Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Confederate flag still making waves


Henry

Recommended Posts

Actually, the term "states rights" has been hijacked by media whore who want to fan the flames of racial divide.

States rights means the rights of individual states to govern themselves. SC wanted to export goods to France and Spain without paying the Fed govt the export taxes imposed. That was a bigger deal to the state Govt than slavery.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Kilmer17

Actually, the term "states rights" has been hijacked by media whore who want to fan the flames of racial divide.

States rights means the rights of individual states to govern themselves. SC wanted to export goods to France and Spain without paying the Fed govt the export taxes imposed. That was a bigger deal to the state Govt than slavery.

Interesting. I again went over South Carolina's 'Declaration of Causes' just in case I missed that all-too-critical point. It isn't there. Federal taxation of goods to France or Spain isn't mentioned once.

Federal tarriffs on southern goods are mentioned in "South Carolina's Address to the Slaveholding States," here:

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/rhett.html

But does not receive nearly the attention slavery does. Based on the words of the secessionists themselves, to say unfair taxation was a bigger issue than slavery is a gross exaggeration. Slavery according to the slaveholding states was the core issue at hand.

It has never been argued that the south didn't have grievances other than the north's animosity toward the institution of slavery. But to say that slavery wasn't at the center of the divide between the north and south is dangerously revisionist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I certainly think slavery was at the center of the war.

My point was specific to the term "states rights".

remember also that the Emancipation Proclamation came AFTER the south seceeded and after the war had broken out. So saying that slavery STARTED the war is innacurate. Slavery was still legal when it started. Also, the EP did not free all slaves. Only those in the states that seceeded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One last point. Here is an excerpt from a speech given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy, March 21, 1861. It's known as 'The Cornerstone Speech.':

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/corner.html

The prevailing ideas entertained by [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew.

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo-it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of his ordinances, or to question them. For his own purposes, he has made one race to differ from another, as he has made 'one star to differ from another star in glory.'

The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to his laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner" -- the real "corner-stone" -- in our new edifice.

Guys, THIS is what that flag represents. These principles which have been repeatedly outlined by the founders of the Confederacy. Slavery must continue, and not only that, the Confederacy must be an example to other nations so that they may someday become slaveholding nations.

You simply CANNOT seperate statements like that from that flag. The superiority of the white race is the most basic founding element of the Confederacy it represented. Wear it if you must, but do so with the full knowledge of those with which you choose to stand and be counted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Kilmer17

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I certainly think slavery was at the center of the war.

My point was specific to the term "states rights".

Ok. I agree with your point then.

remember also that the Emancipation Proclamation came AFTER the south seceeded and after the war had broken out. So saying that slavery STARTED the war is innacurate. Slavery was still legal when it started. Also, the EP did not free all slaves. Only those in the states that seceeded. [/b]

And I never said slavery started the war. Just that it was the central issue of the differences between the north and the south which eventually led to the war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No Henry, that is what the Confederacy stood for 140 years ago. Is it not possible for a symbol to change meaning in that amount of time? If not, how can Robert Byrd still be in office?

If not, shouldn't the Stars and Stripes be forbidden as well because it too stood for slavery at it's inception.

I have no issue if we decide to abolish all symbols that offend people, as long as that rule is applied evenly. So when a white kid takes offense to a Malcom X shirt, or a Native American takes offense to the Stars and Stripes, the same rules need to apply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Slavery did not lead to war. It was a central issue OF the war. But slavery would not have been abolished if the SOuth had not seceeded.

It's a chicken and egg thing.

It would have EVENTUALLY been abolished, but it was NOT the reason the south seceeded. Why would they, slavery was still legal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest SkinsHokie Fan

Even if the Confederate Flag means something completely different now in my eyes I see it as a symbol of a bunch of plantation owners that said "F U" to the United States of America and that is an act of treason. Got no respect for it at all

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Kilmer17

No Henry, that is what the Confederacy stood for 140 years ago.

And that's all it can ever stand for, as the Confederacy hasn't been around for 140 years. Just as the Hammer and the Anvil will now always stand for the Soviets and everything they represented. Or did some Soviet heritage organization suddenly adopt it and insist we think of pink fuzzy bunnies when we see it? I haven't heard.

Is it not possible for a symbol to change meaning in that amount of time? If not, how can Robert Byrd still be in office? If not, shouldn't the Stars and Stripes be forbidden as well because it too stood for slavery at it's inception.

Had Byrd died when he was still in the KKK, that's what he'd be known as. A dead clansman. Not a guy who may or may not have changed his attitude and then run for Congress. As I just said, the Stars and Stripes is still around. It can and does stand for more than it did years ago.

I have no issue if we decide to abolish all symbols that offend people, as long as that rule is applied evenly. So when a white kid takes offense to a Malcom X shirt, or a Native American takes offense to the Stars and Stripes, the same rules need to apply. [/b]

I agree. I'm actually fine with people being allowed to brandish the Confederate flag, just as I'm for allowing Klansmen to march in Cleveland with big old Swastikas on their chests. As redman says. Its easier to pick them out that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Kilmer17

It would have EVENTUALLY been abolished, but it was NOT the reason the south seceeded. Why would they, slavery was still legal. [/b]

I suggest you go back a read the documents I've presented. That's EXACTLY why the south seceeded. Because they felt the north would eventually succeed in abolishing slavery, and they didn't want that to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That logic is flawed. If North Korea starts using a peace symbol on their flag is it still a peace symbol or does it now represent their Govt?

The meaning of a symbol is derived by the person using it. If some people want to use the Conf flag as a symbol of heritage, that's what they use it for. If others use it as an oprressive weapon, that's what they use it for. The point is that the determination lies with the group or individual using the symbol and not those who see it in use.

While I would never wear one myself, I also would fight for the rights of those want to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Kilmer17

No it's not. For every study you can show stating Slavery was the cause, I can produce studies showing there were other causes.

Here is one.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/civilwar.html

Slavery was still legal in the north AFTER the war was over.

That is an interesting read. However, I was not citing studies. I was using the actual delcarations of secession issued by South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas. I noted a speech given by the Vice President of the Confederacy.

Frankly, I'll take their word over Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.'s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
While I would never wear one myself, I also would fight for the rights of those want to do so.

As would I. My arguement is you can't pick and choose what confederate heritage means. It was what it was, and if anyone wishes to show off his 'rebel pride' he just better make sure he knows just what the rebels were proud of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://web.utk.edu/~jharvey2/beforedoc1.htm

http://web.utk.edu/~jharvey2/beforedoc1.htm

I'll find just as many speeches and quotes from Confederate states staing reasons other than slavery.

It's a hotly debated topic (mostly on college campuses). You're on one side, Im on the other. Facts can prove us both right.

But the point was more about the CURRENT issue of the flag. I'd rather focus on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Henry, dont you think the people themselves should get to decide what they are proud of?

If I wear a peace sign on my shirt and say it stands for the obliteration of Iraq, that's MY right to do so. If you feel it means something else, thats YOUR opinion. I look at people wearing Conf shirts as idiots myself, but if they think they are representing something else, more power to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kilmer, I think I've said several times that a person should be legally permitted to display and announce their pride in whatever symbol they choose.

I also think people have the right to take offense at those symbols and what they historically represent.

All I've been basically saying is that when I see a person sporting the stars and bars, my initial impression is that he (or she) is an idiot, which is basically what you are saying. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...