It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

the confederate flag

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Nygdan, appreciate the history diatribe and the amount of key strokes. It doesn't answer my question. Do you consider those that fly the "Stars and Bars" to be "slack jawed yokels"? I think you're getting my point now. One sentance will answer this question.




posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Let me reference my previous one sentence answer:


Nygdan
No.



And, to elaborate, I explicitly apologize if either of you or anyone else feels that I am calling them 'slack jawed yokels' and my less explicit apology was not apparent or well communicated previously.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Nygdan,
Very nice response, but I must disagree with you in some areas.



Show me the part that details how they could.


The constitution did cover anything that wasn't covered in the constitution; the quote was posted earlier in the thread. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (10th amendment). Since withdrawl from the union wasn't covered in the constition at that time, it follows logically that is was up to the states.



If that was part of the intent, then they'd detail how it would be done. ... What if a town wanted to succede? Or part of a town? Or everyone in one state and some in the neighboring states? No, succession was illegal.


That does not follow. The founders wanted a lot of things done, but thought it best that the states detail how it would be done. Again, read the 10th amendment. The constitution only recognized states as political bodies to deal with at the federal level; your following question doesn't make sense.




I see the lack of slavery throughout most of the world because of strenuous efforts to put it down, even when it required war, whether it was the north occupying and reconstructing the entire rebellious south of the British invading and incorporating south africa.


Can you list the number of conflicts whose official purpose was to eliminate slavery? (hint: there are not very many). While it may the true that the implication of many nations winning a war may be the end of slavery, that was rarely the stated purpose. Slavery, in itself, requires a specific type of economy for it to work. Slavery initially in america was worthless; short life spans of the newly brought slaves was a waste of money. Slavery has requirements, just like any other economic system.

By the start of the civil war, older southern states were actually reducing the amount of slaves they had working; the tobacco fields were drying up from over use, and as a result, the demand for slavery dropped. Virginia became a slave selling state instead of a slave using state. All other states also did not have knowledge of crop rotation, and as a result, eventually the soil would be useless. If slavery were to continue, it would have to continue in new ground (farther south-- possibly Mexico).

Your precendents fall short:

The Hartford Convention was never able to even officially propose succession.

The Whiskey Rebellion, as with Shay's was not a state attempt for succession.

We can agree on the premise that most of the founding fathers were deeply read into Locke's philosophy (see the Dec. of Indep.). As a result, we can rationally assume they believed it is within a people's rights to rebel from their king or government if they felt their rights were not being respected. Oh well, I suppose in theory the war against Britain was illegal too.

Regards,
Radardog



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by radardog
(10th amendment). Since withdrawl from the union wasn't covered in the constition at that time, it follows logically that is was up to the states.

The founders were still around for the wiskey rebellion and other such movements. They didn't seem to think that they were legal and constitutional.


Again, read the 10th amendment. The constitution only recognized states as political bodies to deal with at the federal level; your following question doesn't make sense.

They also created a congress with, as one of its powers, the responsibility to settle disputes between states. The problems that the Southern states had were to be settled there, not in rebellion against the nation itself.


Can you list the number of conflicts whose official purpose was to eliminate slavery? (hint: there are not very many).

Agreed, however I haven't said that there were, at least not when it wasn't involving slave rebellions.



By the start of the civil war, older southern states were actually reducing the amount of slaves they had working; the tobacco fields were drying up from over use, and as a result, the demand for slavery dropped.

The southern econnomy was still largely dependant on cotton farming and exporting, and, not having any sort of industrial or automating techniques, they were completely reliant on slavery. The economic factors were imporant aas you note, and they are why slavery died out in the norhtern colonies and certainly in some other countries. However the British government was generally opposed to slavery and worked against it in their colonies, not leaving it up to economic considertations, and even fought wars with other countries to 'protect the rights' of blacks and other natives, at least insofar as to stop outright slavery there. Of course, there were other issues there and slavery/native rights wasn't even a primary or secondary concern, but in those places that was how it was undone.


Virginia became a slave selling state instead of a slave using state.

they still used large numbers of slaves and had legalized slavery. The people that had slaves, or at least the powerful agricultralists that had slaves and whose riches were dependant on slave labour, certainly weren't going to allow the state to outlaw it.



All other states also did not have knowledge of crop rotation, and as a result, eventually the soil would be useless. If slavery were to continue, it would have to continue in new ground (farther south-- possibly Mexico).
Or the other new states and territories. Besides, I am not so sure that lack of crop rotation was going to lead to agricultural collapse in the confederate states. They could fertilize their fields properly.



