Charleston Shooting Suspect (Derailed: Confederate Flag Debate)

[Credo in Deum]

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."

From talking with people from the south who like and want to keep the Battle Flag, this is what I've gathered regarding the heritage part.  The heritage the battle flag represents is one of a people who opposed the government when they felt it was no longer working for them but against them.  Regardless of if you agree or disagree with slavery, the civil was a part of our nations history.  It was a time where we see a group of states unite together and form a rebellion against our government which they felt had lost its way and had overreached its authority (sounds like a familiar problem right now).  A government which no longer represented them or the purpose for which it was formed.  This is what they felt and this is what the battle flag was designed to show.  This is why the battle flag was kept in the south while the Confederate Nation flag was not.  This is why it was used on shows like the Dukes of Hazard because Bo and Luke where the rebels against a corrupt government force.

The battle flag is one of the only historical flags we have that shows that there was a time when American citizens mobilized and started a rebellion against the American government.  This is why it is called the rebel flag.  This is why it should be kept. It is a reminder to us Americans that when our government ceases to represent us then we must fight back like our ancestors had done.  It was also a reminder to politicians that if they try to abuse the people, then the people will rise up and they will fight back, so watch what you do and what bills you pass (TPP cough). 

The idea that the battle flag was about racism is, IMO, stupid. It's spirit is about rebellion. To say it's a sign of racism furthermore perpetuates the myth and revisionist history that the Union was filled with only anti-slave states, or that everyone in the union was anti-slavery and fighting to free the slaves.  All of these are false representations of the North.  This can be seen in the writings of the president, the actions of the states in the north and its citizens, and the treatment of black soldiers who fought in the Union army who were segregated from the whites because they were not seen as equals.  Make no mistake, the north was filled with racists.

[Lilllabettt]

What was the rebellion about though? What were they angry about the Feds meddling with?

They thought individual states should have the right to decide for themselves whether it should be legal within their borders to own human beings.

Sure, the North was full of racists who didn't care about ending slavery. "We promise we don't wanna take your slaves" is what they said, and what they meant. And the South was full of racists who didn't believe them. That's why there was a war. 

It was Southern butthurt at the idea that these uppity Feds might one day come and tell them they couldn't have slaves.

That's what made them renounce their citizenship, join a foreign army, and make war against the United States. Mowing down a bunch of loyal American servicemen in the process. And Southerners are proud they have this decision making process in their family tree.

Does anyone here think the states should EVER have had the right to decide if human slavery is legal within their borders?

The Feds were racist and had no intention of stopping slavery pre Civil War. But lets pretend they had been against slavery and DID try to stop slavery. What if they actually had rolled up to the southern states and said " uhhh no you can't buy and sell human beings anywhere in America no more."  Does anyone think that would have been an abuse of federal power???

 

 

 

Edited July 11, 2015 by Lilllabettt

[Peace]

From talking with people from the south who like and want to keep the Battle Flag, this is what I've gathered regarding the heritage part.  The heritage the battle flag represents is one of a people who opposed the government when they felt it was no longer working for them but against them.  Regardless of if you agree or disagree with slavery, the civil was a part of our nations history.  It was a time where we see a group of states unite together and form a rebellion against our government which they felt had lost its way and had overreached its authority (sounds like a familiar problem right now).  A government which no longer represented them or the purpose for which it was formed.  This is what they felt and this is what the battle flag was designed to show.  This is why the battle flag was kept in the south while the Confederate Nation flag was not.  This is why it was used on shows like the Dukes of Hazard because Bo and Luke where the rebels against a corrupt government force.

The battle flag is one of the only historical flags we have that shows that there was a time when American citizens mobilized and started a rebellion against the American government.  This is why it is called the rebel flag.  This is why it should be kept. It is a reminder to us Americans that when our government ceases to represent us then we must fight back like our ancestors had done.  It was also a reminder to politicians that if they try to abuse the people, then the people will rise up and they will fight back, so watch what you do and what bills you pass (TPP cough). 

The idea that the battle flag was about racism is, IMO, stupid. It's spirit is about rebellion. To say it's a sign of racism furthermore perpetuates the myth and revisionist history that the Union was filled with only anti-slave states, or that everyone in the union was anti-slavery and fighting to free the slaves.  All of these are false representations of the North.  This can be seen in the writings of the president, the actions of the states in the north and its citizens, and the treatment of black soldiers who fought in the Union army who were segregated from the whites because they were not seen as equals.  Make no mistake, the north was filled with racists.

You are not one of these folks who believes that the Civil War was about "States Rights" and not slavery are you?

