Posted on 06/27/2004 12:37:31 PM PDT by VRWCer
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:16:50 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
If that were so, then why didn't Abe St. Lincoln's Thirteenth Amendment not avoid 600,000 fatalities?
This doesn't parse. Could you repeat your inquiry in English?
Do you have any support for this assertion?
(Lincoln was mean, etc. etc.)
I note with dismay that I have repeatedly posted an inquiry as to what "rights" the South seceded over in 1860 if not the right to hold slaves. You have noted that the Founders felt a balance of power was important between the federal government and the states, which is undoubtedly true. You have noted that the Southern states felt that they had the right to secede from the Union, which is also undoubtedly true.
To say that the Southern states seceded in order to demonstrate their right to secede is however both a logical absurdity and unsupported by the actual secession resolutions themselves. To say that the Southern states seceded in order to protect their "rights" makes more sense, but the question is then what these rights are. If these rights are to "the right to live free from federal tyranny", then the question becomes in what way the federal government was acting tyrannically towards them, that caused the South to secede in 1860 instead of 1859 or 1790.
The truth, as can be evinced from both history and the secession resolutions, is that the South wished to protect its right to practice slavery, and the reason why it felt the need to secede to do this was because in 1860 a President was elected who was pledged to stop the expansion of slavery into new territories, which would diminish its viability as an economic institution. The South had successfully made slavery the "third rail" of American politics in the years before the war; the Kansas-Nebraska Act which overturned the Missouri Compromise was an attempt to bolster slavery, as was the "gag rule" which forbade Congressional debate about abolition. Historians have pointed to the Mexican War as another Southern adventure to expand slavery (although this is an entirely different topic). When a President committed to a free soil policy was elected, the Southern states felt that the jig was up and seceded to protect their right to the "peculiar institution".
As the Mississippi secession declaration demonstrated, behind the pious handwaving about the South's right to protect its culture and sovereign destiny, "[their] position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world."
In the end, the only federal tyranny the South was fleeing was the possibility that slavery and its expansion might be threatened, and the shaky reasoning that "slavery is in the Constitution, and the North is opposed to slavery, therefore the North is opposed to the Constitution" is the root of Southerners' bleating that they were seceding to protect slavery and two states' rights to be named later. Many honorable men followed their states into secession and bemoaned the South's aggression against the federal United States, but the real face of the Confederacy was Bully Brooks, not Robert E. Lee.
What seems to be missing from your debate is the question of the perception of symbols.
Ultimately this flag is just a symbol for something. The problem is that it is interpreted in a different way.
For supporters of the flag, it is a symbol of freedom insofar as they used it to defend themselves from liberal northerners from telling them how to live their lives.
To opponents it is clearly a symbol of slavery and oppression.
The problem is that both are right. Unfortunately, the South was quite wrong about the slavery issue and the denial of civil rights to the descendants of those slaves.
This legacy is what haunts the conservatives who are the ancestors of the people who fought under the confederate flag. In large part because Northerners still want to tell them what to do in ways that will take away their freedom. And, this time the northerners (we now call them liberals) are very much wrong.
Flag supporters also need to understand, however the power of the symbol and its meaning to others. The Swastika is a 6000 year old symbol of luck that is now identified in the West with Nazis and their atrocities. It is not to be seen outside of references to that 13 year period.
But Swastikas are extremely prevalent in India because it is still a symbol of luck (displayed often immediately next to what we identify as the Star of David). It carries no stigma and is freely displayed on peoples doors in temples and elsewhere as a natural part of their culture and religion.
Unfortunately, the flag issue is one which is slightly more complex because the problem is in one country and in one state. The question of whether the a democratic majority can decide what a symbol is going to stand for is dubious when it was the minority that suffered the consequences of what they believe the symbol represents (as if Germans put it to a vote as to whether to allow Swatikas and did not heed the complaints of the tiny Jewish minority in the country).
Ultimately the argument here is not whether slavery was good or bad, but rather what the flag symbolizes.
