Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered (contains many fascinating facts -golux)

via e-mail | Thursday, July 9, 2015 | Chuck Baldwin

[Team Cuda]

I’ve read this three times, and I’m having trouble understanding what your point is. If you’re saying that slavery would have died of natural causes anyway, I don’t think I disagree with you, although I do think it would have made it into the 20th century. I disagree with you, though, on your glossing over of the importance of the return of fugitive slaves. It was the first cause listed by South Carolina in their “Declaration of Causes”, so they clearly thought it was important. I also vehementally disagree with your statement “the inability of the Negro to acclimatize to the harsh Northern climate and his natural affinity for the near-tropical climate of the deep South.” The more than 6 million African Americans who moved from the South to Northern cities between 1917 and 1960 would probably disagree with you as well.

So, if your point is that it was illogical for the South to secede from the Union over slavery, I am in total agreement with you. However, the number of Vulcans in Southern legislatures must have been extremely low, because they did secede, and the secession was due to slavery. I could cite multiple sources as proof of this, but I will go to my old fallback, the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Mississippi: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery— the greatest material interest of the world.”

[ought-six]

The rulers and movers and shakers in Britain were silenced by the great unwashed? Give me a break. Britain had a problem with slavery after 1833? Read some history. Read about Britain in India. Read about “John Company” (which was the nickname given to the East India Company, which in pretty much all respects governed India for many, many years, and certainly after 1833). The British treated the Indians as slaves; in fact, black slaves in America were treated much, much better than Indians under British control. Believe me, the Brits were not squeamish about slavery or oppressing “the fuzzies” or “the wogs.”

[Team Cuda]

In regards to slavery, and the British Empire, let’s look at a timeline, shall we:
1807 - Slave Trade Act passed. Set up the West Africa Squadron to suppress the Slave Trade
1823 - the Anti Slavery Society was set up to work to abolish slavery
1833 - Slavery Abolition Act passed by Parliament. Outlawed slavery in the British Empire, with the exception of Ceylon, St Helena, and territories in possession of the East India Company
1843 - Slavery Abolition Act amended to remove exceptions

So, yes, by the 1860s it was very clear that the British Empire had a problem with slavery. Did this mean that the Brits stopped treating native peoples badly? Of course not - but they were not slaves. This is akin to saying that since the US passed Jim Crow laws, that meant that we didn’t abolish slavery.

But, have it your way. If the Brits had no problem with slavery, why didn’t they recognize the CSA? What was their reason for not recognizing a nation with which their ruling class had so much affinity? We await your answer with bated breath.

[DiogenesLamp]

But you are rushing off in two opposite directions. You're admitting the great impetus that the Declaration of Independence gave to emancipation movement, yet somehow arguing that it was illegitimate or irrelevant.

No, i'm arguing that it was ex post facto. That it produced that result later, and that that result was not part of it's initial purpose. The Dichotomy is inherent in the document, not in my Understanding of it. If it looks like it goes in two different directions, that's because it does. :)

You're not making reference to any support secessionist slaveowners would derive from the Declaration.

You're kidding, right? Virtually my entire argument revolving around the Declaration of Independence, is that it overtly and quite demonstrably supports the rights of a slave holding populace breaking away from a larger union.

That is exactly the purpose for which it was written. .

And you're assuming that this leaves you with of an argument, because you can throw out a Latin phrase like "tu quoque."

"Tu quoque" comes up so often, I hardly think there is any cleverness left to it. It has become mundane, especially as regards this subject.

The primary argument put forth by the Union Apologists is this: We had a right to do something bad, because those Southern States were doing something bad.

Introducing the issue of slavery, is an automatic "tu quoque" because it focuses the discussion on what someone did that was "bad" rather than whether people had a right to leave or not.

Also the argument "We were justified in invading because of Slavery", is also an "ex post facto" argument, which is some more Latin lingo for ya. :)

[DiogenesLamp]

Since only some wanted to KEEEP it , lets just limit the number of states

In 1776, all 13 colonies were slave holding states.

I think Massachusetts was the first to get rid of slavery, and that started happening in 1781, and through the courts, not the legislature.

Those Liberal Witch-hunting Puritans sure do love them some Judicial activism.

[DiogenesLamp]

You state that “the Declaration is legally superior to the Constitution”. Exactly which orifice or your body did you pull this legal doctrine out of?

