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.
Perhaps the difference is I'm a Southerner who abhors what the South stood for.
Where are you from, just out of curiosity?
Quote:
The South initiated military conflict and therefore the war.
It is a matter of historical perspective. If one accepts that the Southern states had every right to seperate themselves from a political connection with the North, and form a government more to their own liking, then by the same token they had a right to act in their own defense. The CSA (originally only the seven Lower South states...South Carolina thru Texas) offered to compensate the North for the fort, and tried every way possible to negotiate a peaceful settlement. The Lincoln administration rebuffed all these efforts because they shrewdly saw that by provoking a Southern military move they could unite northern public opinion around invading the South by announcing U.S. honor had been insulted (theretofore, the prevailing sentiment in the North was to let the South go in peace....which was what the latter wanted anyway).
But back to the larger point. A nation has a right to act in its own defense. And the presence of an armed installation in CSA territorial waters could not be permanently tolerated.
Jefferson Davis also wanted to negotiate a mutually beneficial alliance between the Confederacy and Union which would involve both economic and defensive concerns. And open up the Mississippi River for free trade and navigation. This is hardly the stance of a country with hostile intentions toward another...
Quote:
If the South thought it could legally secede from the Union, then the place to make that argument was in the Supreme Court, not Charleston Harbor. Lincoln, absent a court order to the contrary, had an obligation as President to enforce the law. He was president of the entire United States. That included the states which were attempting to secede.
I am no legal scholar, but I DO know the SCOTUS does not accept moot cases, which is pretty much what presenting a case for secession would have been if put before the court before the actual fact.
In any event, there was no need. The principle of "government derives its powers from the consent of the government" was rooted in the American Revolution and the ideals of the Founding Fathers. The Constitution was a voluntary contract. Why would the Southern states need legal standing to act upon the same principles their Colonial ancestors had?
Too, you are proceeding from the false premise that it was up to the South to prove a constitutional right to secede. On the contrary, the proper way to frame the question is not did the South have the "right" to secede, but did the federal government have the constitutional authority to forcibly prevent it?
Hard as it might be for many to believe in this day and age, there was a time when it was generally understood that the federal government had only those specific and limited powers granted by the Constitution. All others, as spelled out in the 9th and 10th Amendments, were the domain of the people and the states. Since the documents says nothing on the subject of secession, then the case to be proven rests upon the North, not the South.
Quote:
But for the issue of slavery, there would be no fundamental conflict. My reference to the Cornerstone speech is not to the racist language but to Stephens unambiguous characterization of the reason for the South's attempt to break the Union -- slavery.
The racist language, whether North, South, Lincoln, Stephens, etc, is immaterial and not even an issue. I hope we might agree that by todays standards, almost everyone in that era would be considered a hopeless racist (whatever that means). To hell with that aspect of it.
My point is that you attempt to turn that cornerstone speech into something that it never was. That is, turn one man's personal opinion (which the earlier link puts into a proper historical perspective, anyway) into official policy of the CSA government. Had what Stephens said been written into the CSA constitution, then you might have a valid point. But it wasn't. It was just that. His personal opinion. Just as Lincoln's was.
What's wrong with the Confederate flag? Depends on WHO you ask.
What's wrong with the Nazi flag? Why isn't it ok to fly a flag with a swastika?
When people answer the first question with things such as: its not racist, its a part of Southern heritage, symbolizes State's Rights etc. I often wonder if these same people feel the same way about the Nazi flag (and no doubt that some of them fly that one too)
The Confederate flag has a place in history and that's where it should stay. Americans would be up in arms if the state flag for South Carolina had a swastika or any other Nazi symbolism.
The flag represents a time when Black people were oppressed and to fly that flag is stating that you long for a return to that period in time. The symbolism of the flag was used as an intimidation tool and as a White supremacy/KKK calling card. Anyone who makes attempts to dispute that fact is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
Why not put a burning cross on the state flag, too.
What's wrong with the Confederate flag? Depends on WHO you ask.
What's wrong with the Nazi flag? Why isn't it ok to fly a flag with a swastika?
