Posted on 06/26/2015 6:14:39 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In the wake of nine racially motivated murders in South Carolina, attention has focused on displays of the Confederate battle flag. Many retailers have pulled Confederate flags from their inventory. A bipartisan group of politicians and public figures have called for the removal of the flag from South Carolina’s capitol grounds.
To some, the flag represents a noble Southern heritage. To others, it evokes a vile history of racial violence. As a black libertarian, I see in the Confederate flag interwoven tragedies which echo through history.
The first tragedy is the most obvious, the one most cited, the one fueling the current debate. The Confederate flag reminds us of a time when human beings were bought and sold as chattel, when the rights of individuals were denied based on the color of their skin. The institution of slavery cannot be washed from Confederate symbolism. For that reason, it remains reasonable to question why anyone would want to associate themselves with that symbol.
The second tragedy is amplified by its obscurity, the fact that few seem to recognize or appreciate it. The original constitutional vision of the American republic took form in a compact between the several states, where they granted enumerated powers to a federal government and established a first of its kind dual-sovereignty. The ultimate check on federal authority was the capacity of the states to withdraw from the compact. Among the many causalities of the Civil War was this original vision of dual-sovereignty. Today, we pledge allegiance to a union “indivisible,” affirming the supreme authority of the federal government to dictate law among the states. We can argue whether the states retain certain powers in theory. But in practice, the feds call the shots in far more ways than the Founding Fathers ever envisioned. That’s largely a product of the Civil War.
Therefore, when I look at the Confederate battle flag as a black libertarian, I see tragedy for all parties concerned. I see the history of racism and human indignity which motivates the current debate. But I also see the loss of state sovereignty which compromised the Founding Fathers’ vision for republican government. To the extent people choose to fly the Confederate flag in honor of that latter heritage, I can’t fault them.
That said, let’s be clear why state sovereignty was lost. It was lost because the southern states delegitimized it.
Next: The moral right to invade…
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO ON THE WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION
Sovereignty is a loosely defined concept in our political discourse which tends to reference any claim to govern. However, the moral right to sovereignty emerges from a recognition of individual rights.
Nazi Germany held no moral claim to sovereignty, because that state rejected the moral basis upon which sovereignty stands. The Allied powers were within their rights to invade, remove the rights-violating Nazi state, and establish new means of security. Likewise in the Civil War, the southern states yielded any legitimate claim to sovereignty by engaging in institutional slavery, leaving the North with the moral right to invade.
There exists an undercurrent in libertarian circles which stands sympathetic to the South. It regards Lincoln as a tyrant and refers to the Civil War as “the War of Northern Aggression.” This misguided view places the cart of sovereignty before the horse of human rights. If we regard Lincoln as a tyrant for invading the South, we must likewise regard the Allies as tyrants for invading Germany. Sovereignty emerges from rights, not as an arena for their violation. There exists no “sovereign right” to violate another human being.
This is why we didn’t flinch from raiding Bilal Town in Pakistan, killing Osama bin Laden. The Pakistani claim to “sovereignty” held no legitimacy in a context where they harbored an enemy committed to violating the rights of American citizens. In this way, sovereignty between states is like fences between neighbors. You can only be a victim of trespass if you did not trespass first.
It’s with this view of both history and morality that I regard the Confederate battle flag as a complicated and tragic symbol. It represents our failings as a republic. We aspired to a grand vision of self-governance, and profoundly failed on multiple fronts. That said, the vision remains, and we continue to imperfectly pursue it. To the extent the Confederate flag inspires some toward a spirit of independence, it retains value. However, we should remember that such independence must be daily purchased with universal respect for the rights of others. The moment we trespass against a neighbor, we lose our sovereign claim. That’s the warning which the flag should herald today.
Strength and Power are not the measure of a successful Republic. Consent of the Governed is the measure of success for a Nation formed on such a concept.
Hitler's Europe would have been a strong Union and probably more solid than any other, but it would not have been a successful Union according to the foundational principles of this nation because it would not be ruled by the consent of the governed.
The Soviet Union was another nation that ruled against the consent of the governed, and no doubt by your assessment, it would be regarded as solid and strong.
That misses the point completely. Your argument simplifies (in the mathematical sense) to "Might makes right."
It is my understanding that there were FIVE slave states that fought for the Union. Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey.