You aren't mocking me, you are mocking the Declaration which cites the authority of God and Nature. You don't want to grasp this concept because it's contrary to what you wish to believe.

I will tell you why the colonies had the right to leave Great Britain. They won.

They didn't win. George III let them go. Had he the same mindset as Abraham Lincoln, you'd be singing God Save the Queen today.

You're argument "If you want independence... Win." is utterly bogus and without merit. Independence was illegal under the Laws of Britain, but it was adopted by our nation as the foundation of our government.

There might have been need of a war with Britain, but there never should have been a need for a war with a country that was created by citing a God given right to leave.

[DiogenesLamp]

You say “They are effectively bound by chains, like a slave.”

You say that like it was a bad thing. The states that seceded obviously did not agree, as that was why they seceded.

They weren't being hypocrites. The Union was the one claiming to be against slavery.... except of course, when they do it.

[Team Cuda]

Again, for the nth plus one time - the North fought to maintain the Union, not against Slavery. There were many people in the North that did not like slavery, but that is not why they went to war. Simple concept, why is it so hard to understand?

The South, on the other hand fought to maintain slavery. There is voluminous evidence of this, you just have to find it. I recommend the Mississippi Articles of Secession, which said “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world.”. Again, very simple to read and understand.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

Secession implies an orderly, negotiated settlement as part of the withdrawal

Negotiated settlement? Where are you finding that? These are the definitions I found. Secession: the act of separating from a nation or state and becoming independent (Merriam-Webster)

Secession: the action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state (Oxford Dictionary)

Secession: the act of leaving an organization or government (Cambridge Dictionary)

SECEDE, verb intransitive [L. secedo; se, from, and cedo, to move. Se is an inseparable preposition or prefix in Latin, but denoting departure or separation.] To withdraw from fellowship, communion or association; to separate ones's self; as, certain ministers seceded from the church of Scotland about the year 1733. (Webster's 1828 Dictionary)

[Team Cuda]

I am not mocking the Declaration of Independance, any more than I am mocking the Consitution. I simply asked you to cite the legal precedence that the Declaration takes precedence over the Consititution. Still waiting.

This statement absolutely floors me “They didn’t win. George III let them go.” The colonists fought the Revolution to free us from the United Kingdom. We’re free. It certainly looks like a win. Every 4th of july for the last 200 years we have celebrated it as a win. I’m thinking that you’re one of the few people in the United States (or Great Britain, or the rest of the world) who didn’t think we won.

[central_va]

The South in the 19th century was not a monolithic entity like you portray. You are mixing up cause and effect. The South was more conservative and more traditional than the North. Slavery was the status quo and abolitionist were the wild eyed radicals. It looked like the North was going to be increasingly radicalized to the average southerner. Most people in the South just wanted to part ways with the power hungry North east conglomerate which the South had (and has) nothing in common.

[DiogenesLamp]

Again, for the nth plus one time - the North fought to maintain the Union, not against Slavery.

But for some reason it's apologists can't refrain from bringing the topic up, as if it has some bearing on the Unions reasons for invading.

There were many people in the North that did not like slavery, but that is not why they went to war. Simple concept, why is it so hard to understand?

Because the apologists cannot stop bringing it up every time they talk about their right to force someone back onto their plantation.

The South, on the other hand fought to maintain slavery.

Like this, for example. You keep saying your reasons had nothing to do with slavery, and then you keep mentioning slavery, as if it is justification for what you did.

You insist on talking out both sides of your mouth.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

If they thought that was an option under the Constitution that they ratified then it turns out they were mistaken.

From what part of the Constitution do you draw this opinion? Nowhere does the Constitution prohibit states from leaving, and if it is not prohibited then it falls under the Tenth Amendment (rights left to the states).

Not sure why you are getting all confused about the supposed difference between joining and being admitted. The point is that all the states that entered the union came in voluntarily, they were not forced.

They walked out without discussion. They walked away from any responsibility for debt or treaty obligations the country took on while they were a part. The walked away with every bit of government property they could get their hands on. Seems to me that conduct like that was guaranteed to lead to more that simple disagreement.

Government property, lol. Whatever was government property in those states was delegated to the government for use while the state was under the federal government. Once out of the union, all rights to such property reverted back to the states. Why would the states allow foreign governments to own property on their land?

It had been pretty peaceful from the time the states announced their secession up to the point where the South blew up Fort Sumter. So it's not that the North wouldn't let them go in peace, the South chose not to leave in peace.

