Confederate Flag: Pride or Bigotry?

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Wait…four fucking pages just so people can admit that slavery/economy was the largest issue behind what led the South to war?..and that this is why the Confederate flag may still be seen by some as racist because of that?

Really?

I mean…REALLY?
[/quote]

Years and years ago I moved to rural VA for a few months. I worked as a security guard. Another guard I worked with has a confederate flag tattooed on his arm. He informed me that the flag has NOTHING to do with race and the civil war had NOTHING to do with slavery. I asked what it was about. He answered that the war was primarily about income tax.

…would you really be surprised if he was posting on this forum?

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Wait…four fucking pages just so people can admit that slavery/economy was the largest issue behind what led the South to war?..and that this is why the Confederate flag may still be seen by some as racist because of that?

Really?

I mean…REALLY?

Why would slavery lead the South to war?

First, they did not go to war as such and second their economy that depended heavily on slave labor was in no danger from the Norths politics.

But their way of life included slavery and yes the flag may still seem racist to a lot of people.
[/quote]

You’re too educated to hold these beliefs and you’re just playing with words. The south was afraid the north would “take away” their slaves even before the constitution was written.

In case you missed it above:

Madison believed that slavery was the central cause of the most elemental division in the Constitutional Convention: “the States were divided into different interests not by their difference of size,” Madison observed, “but principally from their having or not having slaves.”

[Professor_X]

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Wait…four fucking pages just so people can admit that slavery/economy was the largest issue behind what led the South to war?..and that this is why the Confederate flag may still be seen by some as racist because of that?

Really?

I mean…REALLY?

Years and years ago I moved to rural VA for a few months. I worked as a security guard. Another guard I worked with has a confederate flag tattooed on his arm. He informed me that the flag has NOTHING to do with race and the civil war had NOTHING to do with slavery. I asked what it was about. He answered that the war was primarily about income tax.

…would you really be surprised if he was posting on this forum?[/quote]

Not really. Idiots are why I stay out of this forum lately.

It comes across as some sort of defense mechanism.

[anon31651765]

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Years and years ago I moved to rural VA for a few months. I worked as a security guard. Another guard I worked with has a confederate flag tattooed on his arm. He informed me that the flag has NOTHING to do with race and the civil war had NOTHING to do with slavery. I asked what it was about. He answered that the war was primarily about income tax.

…would you really be surprised if he was posting on this forum?[/quote]

LOL

[orion]

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Wait…four fucking pages just so people can admit that slavery/economy was the largest issue behind what led the South to war?..and that this is why the Confederate flag may still be seen by some as racist because of that?

Really?

I mean…REALLY?

Why would slavery lead the South to war?

First, they did not go to war as such and second their economy that depended heavily on slave labor was in no danger from the Norths politics.

But their way of life included slavery and yes the flag may still seem racist to a lot of people.

You’re too educated to hold these beliefs and you’re just playing with words. The south was afraid the north would “take away” their slaves even before the constitution was written.

In case you missed it above:

Madison believed that slavery was the central cause of the most elemental division in the Constitutional Convention: “the States were divided into different interests not by their difference of size,” Madison observed, “but principally from their having or not having slaves.”[/quote]

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution has
passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government
shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States,
including that of persons held to service. Holding such a
provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no
objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

Lincoln, inaugural speech.

This law passed with a 2/3 majority even though the southern states had already left the union.

Had their secession been about slavery they could have simply returned and ratify the amendment, making it part of the US constitution.

Since the secession was not about slavery but about a 40% import tax the South did not return to the Union.

So, the North was overwhelmingly pro-slavery on its own, the taxation of the south was far more than the taxation that led to the war of independence and if the Souths secession was just about slavery they could have had permanent slavery on a silver platter had they wanted to.

[Jack_Dempsey]

The secessionists of 1860-61 certainly talked much more openly about slavery than the present-day neo-Confederates around these parts. I don’t know if it’s because they are ignorant Lew Rockwell cultists, or if they just don’t know any better. The secession conventions and Southern political leaders referred to slavery constantly in their efforts to explain why their states where leaving the Union.

Texas 'declaration of causes" for secession – With Lincoln’s election ‘a great sectional party…proclaiming the debased doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race and color–a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of manking, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.’

