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.
TexasReb, Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic Republicans would seemingly have agreed with your analysis of the contextual history surrounding the Constitution. Many in the Federalist party would not have done so. Both political attitudes were there from the beginning of the Republic and pre-date the Constitution.
I'm not sure that from a legal perspective the terms used in the Articles of Confederation (and arguably subsumed into the subsequent Constitution of the USA) and those used in the Constitution of the CSA are equivalent. Contrast the meaning of "perpetual" in contract law vs. the idea of a provisional vs. a permanent government. Actually, in that case the meaning of "perpetual" addresses the issue of duration while "permanent" addresses an established status or order for doing things. There are five permanent members of the UN Security Council, but the designation as "permanent" doesn't have the same meaning as "perpetual". Contrariwise, the Episcopal Church ordains some persons as perpetual deacons (as opposed to transitional deacons who will subsequently be ordained as priests), i.e. since the sacrament of holy orders is considered to confer "indelible" character, by designating these persons as perpetual deacons the Church means that they will remain deacons literally forever and that character will not be subsumed into another ontological state (priest, bishop). Arguably the constitutional documents of the USA established a Union (not just a specific system of government) in perpetuity, while the CSA constitution only established a permanent as opposed to provisional governmental structure.
This right here sums very well a lot of this particular aspect of the discussion. Good job Ark90, not only on this one, but the one you wrote earlier, which I have a particular interest in. Let me backtrack and explain:
Texas official holiday is Confederate Heroes Day, observed on January 19. It came about in 1973 when the Texas legislature combined the previously official holidays of Robert E. Lee's Birthday (January 19) and Jefferson Davis' Birthday on June 3.
When native son LBJ died in 1973, the state wanted to create a holiday in his memory. The problem was, the number of state holidays were limited by law at that time. So, to solve the numbers issue, Lee and Davis birthdays were combined into one official holiday to honor all the sons and daughters of the South. Named Confederate Heroes Day it is observed on January 19 of each year, regardless of which day of the week the date might fall. When Dr. Martin Luthur Kings Birthday was also approved as an official state holiday in Texas in 1991, the designated day was the 3rd Monday of January. Unlike in Arkansas, this may or may not fall on the Confederate Heroes Day. And this is where it all comes into what ARK was saying earlier about people raising hell and posturing and getting self-righteous over something they know little about:
Some years back, when the holidays indeed fell on the same date, there appeared a newspaper memorial ad commemortating Confederate Heroes Day. It was a one-quarter page ad compared to quite a few other pages devoted to celebrations honoring Dr. King. While the newspaper decided to run the CHD ad (don't want to miss out on the money!), there also appeared a scathing editorial all but condeming those who would intentionally desecrate the memory of the King holiday by honoring the Texans who fought for the South. No other explanation seemed plausible nor worthy of consideration.
As it was, the vast majority of letters to the editor took strong issue with that biased position...but nonetheless, again, it backs up what was said earlier in the Arkansas context. Confederate Heroes Day had been a holiday in Texas for several decades prior to MLK day..yet? The newspaper decided to create a racial issue and place the blame on those who would dare honor their ancestors even thought it had been tradition to do so for many, many, years. It was absolutely inconceivable to their political correct editorial policy that the motivation for doing the above could be construed as anything but a slam to the memory of Dr. King.
*barf bag, please* What utter, despicable, nauseating, lunacy. But -- unfortunately -- not at all an anamoly in terms of how the media will shamefully exploit just about anything when it comes to race....
Anway, to be honest? As it is, Dr. King is not a hero of mine, but then again, neither is Lyndon Johnson. However, I for sure understand how and why he (King) is to others. And personally, I genuinely respect and admire his commitment to his principles and unquestioned courage in the face of adversity and physical danger.
There is absolutely no reason why one holiday (MLK and CSA) should be at odds with the other if both sides just excercise respect and consideration and a little of that vaunted "tolerance" the PC bunch are are always honking and blowing their own horns about. Let us all be free to chose to honor either, neither, or both.