The Hartford Convention was never able to even officially propose succession.

Yes, and I noted that. However, succession was under consideration, and there were seccesionist sentiments in new england at the time.


The Whiskey Rebellion, as with Shay's was not a state attempt for succession.

It was armed inssurection against the state because of its policies. And at least in the whiskey rebellion, there were direct moves made for succession, and, disconcertingly, from foreign powers.These moves were obviously not legal. And had the rebellions been succesful, they'd've at least been de facto seccession.

I agree that they aren't precisely like the Civil War, but they are close analogs. In both cases, there were legitimate complaints from either state representatives or citizens of the state. And in the cases of the rebellions there was an attempt to seperate themselves from federal law. Also,on the Whiskey rebellion, I am not so certain that it wasn't a pre-nascent seccesionist movement, that area of the state certainly had strong seccesionist sentiments, strong enough that the British recognized it, and their complaints were almost entirely focused on the federal government and its fully legitmate enforcement of its powers. I mean, in the lead up, they were literally tarring and featehring tax collectors and refusing to open tax collecting offices and the like, and finally marched on an entire city? It wasn't just a protest and it wasn't some bizzare move to get the Fed to change its stance.

they believed it is within a people's rights to rebel from their king or government if they felt their rights were not being respected.

THey couldn't, however, possibly expect that states can just leave when they felt like it, or when the arraingment wasn't profitable to them. I mean, one can't give up one's citizenship when the taxman is at the door, or protest one's arrest because one is one's own micronation. Even villages and towns and cities can't be allowed to secede from the state or the union. I think the same reasoning applies to the states themselves. They agreed to become part of the United States. They don't get to leave and arm themselves for any reason, and if they have issues, they have to bring it to congress, not have their own state legislatures or ad hoc councils decalre it. Also, what about the citizens that don't want to leave? They can rightly expect the federal governement to come in and take their state back for them.



Oh well, I suppose in theory the war against Britain was illegal too.

I'd say it was. The Revolutionaries felt that they had the right to rebel, but there was certainly no legality to their rebellion. Also, if the founders thought that the citizenry had the right and responsibility to rebel, that doesn't mean that the governement was designed to permit them to do this or make it easier for them. If the US was to become tyrannical, then the public would have to rebel, but that wouldn't make the rebellion 'legal', and if the rebellion failed the rebels could be treated as having commited an illegal action.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 08:43 PM
link   
I do not wish to repeat what has already been said, but many of you don't seem to be getting the point. It doesn't matter what WE think the confederate flag means, what matters is what society thinks of it. True, we are part of society, but only a small part, and on the whole smarter. That is why we are here. Society sees what people consider to be the confederate flag as a symbol of slavery. Most people don't know about the good side of the swastika either, they don't know that the confederate flag means more than slavery.

I don't agree with people who wear/display the confederate flag when they say it stands for states' rights. Some losers (they really are, they don't live on farms, but they feel the need to wear cowboy hats, jeans, boots, and shirts, for no reason other than as a fad, they are no better than the jocks and goths of the school) at my school wear the flag on their belt buckles because "they don't like black people."

I am a libetarian, and I believe people should be able to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else. This crosses the line though. I'm not an advocate for blacks. Far from it. I don't think they deserve any more rights or priveleges than anyone else of any other nationality does. But the confederate flag is the symbol of an illegal act. However much I dislike the U.S., I still realize it is my home country, and I don't want people hurting it. This illegal rebellion hurt the U.S. quite a bit. It required millions of dollars and lives to fight the war, and then reconstruct the South.

Have you ever been to the KKK website? They are no better than terrorists, really. They say they don't kill black people, yet they obviously have a history of it. They scare them, and isn't that what terrorism is about? Scaring people? I go there every once in awhile for a good laugh. Their religion blinds them. I could go for awhile on relgion, but I won't. The members of the KKK are bigots. They should be sent to Antartica, and I wouldn't care. In fact, I would rejoice. I don't think they are a productive branch of society, but I know that the U.S. isn't a country like that, and I'm thankful for it.