Not sure if you are aware that Lincoln made the first move of the war, and did so in a cunning way which would make the South appear the aggressor:

April 8, 1861 Lincoln started the war by a surprise attack on Charleston Harbor with a fleet of U.S. warships led by the USS Harriet Lane to occupy Fort Sumter, a Federal tax collection fort in the territorial waters of South Carolina. April 29, 1861 President Jefferson Davis described the South’s response in self-defense in his Message To the Confederate States Congress: “These preparations commenced in secrecy and on the 5th, 6th, and 7th of April transports and vessels of war with troops, munitions, and military supplies sailed from Northern ports bound southward.” “That this maneuver (Lincoln’s surprise attack) failed in its purpose was not the fault of those who contrived it. A heavy tempest delayed the arrival of the expedition.” “I directed a proposal to be made to the commander of Fort Sumter that we would abstain from directing our fire on Fort Sumter if he would promise not to open fire on our forces unless first attacked.” “This proposal was refused and the conclusion was reached that the design of the United States was to place the besieging (Confederate) force at Charleston between the simultaneous fire of the (U.S.) fleet and the fort.” “There remained, therefore, no alternative but to direct that the fort (Sumter) should at once be reduced (on April 12).” (Paragraphs 8-9)

From a purely business and economic standpoint, an independent Confederacy would have had almost no impact on the rest of the U.S.

No doubt they would have continued to sell cotton to the US. However you are wrong to supposed that it would have had no impact. The impact would have been huge. There would have been a huge loss of federal revenue since the South paid such a large proportion of the tariffs. And because there would be no tariff, the South would be buying more of the cheaper European goods, and the economy up North would suffer. Thus the South was the gainer and the North the loser economically. That is why the North would not let the South go. Perhaps later when I am not at work (am on lunch) I can attached some articles from Northern newspapers in which they are fretting about how much Southern secession was going to damage their economy. :-)

[DiogenesLamp]

I am not mocking the Declaration of Independance, any more than I am mocking the Consitution. I simply asked you to cite the legal precedence that the Declaration takes precedence over the Consititution. Still waiting.

Well first of all, you are asserting "Precedent" as some sort of proof of something, as opposed to being a logical fallacy. Just because something has always been done that way, doesn't make it correct.

Second of all, the fact that the Nation was created by the Declaration, and without the principles of which there would be no US Constitution, makes it's superior legal status axiomatic. It is "Self Evident", to borrow some words from it.

This statement absolutely floors me “They didn’t win. George III let them go.” The colonists fought the Revolution to free us from the United Kingdom. We’re free.

And if Abe Lincoln had packed it in after 15,000 casualties the way King George did, the South would also be free, but Lincoln held out for 300,000, which was just insane.

Anyone thinking the colonists "Won" the war for independence just does not understand the scope of power available to the British Union at that time. Had they wanted to subjugate us in the manner that Abe Lincoln did, we would not be "free."

It certainly looks like a win. Every 4th of july for the last 200 years we have celebrated it as a win. I’m thinking that you’re one of the few people in the United States (or Great Britain, or the rest of the world) who didn’t think we won.

I'm thinking you are one of millions of people who do not grasp how much actual military power could have been brought to bear against the United States had Mad King George been as "sane" as Lincoln. You do know this is the nation that defeated Napoleon?

[Team Cuda]

I keep bringing up slavery because that is why the South was fighting. I really don’t think this is hard to understand, but let me summarize once again for you.

The SOUTH Seceded from the Union due to Slavery. The fact that they did it due to slavery is very clear from the Articles of Secession of those states that listed reasons in their Articles. The most blatant example of this is in the Mississippi Article of Secession, which stated, and I quote, “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world.”

The NORTH fought the war to maintain the Union.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that two different sides in a fight might have separate reasons for fighting? If I keep on mentioning slavery, that’s because that was the reason that the South mentioned for seceding and, as they were the ones who started the war, their reasons are more important than the North, who merely reacted to the illegal actions of the South.

[Team Cuda]

So, since you can’t cite any support for your position that the Declaration takes precedence over the Constitition, I’m going to assume that means you don’t have any support for this position.

