that says if you bring your slave to NYC so master can see a Broadway show, she's free the minute she steps onto New York soil. Put that in your pipe an smoke it."  And the Confederates just complain and complain about how the New York state law is nullifying federal law and they cite that as one of the reasons they're seceding. 

If they gave a rat's derriere about the "principle" of states rights apart from slavery they would be all for New York having its own laws regardless of what the Feds said. But they didn't care about the "principle" of states rights so much as they cared about whether Northern legal activities, whether at the state or federal level, were allowing them to keep their slaves. 

Why do you keep making the points that I wanted to make, and in a more convincing manner!? So annoying. J/K

[Credo in Deum]

 

Tariffs? OK. Well. We can get into a war of posting news editorials if you want.

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/158670

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/the_south_still_lies_about_the_civil_war/

That does not really get us anywhere now does it?

I posted material from the official secession documents from confederate states.  Again - for example, look at what the State of Mississippi officially wrote in the document in which it declared its secession:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

 It states that "our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." It states that "There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin." I think the implication of that is rather obvious - but if you want to make the argument that slavery was not the primary reason why this state seceded, but that it really seceded because of a generic concern about "states rights" or a tariff, even though the state itself says the complete opposite of that in the document in which they officially declare their reasons for secession, you are certainly free to continue to do so.

I never said that there were no absolutely no other concrete issues other than slavery (although there were not many). I said that it was primarily about slavery. And given that it was primarily about slavery, African Americans and others are certainly justified at taking offense when people choose to fly that flag. It certainly is a very real symbol of racist beliefs and subjugation to them. If you want to put it on your porch you or anyone else is free to do so. Others are free to consider you or anyone else who puts up the flag to be a jerk for doing so, and to suspect and accuse you of harboring or advancing racist beliefs.

If you can't accept that then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

You should read that document again. The key is this sentence "or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

Subverted; CORRUPTED! The rest of the letter goes on to argue this claim that the original union government has been corrupted and has departed from what the founding fathers had instituted and intended,  founding fathers who where also SLAVE OWNERS themselves.  The South is saying the founding fathers had originally formed a government which allowed for both slave states as well as non-slave states to coexist because the states themselves would have the RIGHT to decide on matters such as the RIGHT to own slaves!  This is the point this document is making, to show how the original government had been subverted, since why would the founding fathers agree to a document which they thought would not protect or at the least allow them to continue to have their slaves? Do you really expect me to believe the founding fathers who owned slaves didn't think about their slave property when they formed the constitution and Declaration of Independence? Ha!

"Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps [the founding fathers]. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

This document is about the States RIGHTS to own slaves and that they're separating to maintain these RIGHTS which they claim they had under the original union until it had become subverted: CORRUPTED!

Yes. We will agree to disagree.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[dUSt]

 

Ironically, taking down the flag hasn't actually fixed anything, or pacified the left.  The leftist mob always demands more, and is never satisfied.  Now they're pulling Dukes of Hazzard reruns off the air, pulling Civil War-themed strategy games off shelves and digging up the graves of  Confederate generals.  Where does it end?

It should have ended at public buildings. Like I said, people should be able to fly the flag if they want. I believe Kid Rock's response was the best yet.

Edited July 12, 2015 by dUSt

[Peace]

Credo - well that is certainly an interesting way of reading the document. Carry on. Again - I can understand the desire to make the Civil War about a fight for something other than that which is morally repugnant. If I had been pro-slavery in the past I would probably want to deny it or characterize it as something else too. That is totally understandable.

So you are saying that a decision by the Federal Government to end slavery would have been a form of corruption? I do not think that ending slavery is what typically comes to mind when people think of government corruption, but perhaps that is what one must think to reach the conclusions that you have reached.

Since the southern states were primarily fighting in protest against a corrupt government, as you seem to put it, do you believe that the southern states were justified in leaving the union, so that they may have no longer been oppressed by a corrupt federal government that may have taken away their precious right to buy and sell men like pieces of property?

[Credo in Deum]

"Credo - well that is certainly an interesting way of reading the document. Carry on. Again - I can understand the desire to make the Civil War about a fight for something other than that which is morally repugnant. If I had been pro-slavery in the past I would probably want to deny it or characterize it as something else too. That is totally understandable."