Oh well, nothing I can do. Except for maybe firebomb a few KKK meeting places. Oh how that would be fun. Oh so fun,

G'Night folks.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   
sorry double post

[edit on 25-11-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan


I have one on my wall and would be happy to give you my address so you can come down a tear it off my wall

Blech. I would if it were legal, but for some stupid reason you are permited to hang a call for the absolution of the nation and the destruction of the union. The confederate flag is something I place in the same leagueas the read flag of internationalist radical militant communism. Calling for death destruction and war of the United States should not be something to be proud of, heck it shouldn't even be legal.
\

Yeah there is "some stupid reason" its called freedom of speech and as much as you seems to bother you we still have it. We also had JUST as much right to withdraw from the union as the colonies had to withdraw from the UK

You obviously dint understand Southerners or you wouldnt want to TRY to come on my property and tear down ANYTHING. There are a lot down here (I am not one) that feel kinda like Iraq, that we a Sovereign nation were invaded and have been occupied for the last 140+ years by the enemy.



[edit on 25-11-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
The succession was not Illegal at the time and the end of the Civil war was the end of the union as our fore fathers intended. You are right though it was not about slavery, that would have died out in a few more years anyway, it was about states rights. We in the south thought that we entered the union by our own choice and we had the right to leave the same way.


Amuk speaks the truth. The United States became the Federal Government after the civil war. Policy was now dictated by Washington and was no longer a general consensus amongst the States. Americans lost a lot of their freedoms during that time. Some people see the flag as repression due to their view of the Civil War and others see it as a symbol of freedom from repression. Some people may see the American Flag as repressive (Native Americans) and others may ee it as a symbol of freedom.

BTW, Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Constitution was one of the biggest slave owners in Virginia at the time.

The whiskey rebellion was put down by the man that led an army against the British because of taxation among other things. He then sent an army to fight men that were saying and doing the same things he was saying and doing to Britain just a few short years before.

[edit on 25-11-2004 by cryptorsa1001]

[edit on 25-11-2004 by cryptorsa1001]



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001

The United States became the Federal Government after the civil war. Policy was now dictated by Washington and was no longer a general consensus amongst the States. Americans lost a lot of their freedoms during that time. Some people see the flag as repression due to their view of the Civil War and others see it as a symbol of freedom from repression. Some people may see the American Flag as repressive (Native Americans) and others may ee it as a symbol of freedom.


Excellent Post
You can add some Mexicans to the list that find the stars and stripes as a sign of oppression. Heck you could even argue that we in the South were offended by the union flag because it represents our oppression by an invading foreign power



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan


Originally posted by Amuk
You did know that the South had blacks fighting in their army too, right?

Sure, and they still felt that any members of this subhuman slave race should be destroyed immeadiately if they were fighting for the other side, rather than taken prisoner.


Kinda like what the Federal government thought about Indians except they went one to kill their wives and children too. But Genocide against an entire race is OK I guess as long as its not done under the Confederate flag

I almost forgot the flag of country that enslaved my black buddies ancestors? It was the United States of America, or was there no slavery till the south seceded? And you did know that the strates that stayed in ther union were allowed to keep their slaves, right? So how was the confederate flag the cause of his slavery?


[edit on 25-11-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I especially like the way how slavery was not the key factor in the war, it really didn't become an issue until the Emancipation Proclomation (might a say, a BRILLIANT tactic).

It's not a symbol of racism, it's a symbol of homeland pride. Go down to Georgia, they're everywhere and oi, black wear them too.

People wave them equal with the stars and stripes here, its about pride, heritage, and culture...not racism.

Then again, don't take my word for it, I'm jsut a dumb, ignoarnt Texan.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 10:36 PM
link   
I own a hat with a confed flag on it, of which I often proudly wear when I go out. I dont get much criticism about, actually alot of people compliment it and ask where they can get one! To those who don't like it , I dare them to try and knock it off!
To those who think secession was illegal, well I guess you obviously believe that might makes right. The states were told they would keep their soverngity when they signed the contract (CONstitution) to enter the union. So were they lied to when they later tried to leave? Is this country the mafia, where you can join but never leave? If the states knew this in 1787-89 none would have signed the CONstitution.
To the issue of slavery, it is estimated in the 11 confed states that about 6% of the pop owned slaves. Therefore it is definately not fair to juge the whole south as fighting for slavery.
Many blacks volunteered for service to the CSA army, it is estimated between 90,000 to 100,000 joined the ranks.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 11:09 PM
link   
To anyone who cares!

The state of New York forwarded a bill to their state congress during the south's secession to actually secede and join the Confederacy, but did not get the votes required.

