Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
'Slavery existed in other places at other times' is not a compelling argument.
gvs, you make it sound like i'm arguing in favor of slavery. i'm not. i abhor slavery as much as you. my problem with the manner in which the history is taught at schools has been used by the federal govt to run roughshot over all the decisions of the states.
the northern states used the 10th amendment to 'NULLIFY" the fugitive slave act! they went against federal law and refused to send fugitive slaves back to their 'owners'! i would support the right of the states to nullify those laws in the same way i would support the states rights to n ullify federal drug prohibition, no child left behind, obamacare etc
Ending slavery is and was more important than the concept of states rights, the 10th amendment, or the Constitution. Perhaps this is where we are fundamentally differing?
Ending slavery is and was more important than the concept of states rights or the 10th amendment.
my heart tells me the same thing, but my mind tells me that absolute power in the hands of one central body is capable of evil far more pervasive than slavery in a few states.
my heart tells me the same thing, but my mind tells me that absolute power in the hands of one central body is capable of evil far more pervasive than slavery in a few states.
While it has had this 'absolute power' in the course of the last 150 years, has the US federal government committed any acts more evil than the enslavement of millions of African slaves?
While it has had this 'absolute power' in the course of the last 150 years, has the US federal government committed any acts more evil than the enslavement of millions of African slaves?
i'm going to pick up a lot of flack for saying this, but our interference in the middle east and central/south america and the incarceration of millions of people for victimless crimes aka drug 'crimes' is in some way similar imho.
what really worries me is the kind of absolute power wielded by the likes of stalin and mao, which in terms of ruthlessness was far worse than slavery. we are nowhere near that, but states rights is imo one of the pillars, though gradually eroding, which have kept federal power somewhat in check.
Those who fail to know history are doomed to repeat it.
From the 1600's to 1865, Slavery was legal on this continent. George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, etc either signed off on slavey being accepted by not standing up for slaves at the constitutional convention, or owned slaves themselves (Jefferson)
So everyone here who boasts "small government" and "constitution" and "founding fathers" should also understand that slavery was accepted or practiced by most of them.
I will state again, this doesn't excuse them, it doesn't make slavery right, but it was the reality of the time.
Northern business interests combined with the relatively small abolition movement to start a war. It made them money, they were war profiteers.
Then Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, nationalized the rail system, and completely ignored the US supreme court, and countless other abuses of executive power that many complain about Presidents yielding today.
Y'all want to celebrate that, feel free. Personally I think that the North and the South were both wrong during the war, and that the war was fought for profit in the north as much as it was fought to keep their legally held property in the south.
There was a right way to end slavery. End the importation or sale of slaves. Grandfather in all previous slaves and slave owners throughout the nation. Then simply buy them their freedom.
The issue is that there were millions of slaves. The federal government didn't have the money, and northern business interests that wanted a war were unwilling to support that level of government debt or tax increases to free people they didn't give a damn about.
So when I see the rebel flag, I see lots of things. I see slavery, but I also see men and women who stood up for their constitutional rights. Whether you agree with that right or not, it was a right.
For instance, today some people may not agree with people being able to buy and own firearms. We are a fairly advanced society, we don't need guns, and they do a lot more damage then they do good. But do you really want to follow the precedent that says the government can come to your house and take what you own, without paying you anything for it?
What the Confederacy did was wrong. Slavery was wrong. Look at all of the lives it cost. Look at all of the suffering it cost. All people should be free to live their lives as they choose, so long as they are not hurting anyone else. We don't need any reminders of the ignorance of the people during that time.
I have no problem with anyone displaying the stars and bars. My family fought in the civil war. Not because of slavery, but because "those damned yankees were down here trying to tell us what to do"
The civil war could have been prevented, if the federal government compensated every slave owner for their legally bought property. Granted, slavery is terrible and should never be practiced.
But if you go out and buy 100 Ford cars, and then the federal government outlaws your ownership in a few years, why should you not be compensated for your legally bought property, or allowed to be grandfathered in?
Like it or not, slavery was legal, slave owners bought them legally, before their government could simply take away all they had accumulated without compensation, they should have reimbursed them.
1. Outlaw the selling of any new slaves or newly born slave children in the United States. Outlaw the importation as well.
2. Give every slave holder a given rate, paid for by government tax dollars, for each slave and buy their freedom.
That would have prevented the civil war.
Instead, northern carpet baggers and business owners didn't want to buy the slaves, would have cost them money. Instead, a war in which they could sell ammunition and supplies to the army, they can make even more money.
One was patriotic, the other was war profiteering.
There was no need for the civil war, and most southerners fought against that level of government intervention without compensation.
So are you defending the institution of slavery on grounds of regionalism and states' rights? Sure seems like it.
What the Confederacy did was wrong. Slavery was wrong. Look at all of the lives it cost. Look at all of the suffering it cost. All people should be free to live their lives as they choose, so long as they are not hurting anyone else. We don't need any reminders of the ignorance of the people during that time.
Alright then let's burn down Mount Vernon too, and while we're out it we can pave over the old slave market in NYC, let's just destroy old slave import records of Boston and NYC because it "offends" some people!
Correct, and Lincoln understood that, hence it remained legal in the Union until the 13th passed. But it was also the biggest bone of contention, politically, at the time.
The slave states were steadily losing influence as new territories were added, and they were terrified of becoming a minority. When Lincoln - who was an abolitionist, but by no means an extremist in that respect - were elected, the slave states decided that the writing was on the wall and seceded. To protect slavery. Slavery isn't just in the cornerstone speech, it's the main theme in the first handful of Secession Declarations. (Later confederate states joined decidedly half-heartedly, some apparently to be on the winning side.) To deny that secession was about slavery is being willfully blind.
The whimpering about the North attacking overlooks the fact that the South completely expected a war - hell, they even decided to fire the first rounds. It was just that both sides never expected a war as deadly and as long.
And yes, the average Southerner basically took up arms because he felt it was his duty, as is the fate of the footsoldier in just about any conflict. He was betrayed by his own leaders, who decided to make a stand on a pretty despicable principle.
So why the h.ll, with centuries of history to look on, should one choose to march under a banner that commemorates the five years where the Confederate leadership managed to goad their constituents into fighting for slavery?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