As far as who “won” the revolution, you cite the resources that Great Britain had, and asked me if I knew that this was the nation that defeated Napoleon. I did know that. I also know that this occurred some 35 years after the Revolutionary War. I also know that, after the defeat of Graves by De Grasse at the Battle of the Capes, and the defeat of Cornwallis by Washington and Rochambeau at Yorktown, that Great Britain determined that the fight against the Colonists was essentially unwinnable (espcially since we had the support of France - you do know that there were over 8,000 French regulars at Yorktown, didn’t you), and those resources were better spent conquering India.

What I don’t understand is why you denigrate the bravery and courage of the American patriots by saying “you didn’t win”?

[DiogenesLamp]

I keep bringing up slavery because that is why the South was fighting.

But the South would not have been fighting at all had the North not invaded them. Why did the North invade? It wasn't because of slavery.

The SOUTH Seceded from the Union due to Slavery.

Which isn't exactly true, but even if it were, is their own business, and none of your own. You do not get to play GOD on what constitutes a justifiable reason to exercise a right to independence.

The NORTH fought the war to maintain the Union.

Which they had no right to do. The Union did not need to be maintained anymore than the British one needed to be maintained.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that two different sides in a fight might have separate reasons for fighting?

The reason for the defenders fighting was because they were invaded. That is the ultimately justified reason for fighting someone. They don't have to justify their actions in defending their country, it is the INVADERS who have to put forth a legitimate reason why they marched into someone else's land and started killing people.

We don't have to ask the Poles why they killed Nazis, the answer is obvious. The Nazis invaded. We have to ask the Nazis, why they thought they had a right to invade?

The only reasons which need to be examined are those of the invading force, not those of the defending force.

If I keep on mentioning slavery,

We know why you keep mentioning slavery, it's because you practice the "Look Squirrel!!!!" method of debate.

The salient facts are not on your side, so you badly need it as a distraction from the larger truths.

[DiogenesLamp]

So, since you can’t cite any support for your position that the Declaration takes precedence over the Constitition, I’m going to assume that means you don’t have any support for this position.

I have the ultimate support. It is the Mother of the two succeeding documents. It is empowered by God. You don't get higher legal authority than that.

that Great Britain determined that the fight against the Colonists was essentially unwinnable, and those resources were better spent conquering India.

"Unwinnable" is incorrect. "Not worth the trouble" is more accurate. Again, you are deliberately ignoring the point. We "won" because George III decided we weren't worth the trouble, which is what any Sane leader would have done after the first series of defeats handed to them in their attempts to invade the South.

Mad King George was not as crazy as Abe Lincoln. George lost ~15,000 casualties in the war, Lincoln did this:

You simply don't grasp the scope of the bloodshed caused by fanaticism. We didn't shed so much blood fighting the Nazis even, and they were truly evil.

[DoodleDawg]

Nowhere does the Constitution prohibit states from leaving, and if it is not prohibited then it falls under the Tenth Amendment (rights left to the states).

It's not whether or not a state can leave, it's the manner of leaving. And since the approval of the other states are required to join the Union and the approval of the other states are needed for a state to split or join with another state and the approval of the other states is needed for a state to acquire territory from a foreign country then it's no great stretch to assume that the approval of the other states is needed for a state to leave entirely. Certainly Madison thought so.

Not sure why you are getting all confused about the supposed difference between joining and being admitted. The point is that all the states that entered the union came in voluntarily, they were not forced.

I don't think I'm the one with the confusion because you seem to equate the way states join the union now with how the original 13 states joined. Certainly they joined through referendum. There wasn't any other way to do it since there was no Congress to vote to admit them. But the 37 states that have been created since then all required permission to join. And that permission could be refused; Colorado tried for years to join and Kansas went though half a dozen constitutions before Congress admitted them. The point was to refute your claim that states joined the union as if they just ratified the Constitution and sent people to D.C.

Whatever was government property in those states was delegated to the government for use while the state was under the federal government. Once out of the union, all rights to such property reverted back to the states.

From what part of the Constitution do you draw this opinion?

Why would the states allow foreign governments to own property on their land?

When the property didn't belong to the state in the first place?

Not sure if you are aware that Lincoln made the first move of the war, and did so in a cunning way which would make the South appear the aggressor...

The old "Lincoln made us start the war" argument.

April 8, 1861 Lincoln started the war by a surprise attack on Charleston Harbor with a fleet of U.S. warships led by the USS Harriet Lane to occupy Fort Sumter, a Federal tax collection fort in the territorial waters of South Carolina.