South Carolina’s Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify Secession focused primarily on the Northern emvbrace of antislavery principles and the evil designs of the new Lincoln Republicans. The states of the North ‘have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incided by emissiaries, book and pictures to servile insurrection.’

The Georgia convention: ‘For twenty years past, the Abolitionists and their allies in the Northern states, have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions’

Mississippi: ‘Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the union’

Confederate Vice President Aexander H. Stephens, fresh from the Constitutional convention in Montgomery, gave his first major speech in Savannah on March 21. ‘Our new constitution has put at rest forever all the agitation questions relating to…the proper status of the negro in our form of civilation…Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea [of Jefferson]; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man.’

Jefferson Davis told the Confederate Congress on April 29, 1861: Lincoln’s Republicans, gripped by a ‘spirit of ultra fanaticism’, was determined to deny slave owners access to the territories and would surround with ‘states in which slavery should be prohibited…thus rendering property in slaves so insecure as to be complete worthless.’ Davis described slavery as an institution in which ‘a superior race’ had used to transform ‘brutal savages into docile, intelligent and civilized agricultural laborers’. ‘With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperiled, the people of the Southern States were driven by the conduct of the North to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced.’

The tariff myth has been refuted so many times it’s almost a joke. “The Northerners had a stranglehold on government!” argument is also always good for a chuckle. The Slave power had dominated Washington for decades. (A good book: The Slave Power: The Free North and Southern Domination by Leonard Richards.)

[Jack_Dempsey]

“Since the secession was not about slavery but about a 40% import tax the South did not return to the Union.”

LMFAO. Let’s the see the numbers. How much was the poor Slave Power paying in tariffs to import their billiard tables into Charleston? The per capita tax rate in 1861 was about $1.50 per capita. Let’s see your numbers. I’ll be waiting.

Also, could you answer me why the southern states enacted virtually the same exact tariff system AFTER they became the Confederacy?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

However, I do not think a convincing enough case can be made that based on those two documents no secession could ever legally happen. The Declaration of Independence, our birth certificate, legitimizes secession under certain circumstances and I do not necessarily believe that the Constitution inherently trumps the D of I. [/quote]

The DOI does not authorize secession - it authorizes revolution. And it authorizes a revolution based on a denial of rights.

So neo-Confederate must clarfiy two things they never do: (1) was the South engaging in secession, or were they engaging in a revolution? If the former, then the principles of the DOI are ireelevant, and one would look to see whether secession - a lawful withdrawal - was valid. Second, in the alternative, if the South engaged in revolution, neo-Confederates have to explain what rights were violated to justify revolutionary action…

I assure you, neither can be done.

In other words the “contract” that is the Constitution is not a stand alone document. If this were a civil case of breach of contract the defendant, the South, would most certainly introduce as evidence the D of I and the court would be remiss in dismissing it.

I like your analogy here, because the first thing a “court” here would do is make the South justify how the contract was “breached” in the first place - and the South wouldn’t be able to prove its case.

It could easily be argued that the British claim on the Colonies in the 1770s was a far stronger one than the Union’s on the South in the 1850s and 60s yet very few question the legitimacy of the Revolution.

Absolutely incorrect - the people of the South ratified the Constitution and formed a Union. That trumps any “diving right” a monarch had over a peoples and a territory.

To say that “the government was working just fine” is a subjective statement and it depends on which side of the Mason Dixon Line you lived on as to whether that was the case.

Only if you a relativist, which I am not. The question is not "was government providing me democratic outcomes I like and prefer?..the question is “did I get a full and fair opportunity to participate in the laws passed, whether I like their outcome or not?”.

If the answer is “yes” to the second, case closed.

I realize that the issue is a complicated one but one thing for sure in my mind is that it was not an open and shut case of treacherous and unjust rebellion. I do not believe Southerners simply said, “We want our fuckin slavery and we aim to keep it and that’s all there is to it and adios Union.” There was a host of issues involved and slavery was surely one of the most vital but it had an awful lot to do with testing the notion (which is not addressed in the Constitution) that despite the fact that a State had a freewill choice to join the Union it had no such right to withdraw.