Not to intentionally steer the topic off course (as you know I don't like to do lol), but I was just wondering...is it anything about the personal convictions of Dr. King or LBJ that you aren't fond of?
Not to intentionally steer the topic off course (as you know I don't like to do lol), but I was just wondering...is it anything about the personal convictions of Dr. King or LBJ that you aren't fond of?
I am interested in hearing that answer too. Every hero has his or her flaws and there are a lot of flaws to look over when it comes to the Confederacy. MLK was able to push his message without resorting to violence and LBJ was able to push through legislation without militarily attacking the South. In the end if it weren't for the persistence of people like them, segregation and the denial of voting rights could have lasted for much longer. To me, fighting for civil rights guaranteed by the constitution should be honorable to all Americans, but people are entitled to their opinions. It's not as controversial as secession or slavery. Would MLK have been more of a hero if he took up arms and started defending blacks who were being attacked?
Surely MLK demonstrated personal courage equal to any of the men who fought in the Civil War. He provided leadership to a mass movement that possibly no one else could have replicated in such an effective and compelling fashion. Likewise in terms of presidential leadership, LBJ accomplished more than anyone else to push and secure the passage of comprehensive civil rights legislation at the time, though aspects of LBJ's personal character were pretty repulsive and likewise may have contributed to some very bad political-leadership decisions (such as promoting the whole bogus Gulf of Tonkin incident and escalating the US involvement in Viet Nam into full-scale war).
To go back to topic, I'd prefer to see Texas or any other state that joined the CSA have a commemoration of Confederate Memorial Day rather than a "Confederate Heros Day". A Confederate Memorial Day is a suitable occasion for memorialising the personal sacrifices made by the Southern war dead in the rebellion of 1861-65.
Conversely, I don't think that politicians like Jefferson Davis should be remembered as heros.
Indeed, our present national Memorial Day had its origin in the aftermath of the Civil War, when the survivors on both sides of the conflict memorialised their war dead. In the North - especially New England - the commemoration was often referred to as "Decoration Day" (decorating the graves and monuments of the war dead) and in the South "Memorial Day".
Thus arguably it would be entirely plausible to simply include commemoration of the Civil War dead in our present-day Memorial Day commemorations and to return Memorial Day to strictly being a commemoration of war dead rather than confusing it with Veterans Day as seems to be a recent trend.
TexasReb, you are surely familiar with this: Texas v. White - Bonds, Union, Government, War, Court, and Governor Rather than being something Supreme Court Chief Justice Chase was reputed to have said, here are his actual words in the legal ruling that addressed the indissolubility of the Union and the legal impossibility of secession. Here is the full text of the Court's actual ruling, written by Chief Justice Chase: Texas v. White
Perhaps we are talking past each other here, DocJ. I was referring earlier to Chase's strong advise not to try Davis (or any other Confederate leader) on "treason" charges (because the "traitor thing is often brought up), not his opinion in Texas v. White. But then yes, I see what you are saying as well, and reply this way:
In the former instance, it is not anything he (Chase) was repudiated to have said, it is well documented. What many radical northern leaders of the time feared, was that Davis and his lawyers would revolve their defense around the constitutionality of secession. That was something the "radical Republicans" wanted to avoid, knowing full well (and frankly stated) it would -- in their own words -- condemn the North (and the Lincoln administration). Secession had been "settled" (so to speak) by force of arms and they did not want it brought up again...especially not in open forum where the Southern case could be heard uncensored to the public. If I were in their (Chase and Stanton's) shoes, I couldn't blame them.
Texas v. White is noteably seperate...but yet for sure, interesting. It is still debated as to whether there was a binding ruling on the controversy of secession, or merely "dicta", since the actual issue of secession was not the one before the court. Rather, it involved bond sales and, to reach the conclusion they (SCOTUS) did, it had to be first be "proven" that Texas had never left the Union. Not withstanding that such was fairly easy to do since the South had not only lost the War but much of it still under miltary rule...the fact still stands that the actual question before the court was not the constitutionality of secession at all.