The Nazi flag was not explicitly created to symbolize the killing of Jews. It was more of a sign of ethnic pride. But you can't put the Nazi flag on your porch and say "to me this does not represent the slaughter of millions of Jews, to me it represents pride in my own ethnic group." If you did people would say that is ridiculous. The would call you a racist. Why? Because we know what the Nazis did. We know what people who used that flag to represent themselves did - they killed millions of Jewish people. You can't untie the Nazi flag from acts that were done by the people who flew it. That is not the way the world works.

It is the same with the Confederate Flag. You can make grandiose statements about how to you it represents "a rebellious spirit" all you like. But we know why the Confederate States left the union. We know what the men who flew the Confederate Flag were fighting to protect. They fought to uphold their right to enslave other men. You can't expect African Americans to look at the Confederate Flag and think "Oh. That is not a symbol of racism. It is just a symbol of a rebellious spirit" any more so than you should expect a Jew to look at the Nazi flag and say "Oh. That is just a symbol of ethnic pride."

Perhaps that also applies to the US Flag as others have mentioned - point taken.  You have a right to fly the Confederate Flag if you want. But realize the way that it offends many people. If you do not care about other people's feelings or emotions - that is also your right.

And please - do not even try to pull up a random photo of one black person flying a Confederate Flag. The vast majority find it offensive.

[Didacus]

I saw on the news how the flag is being taken down from public places.

Another victory for the PC people and their dribble-diatribe.

 

Anyone know where I can purchase a Confederate flag on-line? 

[Peace]

I saw on the news how the flag is being taken down from public places.

Another victory for the PC people and their dribble-diatribe.

 

Anyone know where I can purchase a Confederate flag on-line? 

Purchase a Nazi Flag while you are at it.

[Credo in Deum]

What was the rebellion about though? What were they angry about the Feds meddling with?

They thought individual states should have the right to decide for themselves whether it should be legal within their borders to own human beings.

Sure, the North was full of racists who didn't care about ending slavery. "We promise we don't wanna take your slaves" is what they said, and what they meant. And the South was full of racists who didn't believe them. That's why there was a war. 

It was Southern butthurt at the idea that these uppity Feds might one day come and tell them they couldn't have slaves.

That's what made them renounce their citizenship, join a foreign army, and make war against the United States. Mowing down a bunch of loyal American servicemen in the process. And Southerners are proud they have this decision making process in their family tree.

Does anyone here think the states should EVER have had the right to decide if human slavery is legal within their borders?

The Feds were racist and had no intention of stopping slavery pre Civil War. But lets pretend they had been against slavery and DID try to stop slavery. What if they actually had rolled up to the southern states and said " uhhh no you can't buy and sell human beings anywhere in America no more."  Does anyone think that would have been an abuse of federal power???

 

 

 

I personally don't believe it would have been an abuse of power by the Fed, but even Lincoln at that time was unsure of such a position.  He didn't believe even he had the right to tell the states what they could and could not do regarding slavery.  While I don't disagree that slavery was a big part of the civil war and the Souths position, I don't believe it was the only part.  While it started over States Rights AND slavery, it did not end for the sake of slavery and it was not fought by the Union for the sake of ending slavery. It was fought to bring rebel states back under Union control.  

Now if the reasons for removing the battle flag from state grounds were because the confederates lost the war and that our current government considered it a flag of a foriegn nation, then I would have given more support for removing it from government property since it was for reasons which kept intact the truth of the Civil War as a whole.  It would have presented an accurate representation of the Civil War, which was that the war was fought over Union control over Southern States.  This would have shown the truth that not every Northerner was against slavery and not every Southerner was for slavery.   They were against Union Control vs State Control and who knows, maybe even within the southern states there would have been civil wars between southerners themselves to end slavery if the confederates had won the Civil War.  We'll never know.

Regardless I do not believe the battle flag should be banned from being sold or even displayed on private residents or in tv shows and games.  I think Americans should have the right to fly whatever flag they want at their homes for whatever reason.  IMO, its only a matter of time, heck it's probably already here, when the government will view the Vatican Flag as a flag of a traitorus people.  This has been a sentiment that has existed in American politics that Catholics are loyal to the Vatican not to America, but whatever, I digress.

Whats done is done. 

 

[Lilllabettt]

I personally don't believe it would have been an abuse of power by the Fed, but even Lincoln at that time was unsure of such a position.  He didn't believe even he had the right to tell the states what they could and could not do regarding slavery.  

 

Thats because he was a racist and didn't want to end slavery. He thought it would die off naturally, and until then, whatever.

If a federal law told the states they couldn't do partial birth abortion, would that be considered an overstep of federal power? No, not anyway by those people who recognize that abortion is a violation of human rights. (btw, there is a federal partial birth abortion ban.) 