What half-assed Confederate propaganda site did you steal that one from? To begin with, there was no "sneak attack". South Carolina knew Lincolns plans and intentions because he told them before a single ship sailed. Secondly, Sumter was not a "Federal tax collection fort". I mean really? How badly do you have to mangle the English language to come up with an crazy term like that? Tariffs were collected in customs houses, and there was a very nice one in Charleston right there on the docks where the ships were. Forts were used to defend ports.

April 29, 1861 President Jefferson Davis described the South’s response in self-defense in his Message To the Confederate States Congress: “These preparations commenced in secrecy and on the 5th, 6th, and 7th of April transports and vessels of war with troops, munitions, and military supplies sailed from Northern ports bound southward.”

Actually those ships did not leave until April 9th. And on April 6th Lincoln sent a representative to Governor Pickens with the following message: "An attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumters with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw men, arms or ammunition will be made." So of it was such a big secret to Davis then why didn Pickens tell him of the message when he got it?

“This proposal was refused and the conclusion was reached that the design of the United States was to place the besieging (Confederate) force at Charleston between the simultaneous fire of the (U.S.) fleet and the fort.”

Well having gotten everything else wrong before that why would it be surprising that Davis would stumble to the wrong conclusion here? In spite of the fact that his own Secretary of State told him that firing on the fort put the Confederacy in the wrong.

However you are wrong to supposed that it would have had no impact. The impact would have been huge. There would have been a huge loss of federal revenue since the South paid such a large proportion of the tariffs.

OK so let's start there. In spite of the fact that I know other posters have provided information that tariff collections in the North outstripped tariff collections in the South by something like 15:1 or 20:1 you all keep clinging to that claim. So please tell me what it was that the South was importing in such massive quantities that they provided most of the tariff revenue? Why is it that Alexander Stephens himself said the North provided three-quarters of the overseas business for the country? How could it be that even after losing the South, and all that revenue you claim they provided, that in his 1864 message to Congress Lincoln mentions that tariff revenue had more than doubled since the beginning of the war? How would that be possible if you are correct?

And because there would be no tariff, the South would be buying more of the cheaper European goods, and the economy up North would suffer.

Perhaps later when I am not at work (am on lunch) I can attached some articles from Northern newspapers in which they are fretting about how much Southern secession was going to damage their economy. :-)

Because newspaper editorials are never, ever opinionated at all right? Well when I get home I can post a speech from a representative to Georgia to the Virginia secession convention promising them that it they didn't like the tariffs that were on imported goods then he was sure that the Confederate congress would raise them as high as Virginia wanted them to be. Kind of funny, what with tariffs being such a big reason for rebelling and all.

[Team Cuda]

You stated that the South fought because the North invaded them. Which invasion caused Confederate forces under PGT Beauregard to attack Fort Sumter in April 12 1861? As a result of this unprovoked attack, Lincoln then called for volunteers from the states, which he got. This led to the first “invasion” of the South at Bull Run on July 21, 1861. So, how did the “invasion” of July 1861 cause the unprovoked attack of April 1861?

So, unless we are dealing with time travel, I fail to see how your timeline works.

This whole “we’re fighting because you invaded thing” only works if you ignore how we got to the point. We got to the point of an “invasion” of the South from the North by the South seceding. They seceded due to (say it with me) Slavery, or at least that’s why the good folks of Mississippi, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, and Georgia thought they were seceding. I continue to find it amusing that you, with your 150 year remove, feel free to tell those folks that they were wrong in their reasons.

The invocation of God is very interesting as well. The South thought they had God on their side. Guess what? So did the North. This happened many times in history, with both sides claiming God’s will. In medieval times, it was accepted that whoever won had God’s Grace. Guess what? The North won.

You know, I’ve tried very hard to avoid referencing the Nazis, but I guess Godwin’s Law always comes about. One of the reasons I’ve tried to avoid invoking the Nazis is that I fell that this is the last refuge whenever logic doesn’t work and you’re losing the argument on its merits. Guess I was right.

You state that I keep on bringing up slavery because the salient facts are not on my side. I disagree. Slavery is the salient fact. It is the sole reason that the South seceded, based on the writings of the people who actually seceded. You have provided no support to your contention that the Declaration of Independance overrules the Constitution. Your whole “the reasons are not important” schtick is just a ploy to avoid talking about the reasons, because you know the reasons are very clearly about slavery. Your whole “we fought because you invaded” routine only works if you ignore the whole Fort Sumter thing. You can’t attack first and then say, this doesn’t count because we had our fingers crossed.