Here is a good counter-article on the subect, followed by an excerpt:
Texas v. White « Secession University (http://secessionuniversity.com/texas-v-white/ - broken link)
As far as the merits of Texas v. White are concerned, the most serious flaw in bestowing any credibility on this decision was that this case was not about secession; it was about the ownership and sale of bonds as well as jurisdiction. The parties to this case did not argue or cite evidence claiming the States had, or did not have, a right to secede; they focused their arguments on the legality of the bond sale, and their arguments on jurisdiction dealt with the status of Texas as a State under military rule—not if Texas had the constitutional right to secede.
The Chief Justice made his comments on secession when he wrote the majority opinion, and his comments were not based on arguments made by the parties to the case. Furthermore, the Chief Justice’s comments were what is know as “dicta,” which is defined at Law.com as,
A comment by a judge in a decision or ruling which is not required to reach the decision, but may state a related legal principle as the judge understands it. While it may be cited in legal argument, it does not have the full force of a precedent.
To go back to topic, I'd prefer to see Texas or any other state that joined the CSA have a commemoration of Confederate Memorial Day rather than a "Confederate Heros Day". A Confederate Memorial Day is a suitable occasion for memorialising the personal sacrifices made by the Southern war dead in the rebellion of 1861-65.
I don't know if you caught the link on it Doc, but that is the name it goes under in most former Confederate States (Confederate Memorial Day). The designation Confederate Heroes Day in Texas was just applied because it was adopted by combining the birthdays of Lee and Jackson. It was intended for the same purposes and is observed that way:
In any event, I would have no problem with it being re-named Confederate Memorial Day. NOT, I hasten to add (and I am sure you know anyway -- LOL) because I do not regard them as heroes, but just because, like I mentioned, it was adopted and intended to be for the same exact purposes.
Let me try and reply in one post, although quoting seperately (uhhh, seperate but equal? Ooooops! No pun intended! )
Seriously,
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlGreen
Not to intentionally steer the topic off course (as you know I don't like to do lol), but I was just wondering...is it anything about the personal convictions of Dr. King or LBJ that you aren't fond of?
That is a fair question, Al. Oh, and you or me go off topic? Heaven forbid that has even been the case with us, my friend!
Seriously, to answer? First of all, my original statement about not being a hero of mine did not mean I consider him unworthy of that status by others who choose to see him that way; neither did it have all that much to do with his principles per se, pro or con. As I said earlier, I truly respect Dr. King in that he had a unwavering faith in his convictions and undeniable courage in the face of adversity and opposition. These are traits that anyone -- particulary we white Southerners -- can but respect. No, it just really means that his causes were/are not high on the radar screen for me, nor were/are the same passionate causes of mine. That is what I meant by not being a personal hero. Not that (as some will undoubtably see it) that I despise the man. I really don't give him a lot of thought one way or another. As we are friends (and most often allies!) and I know you to be fair-minded, I feel pretty sure you understand what I am saying here.
With all that said though, yes, there are some things he embraced (in the latter days of his life) that I have issues with. More on that below in my reply below:
Quote:
LS210 wrote:
I am interested in hearing that answer too. Every hero has his or her flaws and there are a lot of flaws to look over when it comes to the Confederacy. MLK was able to push his message without resorting to violence and LBJ was able to push through legislation without militarily attacking the South. In the end if it weren't for the persistence of people like them, segregation and the denial of voting rights could have lasted for much longer. To me, fighting for civil rights guaranteed by the constitution should be honorable to all Americans, but people are entitled to their opinions. It's not as controversial as secession or slavery. Would MLK have been more of a hero if he took up arms and started defending blacks who were being attacked?