Delaware, Maryland and Kentucky were a few of the states that had slaves but didn't join the Confederacy.

Prior to the Civil War, there existed free, black plantation owners in the south and they were very vocal about their rights to keep and trade their slaves, but history books will not tell you that.

Where can you find this information? The South Carolina Historical State Archives.

Shame on anyone who shall put down the south for fighting for a freedom that this nation was founded upon.

Not the freedom to have slaves, but to have the right to tend to internal affairs at the state level without interference from outside sources, including the Federal government!

I'm just wasting my time explaining anything to anyone that's not from the south!

If you're not from the south, you'll never understand so what's the use!



[edit on 25/11/04 by Intelearthling]



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I had seen a shirt that had the confederate flag and below it it said 'if this flag is offensive to you, you need a history lesson'.

I find that humourous. The south seceded largely over an issue of states rights and the power of the federal government. Well enough. And on that alone the confederate flag should be banned, burned, defiled and destroyed.



It is clear that you do need a history lesson. While you're taking that suggestion, read the Anti-Federalist Papers (ISMB 0-451-52884-0) and see why many were concerned with the constitution as it was presented. If you read the Federalist Papers (ISBN 0-553-21340-7), you'll see how those writers didn't really expect the feral government to goas it did. They weren't entirely right.

You can get both on the internet, but I find books to be better. If you're like me, you'll be doing a lot of highlighting and note-taking.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 11:32 PM
link   
I have replies from 3 pages here, so I'll take them in order.



Dragon27-- The confederit flag
can a flag really inspire raceism? can the politions really make us(the south)change. they removed Montacello off the nickle and put two hands. that just sucks. whats next?

Unfortunately, it can. Remember, some people still expect to find massive amounts of WMD in Iraq. A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. Somebody great said something like that but I do not remember the exact words or who it was. Your Nickle--- Those hands are a Caucasian Explorer and a Native American. They are to commemorate the Lewis & Clark Expedition of two centuries ago. History has since shown how we treat those we consider "friends". I am not certain, but I think Montacello will be back on the nickle in a couple years.



Amuk-- Screw the Yankees

I was born in West Virginia. Dad moved to Ohio for work in the late 1950's. I still remember the shock on my teacher's face and the conference my Mom was called to because of something I said. I never forgot, either. To this day I still know that "Damn Yankee" is TWO words, not one.




Smirkley -- And after the civil war ended,... well the winner's get to say what they want.


That is why most folks will never know what started that whole mess. Call it State's Rights if you want, call it Slavery if you want, but never call it by it's real name.--GREED. In High School I came close to learning many things because I had a teacher born in Canada. Rather than learning many things, I settled on just learning a few things. I should have paid more attention.
This Naturalized American teacher taught from a different perspective. Tensions were high when A Lincoln was elected. Wonder if we would have had the same war if S Douglas had been elected? I think the war was inevitable.The heavily populated, industrialized, wealthier North wanted to rule over the rural South as a poor relative. Tempers flared. The real issue, behind all others, the shadowy one was--Should the country look out for the average guy, or the Wealthy one? Nothing settled, because we are still asking that same question.



Scat -- Then again, don't take my word for it, I'm jsut a dumb, ignoarnt Texan.

And how many of those have we put in the White House since 1865? In fact, has anybody ever checked to see how many President's we have had since the Civil War ended who were from the "Old Confederacy"? I admit, I never have, but considering how this country has grown, I think the percentage would be "unexpectedly" high.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 03:00 PM
link   



I'm just wasting my time explaining anything to anyone that's not from the south!

If you're not from the south, you'll never understand so what's the use!



[edit on 25/11/04 by Intelearthling]




A'men im from the south and most people up north just dont get it. i mean look at your state flag it was the banner that armys home state. so should they change Va.,Nc.,Sc.,Tenn. and the others because they"repersent" slavery. I think not!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 27-11-2004 by DRAGON27]



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 03:49 PM
link   
That reminds me of a slogan I saw on a teeshirt. It said:

"It's a SOUTHERN thang...you would'nt understand".


Oh don't forget the Cherokee indians who joined in on the Confederate side. ..and also that England almost joined us because of the Yankees hijacking an English ship during the war. Oh, and also that Abe Lincoln's wife was accused of helping the Southern side because she had relatives in Kentucky..

[edit on 26-11-2004 by elaine]



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
The founders were still around for the wiskey rebellion and other such movements. They didn't seem to think that they were legal and constitutional.