When people answer the first question with things such as: its not racist, its a part of Southern heritage, symbolizes State's Rights etc. I often wonder if these same people feel the same way about the Nazi flag (and no doubt that some of them fly that one too)
I will take into account that you probably really know next to nothing about the South nor its history, save what you have read in PC history books and hearing from the MSM. For you edification however, here are some of the differences:
1. The Nazi policy of genocide for those races/groups deemed "sub-human." This is the most appalling and revolting of any aspect. Nothing at all in CSA policy was even remotely comparable.
2. At the time of the WBTS, slavery still existed in the western world. Yet its morality (or lack thereof) was truly being struggled with..in the American South as well. On the other hand, those enslaved in Nazi Germany were at a time when it had disappeared from Western Civilization for almost a century, and was brought back. Too, those enslaved by the nazi's were literally starved, beaten, and worked to death. Not even the severest critic of slavery as it existed in America (one knowlegable, that is) alleges such inhumanity was commonplace. Sure, there were sadistic slaveowners, but there were still laws in the Southern states against deliberate mistreatment and slaveowners were obligated by law and common humanitarian/Christian ethics to take care of the sick, injured and old.
3. The Confederate States of America was a Constitutional Republic like the United States. Nazi Germany was a dictatorship. Free speech, religion, assembly, bearing arms, etc. did not exist in the latter, and in fact, could be punishable by death if deemed to be harmful to the state.
4. Nazi Germany pursued a militaristic and agressive foriegn policy with the intention of world domination. The Confederacy only wanted to be left alone and peacefully.
5. The political principles the South fought for were deeply rooted in those set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (which itself had largely been written by Southerners). Agree with them or not, they were still rooted in the same.
Quote:
The flag represents a time when Black people were oppressed and to fly that flag is stating that you long for a return to that period in time. The symbolism of the flag was used as an intimidation tool and as a White supremacy/KKK calling card. Anyone who makes attempts to dispute that fact is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
I will take into account that you probably really know next to nothing about the South nor its history(except that my father was a Texan and my mother's family is from the Carolinas and Louisiana) , save what you have read in PC history books and hearing from the MSM (do not patronize, I am VERY well educated). For you edification however, here are some of the differences:
1. The Nazi policy of genocide for those races/groups deemed "sub-human." This is the most appalling and revolting of any aspect. Nothing at all in CSA policy was even remotely comparable.
2. At the time of the WBTS, slavery still existed in the western world. Yet its morality (or lack thereof) was truly being struggled with..in the American South as well. On the other hand, those enslaved in Nazi Germany were at a time when it had disappeared from Western Civilization for almost a century, and was brought back. Too, those enslaved by the nazi's were literally starved, beaten, and worked to death. Not even the severest critic of slavery as it existed in America (one knowlegable, that is) alleges such inhumanity was commonplace. Sure, there were sadistic slaveowners, but there were still laws in the Southern states against deliberate mistreatment and slaveowners were obligated by law and common humanitarian/Christian ethics to take care of the sick, injured and old.
3. The Confederate States of America was a Constitutional Republic like the United States. Nazi Germany was a dictatorship. Free speech, religion, assembly, bearing arms, etc. did not exist in the latter, and in fact, could be punishable by death if deemed to be harmful to the state.
4. Nazi Germany pursued a militaristic and agressive foriegn policy with the intention of world domination. The Confederacy only wanted to be left alone and peacefully.
5. The political principles the South fought for were deeply rooted in those set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (which itself had largely been written by Southerners). Agree with them or not, they were still rooted in the same.
Despite pointing the differences in Germany under the Nazi regime and the Southern United States antebellum, there remains my original point: in 2008, the Confederate flag is symbolic of a sentiment that there was a time in the US when a State could decide the fate of another human being(to forceably toil for the economic enrichment of others); the parallel between this and the sentiments of Germans under Hitler and the Nazi party that Jews were sub-human(which required that they be systematically exterminated) seems to have been lost in your attempt to "educate" me during your stroll down memory lane with Jefferson Davis and Adolf Hitler.