First of all, LS210, unlike with AlG, I get the distinct impression that you take this much more personal. Almost to the point of taking on the character of a prosecuting attorney of incorrect attitude violations, and I am on the witness stand. Yeah, that is a little overboard, but I still stand by that it seems -- from the content of your post --that anyone who does not outright deify Dr. King must be fundamentally opposed to any notion of Civil Rights. Now, maybe you don't really feel that way, but there is a great deal of evidence to indicate that some folks really do take that position.
Further along those lines (and hopefully to provide some answers to your question (indictment?) LOL):
Yes, I think that some of the things he advocated have lead to the disaster we have today in certain areas of race relations. And a loss of private property rights. Not that he would have advocated them had he lived...that I don't know. So it is not a simplistic matter of what I don't like. Decades have passed since that era. Things change and people's attitudes change. I know mine have. In a nutshell, it is not what Dr. King advocated so much as it is what developed from it. Which was predictable.
To repeat for the umpteenth time, I truly respect King for his courage and commitment. Take the Montgomery Bus boycott for instance. THAT is the way to go. Perfectly legal and morally right. There were no federal interventions, but just simply a man leading a cause. The blacks thinking, hell, WE are the source of income for these companies and they make us sit at the back. So they boycotted and won. Same with the "sit-in's. No problem. And all that wore down the resistance of white Southerners. And, yep, I know myself well enough to know that had I been of age back then, I would have resisted the resistance...but figured out, finally, that something just wasn't right here. Just like most white Southerners did.
Where it became a problem in terms of long-range consequences, was when the federal government got involved, which King fully advocated and lobbied for. What it eventually led to was quota systems, forced busing, a default presumption that if a business doesnt hire this or that amount of (fill in the black), then they are "guilty" of discriminatory practices...are the worst.
Would King personally have approved of the above? I don't know, but I suspect that yes, he would have. I strongly believe in the doctrine of states rights, and King didn't. I think his statements concerning U.S. policy in Vietnam were over the top. Anyway, in a nut-shell, those are several things about Dr. Kings stances that bother me.
But even that is not so much bothersome as it seems that there is a concerted effort on the part of some (in politics and the media) that we should be almost forced to accept him as a hero and pay homeage each year on his birthday. And that the only reason for failing to do so must trace to being anti-civil rights or a flat-out racist.
To go back to square one. Let us all pick our own heroes...and get over the notion -- as relates to this thread topic -- that one can't recognize both King and men like Robert E. Lee as both being great in their own right and honoring one is not disparaging the other.
BTW -- let me add -- in case I haven't said it earlier -- even though we outright disagree on lots of things, I certainly respect your opinions and intelligence and consider you one of the "good guy" worthy opponents. That is, those who can present their case in a logical and civil way without resorting to name calling and innuendo.
Let me try and reply in one post, although quoting seperately (uhhh, seperate but equal? Ooooops! No pun intended! )
Seriously,
That is a fair question, Al. Oh, and you or me go off topic? Heaven forbid that has even been the case with us, my friend!
Seriously, to answer? First of all, my original statement about not being a hero of mine did not have so much to do with not really intended to address his principles, pro or con. As I said earlier, I truly respect Dr. King in that he had a unwavering faith in his convictions and undeniable courage in the face of adversity and opposition. These are traits that anyone -- particulary we white Southerners -- can but respect. But that doesn't mean that his causes were high on the radar screen for me, nor passionate causes of mine. That is what I meant by not being a personal hero....but that doesn't mean I despise the man.
With all that said though, yes, there are some things he embraced (in the latter days of his life) that I have issues with. More on that below in my reply to:
First of all, LS210, unlike with AlG, I get the distinct impression that you take this much more personal. Almost to the point of taking on the character of a prosecuting attorney of incorrect attitude violations, and I am on the witness stand. Yeah, that is a little overboard, but I still stand by that it seems -- from the content of your post --that anyone who does not outright deify Dr. King must be fundamentally opposed to any notion of Civil Rights. Now, maybe you don't really feel that way, but there is a great deal of evidence to indicate that some folks really do take that position.