I seriously do not understand what you're trying to get at or imply with this. There were no spin dr. in this issue. The South clearly wasn't the least bit concerned with what you thought was or wasn't morally repugnant. The South, however, was concerned with if you believed the Fed had the right to take away their property. A right they believed the Fed never had according to what they believed to be the spirit of the constitution. 

"So you are saying that a decision by the Federal Government to end slavery would have been a form of corruption? I do not think that ending slavery is what typically comes to mind when people think of government corruption, but perhaps that is what one must think to reach the conclusions that you have reached."

 What I'm saying is that historically it was the South who believed that what the Fed was doing, constituted for them, a form of corruption.  What I'm saying is that from a historical stand point I can understand why they believed this.  If your government was originally founded by men who were a mixture of by both slave owners and non-slave owners, then you can logically assume that the constitution, which was made to limit the control of the Fed, was created in a spirit of protection for both the salve owning founding fathers and the ones who did not own slaves.  

"Since the southern states were primarily fighting in protest against a corrupt government, as you seem to put it, do you believe that the southern states were justified in leaving the union, so that they may have no longer been oppressed by a corrupt federal government that may have taken away their precious right to buy and sell men like pieces of property."

Well that's the thing.  There is the spirit in which the constitution was drafted and then there is what the constitution says.  Since the context of the constitution did not have within it sufficient language to prove the claim of the states rights to slaves then on that point I do not believe they are justified (and I also don't believe they're justified on moral grounds either).  However, if we were to judge if the South was justified based on the spirit in which the constitution was created, taking into account the men who wrote it, then I would say they would be justified since I don't believe those founding fathers who were slave owners, would have ever enacted a constitution which they believe would one day allow the Fed the ability to take away what they held to be their rightful property (slaves).  Unfortunately for them and luckily for the slaves and our country's future, they didn't produce a document which contextually gave them as much protection as they thought it did in the way of states rights regarding the ownership of slaves. 

 

Anyway I'm tired of this discussion.  Right now we're beating

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/statesrights.html

Edited July 12, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[Peace]

Credo - that is a dead horse that I will gladly beat some more. If you want to stop posting on the topic you will not hear any arguments from me. But if you post a string of arguments asserting why you are right, you should expect that someone might respond to them. You can't exactly put forth a long string of arguments, write "I am tired of discussing this" and then expect everyone to be like "OK."

"Credo - well that is certainly an interesting way of reading the document. Carry on. Again - I can understand the desire to make the Civil War about a fight for something other than that which is morally repugnant. If I had been pro-slavery in the past I would probably want to deny it or characterize it as something else too. That is totally understandable."

I seriously do not understand what you're trying to get at or imply with this. There were no spin dr. in this issue. The South clearly wasn't the least bit concerned with what you thought was or wasn't morally repugnant. The South, however, was concerned with if you believed the Fed had the right to take away their property. A right they believed the Fed never had according to what they believed to be the spirit of the constitution. 

What I was suggesting was that you (and others) seem to have a desire to make the Civil War about something grander than what it was actually about. The Civil War specifically arose concerning the right of men in the Confederate States to enslave other men, and I think that one has to torture history in order to deny or re-frame what every 4th grader in the country can tell you at the drop of a dime. Why would someone want to torture history in that fashion? I do not know, but I image that it has to do with guilt in some sense. For whatever reason there seems to be this desire to make the Civil War about something noble (e.g. "States Rights") rather than about something abhorrent - the right of people living in the Confederate States to enslave men. I can understand that someone who desires to fly a Confederate Flag would not want to admit that is what the people who originally flew the flag were fighting for. It is much nicer to think that the flag on your porch was flown by men who were fighting a noble battle for "states rights".  As I explained before, it seems to be the same thing that you see with people who are pro-choice. The obvious reality is that they are fighting for the right to kill children. But they attempt to re-frame their fight as something more noble, as you have. They say that they are fighting for "privacy" or for "a right for a woman to control her own body." Why would they do that? Because nobody wants to face up to the reality that they are fighting for a right to kill children.

Of course, those are just my thoughts, and I would imagine that you would disagree. From your viewpoint, I suppose you are just stating the facts as you see them, or perhaps defending the noble confederates who have been unjustly slandered as fighting a war for the continued ability to enslave men . . .