Despite pointing the differences in Germany under the Nazi regime and the Southern United States antebellum, there remains my original point: in 2008, the Confederate flag is symbolic of a sentiment that there was a time in the US when a State could decide the fate of another human being(to forceably toil for the economic enrichment of others); the parallel between this and the sentiments of Germans under Hitler and the Nazi party that Jews were sub-human(which required that they be systematically exterminated) seems to have been lost in your attempt to "educate" me during your stroll down memory lane with Jefferson Davis and Adolf Hitler.
Well, to be blunt about it, your "original point" makes no sense. LOL
And neither do the conclusions you reach. In fact, there are so silly and outlandish as to not really be worth a reply.
If I am going to debate/discuss this topic, I prefer to do it with -- agree or disagree -- those who at least have a workable knowlege of history.
It is a matter of historical perspective. If one accepts that the Southern states had every right to seperate themselves from a political connection with the North, and form a government more to their own liking, then by the same token they had a right to act in their own defense. The CSA (originally only the seven Lower South states...South Carolina thru Texas) offered to compensate the North for the fort, and tried every way possible to negotiate a peaceful settlement. The Lincoln administration rebuffed all these efforts because they shrewdly saw that by provoking a Southern military move they could unite northern public opinion around invading the South by announcing U.S. honor had been insulted (theretofore, the prevailing sentiment in the North was to let the South go in peace....which was what the latter wanted anyway).
But back to the larger point. A nation has a right to act in its own defense. And the presence of an armed installation in CSA territorial waters could not be permanently tolerated.
Jefferson Davis also wanted to negotiate a mutually beneficial alliance between the Confederacy and Union which would involve both economic and defensive concerns. And open up the Mississippi River for free trade and navigation. This is hardly the stance of a country with hostile intentions toward another...
I am no legal scholar, but I DO know the SCOTUS does not accept moot cases, which is pretty much what presenting a case for secession would have been if put before the court before the actual fact.
You're right; you are no legal scholar. The question could have easily been placed before the Court, which is the Constitutional arbiter of disputes that involve states. You also appear not to know what moot means.
Davis may have want to negotiate a separation, but he didn't represent a party with legal standing. Two routes exist -- legal or by force of arms. The South chose force of arms. It was a foolish choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
In any event, there was no need. The principle of "government derives its powers from the consent of the government" was rooted in the American Revolution and the ideals of the Founding Fathers. The Constitution was a voluntary contract. Why would the Southern states need legal standing to act upon the same principles their Colonial ancestors had?
You cannot withdraw from most contract unilaterally. Otherwise it wouldn't be a contract. There were no provisions in the contract that provided for secession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Too, you are proceeding from the false premise that it was up to the South to prove a constitutional right to secede. On the contrary, the proper way to frame the question is not did the South have the "right" to secede, but did the federal government have the constitutional authority to forcibly prevent it?
It clearly did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Hard as it might be for many to believe in this day and age, there was a time when it was generally understood that the federal government had only those specific and limited powers granted by the Constitution. All others, as spelled out in the 9th and 10th Amendments, were the domain of the people and the states. Since the documents says nothing on the subject of secession, then the case to be proven rests upon the North, not the South.
Where there is no provision, or even if there had been, it's a decision for the Supreme Court not individual states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
The racist language, whether North, South, Lincoln, Stephens, etc, is immaterial and not even an issue. I hope we might agree that by todays standards, almost everyone in that era would be considered a hopeless racist (whatever that means). To hell with that aspect of it.
My point is that you attempt to turn that cornerstone speech into something that it never was. That is, turn one man's personal opinion (which the earlier link puts into a proper historical perspective, anyway) into official policy of the CSA government. Had what Stephens said been written into the CSA constitution, then you might have a valid point. But it wasn't. It was just that. His personal opinion. Just as Lincoln's was.
It's not a personal opinion. It's a statement by the Vice President of the Confederacy.
FACT (and back on topic): Possession, Displaying of the Confederate Flag does not equate to that person being a racist.
Period
Denial, the earliest stage of recovery.
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.