States didn’t join the Union - the people of the States formed a nation. Don’t believe me? Read the Anti-Federalist Papers - the opposition to the ratification of the Constitution warned against adoption for exactly that reason…that it would be a create a nation, not a league of states.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I’m reading Joseph Ellis’ “Founding Brothers” now… He seems pretty convinced slavery was “the” issue and his third chapter is all about it. Here are some excerpts:

“The most tangible and enduring antislavery effects of the revolutionary mentality occured in the northern states during and immediately after the war. Vermont (1777) and New Hampshire (1779) made slavery illegal in their state constitutions. Massachusettsdeclaired it unconstitutional in a state Supreme Courrt decision (1783), Pennsylvania (1780) and Rhode Island *1784) followed suit with a grandual emancipation plan…defenders of slavery in the northern states were clearly fighting a losing battle; abolition in the North was more a question of when than whether.” pg 89.

"the depth and apparent intractability of the problem [slavery] became much clearer during the debates surrounding the drafting oand ratification of the Constitution. Although the final draft of the document was conspicuously silent on slavery, the subect itself haunted the closed-door debates. No less a source than Madison believed that slavery was the central cause of the most elemental division in the Constitutional Convetion: “the States were divided into different interests not by their difference of size,” Madison observed, “but principally from their having or not having slaves.” Pg 91

Pierce Butler and John Rutledge of South Carolina…[their] implicit but unmistakably clear message, which became the trump card played…by the sessionists in 1861, was the threat to leave the union if the federal government ever attempted to implement a national emancipation policy. pg 93

There’s a lot more, but I’m tired of typing now… a good read if anyone cares to pick 'er up.[/quote]

Haha, you do understand that after the war was done, all the slaves were heading up North? As well the Northern states did not want the black people there, so they knew if there was no slaves, then there would be no place for blacks?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]orion wrote:

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution has
passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government
shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States,
including that of persons held to service. Holding such a
provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no
objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

Lincoln, inaugural speech.

This law passed with a 2/3 majority even though the southern states had already left the union.

Had their secession been about slavery they could have simply returned and ratify the amendment, making it part of the US constitution.[/quote]

Good Lord - Lincoln and the Republicans ran on a platform that they wouldn’t mess with slavery in existing states and only wanted to prevent it from being adopted in new Federal Territories (and by extension, new states). The amendment wasn’t an endorsement of slavery outright, it was a legislative compromise - a moderate, middle way to extinguish slavery slowly and methodically without upturning the apple cart in the South.

The Slave Power was no content with slavery being quarantined to the South - they wanted expansion, which is why the pushed for a candidate that supported slavery in the Federal Territories as a matter of policy in the 1860 election.

When the Republicans won, the Slave Power knew slavery would, in fact, be quarantined to the South and would ultimately die a legislative death - which is why they revolted.

As in, the constitutional amendment was well-within the abolitionists’ (moderate) plan to do away with slavery…which, you constantly assert, is how slavery should have been ended in the US.

Pathetic, Orion. And getting worse.

he secession was not about slavery but about a 40% import tax the South did not return to the Union.

So obviously false a rebuttal isn’t required.

So, the North was overwhelmingly pro-slavery on its own…

No, it wasn’t.

…the taxation of the south was far more than the taxation that led to the war of independence and if the Souths secession was just about slavery they could have had permanent slavery on a silver platter had they wanted to.

Orion, you have become a joke around here. But you knew that.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:

The secessionists of 1860-61 certainly talked much more openly about slavery than the present-day neo-Confederates around these parts. I don’t know if it’s because they are ignorant Lew Rockwell cultists, or if they just don’t know any better. [/quote]

A great point. Civil War era secessionists were, despite the Lew Rockwell trolls’ contentions to the contrary, very much in the spirit of defending slavery outright.

And, I am sympathetic to that. Not because they were right - they were wrong, dead wrong - but they were closer in time to a historical institution that had always been with them.

As such, they were in the guts of a very tough question in human history, and while they were wrong and selfish, the secessionists were pretty damn honest about what they were fighting to protect.

Fast forward to the looneytarian lew Rockwell revisionists - they know that slavery stands in defiance of all they claim to be “natural rights” as lib-urr-turr-ians, so they have to justify their support of the Confederacy on other dubious grounds. They have to whistle past slavery and conjure up other grievances.

Ask a bona fide secessionist at the time - and not necessarily a foot soldier who never owned a slave in his life, but a member of the Slave Power - and they wouldn’t hesitate to explain that preservation of slavery was the point of their secession.