Right, but again it is a bad analogy; those rebellions did not occur at a state level. The founding fathers had a deep respect for every state as an entity (the Dec. of Indep. required all 13 states to agree). Had one disagreed, it would not have gone through. Jefferson, who always argued state rights above federal control, really had respect for the individual states.




They also created a congress with, as one of its powers, the responsibility to settle disputes between states. The problems that the Southern states had were to be settled there, not in rebellion against the nation itself.


Yes, state vs. state, not necessarily a collection of states against its own government, and certainly not a collection of states against its own government in an attempt to withdrawl. Usually states do that sort of thing for land disputes within the U.S.





The southern econnomy was still largely dependant on cotton farming and exporting, and, not having any sort of industrial or automating techniques, they were completely reliant on slavery. ... they still used large numbers of slaves and had legalized slavery. The people that had slaves, or at least the powerful agricultralists that had slaves and whose riches were dependant on slave labour, certainly weren't going to allow the state to outlaw it.



"...profitable tobacco cultivation was hard to sustain for very long in one place because the crop rapidly depleted the soil ... By 1860, more tobacco was grown in the new western states than in the older eastern ones, and Kentucky had emerged as a major producer.
...
Such changes increased the need for capital but reduced the demand for labor. Improvements were financed in part by selling surplus slaves from the upper South to regions of the lower South, where staple crop production was more profitable."

--
Divine, Robert, Breen, Fredrickson, Williams. America: Past and Present. pg.365





THey couldn't, however, possibly expect that states can just leave when they felt like it, or when the arraingment wasn't profitable to them.

Many reasons for the initial rebellion against Britain were percisely that! The taxes did not allow the wealthy merchants to be profitable.


"For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:"

-- Declaration of Independence




I think the same reasoning applies to the states themselves. They agreed to become part of the United States. They don't get to leave and arm themselves for any reason, and if they have issues, they have to bring it to congress, not have their own state legislatures or ad hoc councils decalre it.


I think you are way off here. The founders explicitly wanted the public to be able to arm themselves if they feel like their rights are being threatened. They believed this enough to amend the constitution, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Now, take a microscope to the bill of rights and notice a few things: The bill of rights distinguishes between "state" and "United States"; they are not the same thing.



Also, what about the citizens that don't want to leave? They can rightly expect the federal governement to come in and take their state back for them.

This situation also occured with the war with England -- some citizens were still loyal to the king. However, apparently they lived with it pretty well or moved elsewhere (Canada, a British colony, was just to the north). The same reasoning applies: had the states left the Union, the Union was just to the north.



The Revolutionaries felt that they had the right to rebel, but there was certainly no legality to their rebellion.


I would be hard pressed to find a legal rebellion.

-- Radardog



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Just a note to the author of this thread... could we change "confederit" to the proper spelling "Confederate"? I think about it every time I see it.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Originally posted by Nygdan
I had seen a shirt that had the confederate flag and below it it said 'if this flag is offensive to you, you need a history lesson'.

I find that humourous. The south seceded largely over an issue of states rights and the power of the federal government. Well enough. And on that alone the confederate flag should be banned, burned, defiled and destroyed.



It is clear that you do need a history lesson. While you're taking that suggestion, read the Anti-Federalist Papers (ISMB 0-451-52884-0) and see why many were concerned with the constitution as it was presented. If you read the Federalist Papers (ISBN 0-553-21340-7), you'll see how those writers didn't really expect the feral government to goas it did. They weren't entirely right.

I fail to see what that has to do with the subject. If the federal governement behaved differently thatn the federalists themselves had figured, how does that make seccession legal, or more specifically the southern secession legal? The southern states left the union and started a rebellion. I see nothing praiseworthy in their actions. They fought a war against the united states in order to further their own parochial desires and wants. WHen they entered the Union, they became part of something bigger than their own interests. But when things started not going their way, they figure that they can just grab a gun and fight their way out? No, unacceptable. Any disputes between states are to be settled by congress, all the states agreed to that. If I enter into a contract, I don't get to pull out merely because I am not happy with the way its going, or I am certainly not allowed to take my profits out of it and hold a gun on the other members. A town is not permitted to secede from the Union, or even from the state. What else can the Federal Government do but restore order to those portions of the country that rise in rebellion against it?

And I refuse to accept the idea that the southerners were champions of personal and state liberty, while at the same time slave drivers.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join