Further along those lines (and hopefully to provide some answers to your question (indictment?) LOL):
Yes, I think that some of the things he advocated have lead to the disaster we have today in the area of race relations. And a loss of private property rights. Not that he would have advocated them had he lived...that I don't know. So it is not a simplistic matter of what I don't like. Decades have passed since that era. Things change and people's attitudes change. I know mine have. In a nutshell, it is not what Dr. King advocated so much as it is what developed from it. Which was predictable.
To repeat for the umpteenth time, I truly respect King for his courage and commitment. Take the Montgomery Bus boycott for instance. THAT is the way to go. Perfectly legal and morally right. There were no federal interventions, but just simply a man leading a cause. The blacks thinking, hell, WE are the source of income for these companies and they make us sit at the back. So they boycotted and won. Same with the "sit-in's. No problem. And all that wore down the resistance of white Southerners
And, yep, I know myself well enough to know that had I been of age back then, I would have resisted the resistance...but figured out, finally, that something just wasn't right here. Just like most white Southerners did.
Where it became a problem in terms of long-range consequences, was when the federal government got involved, which King fully advocated and lobbied for. What it eventually led to was quota systems, forced busing, a default presumption that if a business doesnt hire this or that amount of (fill in the black), then they are "guilty" of discriminatory practices...are the worst.
Would King personally have approved of the above? I don't know, but I suspect that yes, he would have. I strongly believe in the doctrine of states rights, and King didn't. I think his statements concerning U.S. policy in Vietnam were over the top. Anyway, in a nut-shell, those are several things about Dr. Kings stances that bother me.
But even that is not so much bothersome as it seems that there is a concerted effort on the part of some (in politics and the media) that we should be almost forced to accept him as a hero and pay homeage each year on his birthday. And that the only reason for failing to do so must trace to being anti-civil rights or a flat-out racist.
To go back to square one. Let us all pick our own heroes...and get over the notion -- as relates to this thread topic -- that one can't recognize both King and men like Robert E. Lee as both being great in their own right and honoring one is not disparaging the other.
I just wanted to get an understanding of how you can overlook serious flaws in people involved in the Confederacy, but take so much issue with the things you don't like about Martin Luther King.
Back on topic. I also do not understand how people think it's fair that the Native Americans were forcefully removed and that the land in this country switched hands so many times by war while also taking issue with Lincoln using force. Everyone at that time used force to take and keep land, so why is it so different when Lincoln did it?
My own view of the MLK birthday celebration is that this is/should be a commemoration of the civil rights struggle as a whole and for all the people who fought in this struggle with Dr King as well as before him and after him. It should be a time for national reflection, not just looking back but also looking at where we stand today and looking toward the future. MLK is an icon - The icon - of the civil rights struggle of the 1950s-60s, so the MLK birthday serves not simply as a commemoration of one historical figure but of a huge element in America's collective history, going all the way back to the colonial period.
At the risk of offending TexasReb - something I've no wish to do - something that by contrast bothers me a bit about Civil War commemorations is that they seem more strictly backward-looking than forward-looking. There is, of course, a whole stratum of more scholarly examination of the Civil War era being generated by historians on this occasion of the sesquicentenniel of the war. A more scholarly approach that relates the sociological and socio-economic threads that run through American history from the run-up to the Civil War on to the present day would help Americans to more thoughtfully reflect upon the war in a way that isn't only backward-looking but critically examines core elements of American society in a way that is completely relevant for the present and looking on toward this country's future.
Hence, I would plead for a less hagiographic commemoration of the war - especially amongst partisans of the Southern cause - and a more reflective, analytical one. I know that doesn't play well with the masses, however, and won't do much to generate tourist dollars.
BTW, the dread NPR is a good place to hear a good deal of scholarly social history and contextual analysis of America at the time of the Civil War.
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.
) 