[orion]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution has
passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government
shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States,
including that of persons held to service. Holding such a
provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no
objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

Lincoln, inaugural speech.

This law passed with a 2/3 majority even though the southern states had already left the union.

Had their secession been about slavery they could have simply returned and ratify the amendment, making it part of the US constitution.

Good Lord - Lincoln and the Republicans ran on a platform that they wouldn’t mess with slavery in existing states and only wanted to prevent it from being adopted in new Federal Territories (and by extension, new states). The amendment wasn’t an endorsement of slavery outright, it was a legislative compromise - a moderate, middle way to extinguish slavery slowly and methodically without upturning the apple cart in the South.

The Slave Power was no content with slavery being quarantined to the South - they wanted expansion, which is why the pushed for a candidate that supported slavery in the Federal Territories as a matter of policy in the 1860 election.

When the Republicans won, the Slave Power knew slavery would, in fact, be quarantined to the South and would ultimately die a legislative death - which is why they revolted.

As in, the constitutional amendment was well-within the abolitionists’ (moderate) plan to do away with slavery…which, you constantly assert, is how slavery should have been ended in the US.

Pathetic, Orion. And getting worse.

he secession was not about slavery but about a 40% import tax the South did not return to the Union.

So obviously false a rebuttal isn’t required.

So, the North was overwhelmingly pro-slavery on its own…

No, it wasn’t.

…the taxation of the south was far more than the taxation that led to the war of independence and if the Souths secession was just about slavery they could have had permanent slavery on a silver platter had they wanted to.

Orion, you have become a joke around here. But you knew that.[/quote]

So in essence you say that everything I posted is correct, yet somehow wrong, which makes me a joke.

Since we already have a Mick28 I think your attempt to establish yourself as a new one is doomed to failure.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]orion wrote:

So in essence you say that everything I posted is correct, yet somehow wrong, which makes me a joke.[/quote]

Nothing you posted is correct. The abolitionists - and the North generally - didn’t “support” slavery like the South, but they knew it was only politically feasible to engage in compromise and conservative legislation that slowly did away with slavery.

The fight the led to the Civil War wasn’t over slavery was, it was about where slavery would or wouldn’t be very soon - the Federal Territories.

And, tariffs had nothing to do with the Civil War.

Oh, and yes - you are a joke. Your knowledge of the subject is abysmal, and your ideologically blinkered conclusions only deserve response to the extent some of us get bored enough to pluck the lowest of the low-hanging fruit. We always get a good laugh - regardless of our own political persuasions - when you try and present any opinion on anything related to American politics and history.

But, hey - other than that, you are a legend.

[anon31651765]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

The fight the led to the Civil War wasn’t over slavery was, it was about where slavery would or wouldn’t be very soon - the Federal Territories.
[/quote]

Right. As I recall, Lincoln was absolutely opposed to letting slavery expand into the west. That was the one condition that he did not waver on.

And, tariffs had nothing to do with the Civil War.

It’s revisionist history at its finest, though.

[orion]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

So in essence you say that everything I posted is correct, yet somehow wrong, which makes me a joke.

Nothing you posted is correct. The abolitionists - and the North generally - didn’t “support” slavery like the South, but they knew it was only politically feasible to engage in compromise and conservative legislation that slowly did away with slavery.

The fight the led to the Civil War wasn’t over slavery was, it was about where slavery would or wouldn’t be very soon - the Federal Territories.

And, tariffs had nothing to do with the Civil War.

Oh, and yes - you are a joke. Your knowledge of the subject is abysmal, and your ideologically blinkered conclusions only deserve response to the extent some of us get bored enough to pluck the lowest of the low-hanging fruit. We always get a good laugh - regardless of our own political persuasions - when you try and present any opinion on anything related to American politics and history.

But, hey - other than that, you are a legend.[/quote]

That makes no sense-

The South could have kept slavery easily in the form of an amendment that would have prevented the federal government from abolishing it without their consent.

Also, by leaving the union they gave up any chance of influencing territories that wanted to join the union.

If what you claimed was correct the south would have had to stay in the union in order to have further influence in the unions decision making process.

It simply does not compute.