[Peace]

While it started over States Rights AND slavery, it did not end for the sake of slavery and it was not fought by the Union for the sake of ending slavery. It was fought to bring rebel states back under Union control.

Here we go again. OK. Other than slavery - exactly what "state right" was it that the Confederate States were fighting to protect?

Take a look at the secession documents from the Confederate states themselves:

Mississippi:

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.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

South Carolina:

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

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

Texas:

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

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

So. Again if the issue was not slavery but "slavery and states rights" - what right other than the right to enslave men were the Southern States fighting for?

To me at least - the "States Rights" argument is a silly pretense. A pretense to justify slavery in the time of the civil war. The Southern States used the same pretense to justify Jim Crow 100 years later.

[Credo in Deum]

Here we go again. OK. Other than slavery - exactly what "state right" was it that the Confederate States were fighting to protect?

Take a look at the secession documents from the Confederate states themselves:

Mississippi:

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

South Carolina:

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

Texas:

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

So. Again if the issue was not slavery but "slavery and states rights" - what right other than the right to enslave men were the Southern States fighting for?

To me at least - the "States Rights" argument is a silly pretense. A pretense to justify slavery in the time of the civil war. The Southern States used the same pretense to justify Jim Crow 100 years later.

States Rights in themselves.  Meaning what rights States should have on their own to govern themselves and what the Fed does not have the right to impose on them.  The same debate is going on right now with gay marriage.  Sure while gay marriage is the cause which brought the discussion to the forefront, it is not the only reason for why the discussion will continue. No, what will cause the discussion to continue will be the pandoras box of what the SCOUTS decision represents now in the relationship between Fed and State.  Right now there are those who are against the SCOTUS decision while at the same time being pro gay marriage.  How can this be? Well it's because what they're against is how gay marriage came to be, since it was by a means where the SCOTUS overreached their authority to make it a Fed binding law.  They believe this should have been decided on a state level not a federal one and that the fed overreached its authority by forcing the decision of the matter on the states.  Yet would you call these people anti gay marriage Americans simply because they didn't like how gay marriage came to be legal? 

Believe it or not back in the civil war days there were southerners who didn't approve of slavery, but yet deeply 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.  

Edited July 11, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[Peace]

States Rights in themselves.  Meaning what rights States should have on their own to govern themselves and what the Fed does not have the right to impose on them.  The same debate is going on right now with gay marriage.  Sure while gay marriage is the cause which brought the discussion to the forefront, it is not the only reason for why the discussion will continue. No, what will cause the discussion to continue will be the pandoras box of what the SCOUTS decision represents now in the relationship between Fed and State.  Right now there are those who are against the SCOTUS decision while at the same time being pro gay marriage.  How can this be? Well it's because what they're against is how gay marriage came to be, since it was by a means where the SCOTUS overreached their authority to make it a Fed binding law.  They believe this should have been decided on a state level not a federal one and that the fed overreached its authority by forcing the decision of the matter on the states.  Yet would you call these people anti gay marriage Americans simply because they didn't like how gay marriage came to be legal? 

Believe it or not back in the civil war days there were southerners who didn't approve of slavery, but yet deeply 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.  

Hmm. Well. That is an interesting take on it. I do not see how someone can say "I am against slavery" but "I think that everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they will own slaves." If you say "I think that everyone should be able to decide for themselves" then you are not truly against it. You have given lip service to being against it.

And you would also be morally complicit by taking such a stance, would you not? At least from a Catholic perspective - acting where you should not act is a sin, but also failure to take action where you should act is a sin (it is in the Confiteor at Mass as you may recall). Failure to speak out against slavery (or saying that others should have the right to decide for themselves whether they may have slaves) where you have the ability to do otherwise would seem to be a sin of omission.

It is the same as with abortion - is it not? We cannot simply say "I personally believe that abortion is wrong but I believe that other people should be allowed to have abortions if they believe it is OK." Our Church does not allow us to take such a stance. And taking such a stance would further the cause of pro-choice folks.

So - whether saying "I think that the states should be allowed to decide on the question of slavery" makes someone racist - that I do not know. I think it does make one "pro-slavery". Just not as "pro-slavery" as people who hold slaves themselves.

As for the states rights issue - I suppose that one can take any specific issue and abstract it into a general idea. One can say that abortion is not about the right of a woman to kill a child, but rather it is about the right of a woman to control her own body, and so forth. If you really desire to turn the very real institution of slavery, under which men and women were bought and sold like pieces of property, into an abstract principle of states rights and then assert that this abstract principle was mainly what the Civil War was about, I suppose there is nothing I can say to prevent you from doing so.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Peace
Grammar

[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