It also puts the lie to the claim that the war was fought to end slavery, because if that was the goal, they could have started the war with those five. The Supply lines would have been a lot shorter.
The war was fought to stop Independence from Washington D.C. and the North Eastern power corridor.
So they sent an invasion force of 35,000 men because the Confederates blew up some rocks?
Your fig leaf is damage to some rocks.
No. It is not required. Only a tryant statist would think like you.
The U.S. sent an invasion force of millions against Japan and Germany because the Japanese sank some ships.
So then it's not a compact. It's a group where some states have rights and other states do not.
I'll bet that makes sense - to you.
And the ability to succeed against those who go to war against it.
Hitler's Europe would have been a strong Union and probably more solid than any other, but it would not have been a successful Union according to the foundational principles of this nation because it would not be ruled by the consent of the governed.
This is the best analogy you can come up with? Really?
The Soviet Union was another nation that ruled against the consent of the governed, and no doubt by your assessment, it would be regarded as solid and strong.
And it gets weirder and weirder.
Because dotting our "I"'s and crossing our "T"'s is important enough to kill 600,000 people for the sake of proper legal methodology.
There is NO ONE in the Union who was not aware of the Southern States desire to leave, and if they have the rights to do so expressed in the Declaration of Independence, they do not need "permission" from a compact of which they no longer wished to be a part. All the other excuse making is an appeal to formal methodology at the cost of the higher principle involved. It is placing the bath water at higher level of importance than the baby.
It is the Muslim world that believes a Wife must have her Husband's permission to divorce. In our society, we used to believe that people should not be forced to associate against their will.
I note also that George III was not asked permission for us to leave. He was informed. So was the Union, albeit less formally.
I second that!
One flaw in the present misperception is that most if not all the Southerners fought for maintaining slavery.
How many of those Southerners ever owned a single slave? Damn few! Then why would those that had no stake in slavery be willing to put both themselves and their families in such dire straits for slavery? They would not!
I say Southerners fought for Independence, independence from the Northern Aggression, by rich northerners that DID have a financial (investments in Southern plantations) stake in slave ownership and the general Northern intention to economically putting down a growingly independent South. The Union government being most interested in their waning power.
Ol Honest Abe was not hero to blacks, his plan was to ship em back.
Today’s anti-Confederate mantra is again based in the intent of quelling Southern economic independence and growing political power. The blacks today rallying against the “South” are no more than a useful idiotic pawns for the liberal powers.
That idiot boy in Charleston was very wrong in his act, but he was not wrong in his concern that many blacks are happy to terrorize anyone who opposes their personal interests. He was right to be concerned by the terrorist intent of black riots, black flash mobs, black knockout games and the race baiters that whip up black violence for their own power and enrichment.
That idiotic boy did not start the next Civil War, that will be started by liberals and their plantation lackies wrongly assuming they are freely able to now run roughshod over Southern whites.
It makes no sense to me. Which is why I asked you, hoping you could explain how that works. So go ahead.
It makes no sense to me. Which is why I asked you, hoping you could explain how that works. So go ahead.
Killed ~ 3,000 people, and set themselves up to conquer Vast swaths of territory of US Allies with an eye toward's eventual invasion and conquest of the mainland.
Yes, Pearl Harbor is exactly like blowing up some rocks. Exact same thing.
That you would even invoke such a false equivalency demonstrates the desperation of your larger argument.
This from the man invoking the Nazi and the Stalin analogies? Somehow I don't feel so dumb.
They have the same rights. They may maintain membership or leave as they see fit. Again, read the Declaration of Independence and try to grasp the concept put forth.
You know, for such an iggy, every once in a while you stumble upon the truth.Too bad you fail to recognize it even when you stumble upon it.
It is precisely because of the potential to kill 600,000 that the south was obligated to dot their "I's" and cross their "T's". That is the reason why the responsibility for those 600,000+ deaths rests squarely upon the southern slavers who instigated, initiated, and perpetrated war on it's own country.
Your emotional illogic is damage to reason.
Unavoidable conseuence of your philosophical position. It cannot help but get weirder. Today your weird position legalized "gay" marriage, and yesterday it legalized "Union" mandated health care payments from the citizens.
There are consequences to empowering FedZilla. That 14th amendment has turned out to be a real B*tch, hasn't it?
5 states, good catch, you’re right. So fully 20% of the Union states were slave states. That’s NOT insignificant.
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.