[orion]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

It’s revisionist history at its finest, though.
[/quote]

Every history is revisionist.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]orion wrote:

That makes no sense-

The South could have kept slavery easily in the form of an amendment that would have prevented the federal government from abolishing it without their consent.

Also, by leaving the union they gave up any chance of influencing territories that wanted to join the union.

If what you claimed was correct the south would have had to stay in the union in order to have further influence in the unions decision making process.

It simply does not compute.[/quote]

The South wasn’t interested in “keeping” slavery, they wanted expansion. The amendment kept slavery where it was - legislation was forthcoming to keep it our of the Federal Territories. That is what the election of 1860 was about. The Slave Power split the Democratic Convention because the national party would not commit to anything more than “popular sovereignty” in the new Federal Territories in opposition to the Republicans’ plank of “no expansion of slavery”.

And, they knew that they couldn’t “influence territories” because the election result gave them information to the contrary - that the Republicans’ plan was going to win the day. That is precisely why the Slave Power wanted out - if they stayed in the Union, the legislative math meant that they were losers.

The Slave Power couldn’t influence the “Union’s decision making process” - they already tried and failed.

And, the Confederacy was already licking its chops at the possibilities of westward expansion - the Confederacy was thinking empire, and weren’t about to let anything stand in their way.

Everything computes just fine, if you have any facts at your disposal. You are like a slow-motion trainwreck. Bow out while you still can.

[Headhunter]

[quote]orion wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution has
passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government
shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States,
including that of persons held to service. Holding such a
provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no
objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

Lincoln, inaugural speech.

This law passed with a 2/3 majority even though the southern states had already left the union.

Had their secession been about slavery they could have simply returned and ratify the amendment, making it part of the US constitution.

Good Lord - Lincoln and the Republicans ran on a platform that they wouldn’t mess with slavery in existing states and only wanted to prevent it from being adopted in new Federal Territories (and by extension, new states). The amendment wasn’t an endorsement of slavery outright, it was a legislative compromise - a moderate, middle way to extinguish slavery slowly and methodically without upturning the apple cart in the South.

The Slave Power was no content with slavery being quarantined to the South - they wanted expansion, which is why the pushed for a candidate that supported slavery in the Federal Territories as a matter of policy in the 1860 election.

When the Republicans won, the Slave Power knew slavery would, in fact, be quarantined to the South and would ultimately die a legislative death - which is why they revolted.

As in, the constitutional amendment was well-within the abolitionists’ (moderate) plan to do away with slavery…which, you constantly assert, is how slavery should have been ended in the US.

Pathetic, Orion. And getting worse.

he secession was not about slavery but about a 40% import tax the South did not return to the Union.

So obviously false a rebuttal isn’t required.

So, the North was overwhelmingly pro-slavery on its own…

No, it wasn’t.

…the taxation of the south was far more than the taxation that led to the war of independence and if the Souths secession was just about slavery they could have had permanent slavery on a silver platter had they wanted to.

Orion, you have become a joke around here. But you knew that.

So in essence you say that everything I posted is correct, yet somehow wrong, which makes me a joke.

Since we already have a Mick28 I think your attempt to establish yourself as a new one is doomed to failure.
[/quote]

The only error in anything you wrote was that the tariff was being raised from 18% to 47%, to pay for a transcontinental railroad, which would go nowhere near the South.

Isn’t it wonderful to pay for someone else’s dreams of continental empire?

[Headhunter]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

The fight the led to the Civil War wasn’t over slavery was, it was about where slavery would or wouldn’t be very soon - the Federal Territories.

Right. As I recall, Lincoln was absolutely opposed to letting slavery expand into the west. That was the one condition that he did not waver on.

And, tariffs had nothing to do with the Civil War.

It’s revisionist history at its finest, though.
[/quote]

Ludicrous. 90% of Federal revenues were from tariffs. Abe and his railroad cronies wanted the cash to build the transcontinental railroad and empire. Welcome to reality, Irish.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

The only error in anything you wrote was that the tariff was being raised from 18% to 47%, to pay for a transcontinental railroad, which would go nowhere near the South.[/quote]

Was the upwards adjustment on the tariff rate you complain of above prior to the Civil War? Let’s see a source, because in 1857, tariffs were lowered.

And, of course, none of this is particularly relevant - the Slave Power didn’t secede because of the tariff.