If you can find yourself staring at a Swatika and everyone around identifies it as a sign of luck, then it actually begins to lose its negative symbolism.
Thus, if Southern states can be confident that the flag is displayed in such a manner so that no one uses it as a symbol of slavery and oppression, then it should be allowed. Otherwise, it is a difficult thing to advocate.
I know some of you will disagree, and please feel free to intelligently point out errors in my reasoning.
it also has been my experience that when a person has NOTHING RELEVANT to say, in response to my points, that they complain about spelling, syntax and/or capitalization.
free dixie,sw
Yes, to be honest, I didn't have anything relevant to say in response to your points - if you'll note my post, I said that I had no idea what you were talking about. Your "points", as we shall charitably refer to them, seemed to be that the presence in the Confederate army of volunteers demonstrated that Southerners were in favor of secession. I'm not sure where you were going with that line of reasoning.
I think that this is a very moderate and well-reasoned point. The Confederate flags represent a mighty epoch of history and a great sacrifice which thousands of Southern men made for their beliefs. It's also right and proper that the Germans commemorate and respect their Second World War dead. To say "here were honorable men who died in a great cause" is enough, and to display their flag towards that end is respectful. Arguments about that cause are for historians.
the battleflag of dixie will forever be a symbol of PRIDE & VALOR to the vast majority of southerners/southrons, just as the CROSS will forever be a symbol of the SAVIOR to almost all Christians.
the misuse of either symbol by damnyankees, CRETINS, criminals, etc. does NOT change the TRUE MEANING of either symbol!
all too often, the damnyankees, who attack our battleflag, do so with the INTENT to cause dissension and to COVER-UP the CRIMES of the damnyankee army against INNOCENT civilians & CSA POWs.
also the LEFTISTS, today, attack our battleflag to raise $$$$$ and to get POLITICAL POWER.
free dixie,sw
Nominally, I have no idea, but practically, you will be supporting whoever is the Democratic nominee. Sonny will be the Republican nominee. Where you gonna go?
They lost the war, and the federalism that they opposed is now imposed on all of us.
Sir, I beg to disagree.
They only lost the first series of battles.
That war is far from over.
It is probably the best looking state flag in the country!
Other than Texas Lone Star Flag of course.
1. the presence of over 100,000 black volunteers in the rebel military ALONE should tell you that the war was NOT about the preservation of chattel slavery. (unless you believe that black people weren't intelligent enough to know what they were fighting for)
2. the preservation of slavery was only important to the 5-6% of persons who owned slaves. (further, all too many of the slaveowning elites collaborated with the enemy! had we won our war against the damnyankees, the southern elites would have been NEXT on the list of enemies.) the war was a PEASANT UPRISING against all of the powerful interests, north AND south.
3.as >98% of southern soldiers, sailors & marines were POOR and owned no slaves, they certainly would NOT have fought to allow someone else to own slaves.
4. about the same percentage of northerners owned slaves as southerners AND documents still exist that prove that the damnyankee high command & some lincoln regime civilan leaders intended to continue using slave labor until at least mid-'63.
the conclusion is INESCAPABLE: the WBTS was ONLY about FREEDOM for the southland. all other issues are minor in comparison to that ONE great truth.
free dixie,sw
i don't think he can win dogcatcher, now as a republican.
perhaps he should run as a DIMocRAT for mayor of Atlanta. they seem to like LIARS over in that party!
free dixie,sw
I'd also like for you to tell me that last time an incumbent governor in a state that is decisively in the camp of his political party just "decided not to run" for a second term.
Been pretty slow lately, with Walt gone and all...
Impressive. One doesn't meet many Confederate bolsheviks.
The cross (by which I assume you mean the Latin cross, not the Greek, fitchee, tau, Lorraine, fourchee, saltire, Iona, potent, chi-rho, patee, Maltese, patriarchal, or fylfot) has not always been the Christian symbol. The ichthus was used for the first few centuries of our era, and has been enjoying a resurgence of popularity in recent years as a symbol of the Savior.
free dixie,sw
do you have one???
free dixie,sw
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.