South Carolina, tear down that flag!

[stevea]

And yet as mentioned in another thread, the confederate left none of those state right to their new state confederacy....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10576075&postcount=262

So yes the north initially fought to keep the union, but the south clearly fought to keep slavery primarily, not about state right.

No - that's not it at all.

Seven Southern states formed the confederation and seceeded before Lincoln took office, and largely b/c Lincoln campaigned, both for Senate and Whitehouse as using Federal power to prevent the expansion of slavery. IOW in favor of unlawful Federalism. For example he was expected to use Federal power to tell Texas and other new Western states they couldn't practice slavery. Texas had no prior history as a slave state and few slaves. Nor did Lincoln plan to outlaw slavery in existing slave state (tho he would likely prefer it).

So the question was - did the Federal government have the right to create this imposition on new states economies (clearly not based on the Constitution) and not about maintaining the institution of slavery in slave states.

So from the south point of view the battle flag is not about state right, it is a battle flag to keep slave.

Wrong, it's about the federal government dictating that something lawful in one state should be unlawful in another.

In the end rapidly the north had anti slavery law (as mentioned 6 month afetr the end of the war) and slavery AFAICT become rapidly outlawed , not "slowly". In comparison how long took ACA ?

WTF ? Slavery was outlawed in most Northern states between 1777 & 1848 (iow slowly), although not outlawed in NH & NJ till the 13th amendment (which was ~8 months after Civil war ending, 1865)

The emancipation proclamation (Jan 1863) outlawed slavery suddenly during the war throughout the South with a few exceptions.

Which is why after something like a century of "sleep" it was resurrected middle of the 20th century as a battle flag FOR segregation by southerner racist organization. That is the part most "it is our culture" people seem often to skip off.

I disagree w/ that interpretation. The symbol is used by legitimate organizations with historical or cultural context, like daughters of the confederacy or various southern musical groups and movements, as well as the KKK & skinhead groups.

I think that flag a pretty p*ss poor idea for historical/cultural/musical symbol given the association w/ slavery & support of slavery & the potential to offend; but that's not the only association. The hyper-hysterical PC clowns who imagine that 'Dukes of Hazzard' or 'Lynyrd Skynyrd' has some sort of white supremacist meaning, or that the flag is inappropriate in 'Gone with the Wind' are in need of a sanity check.

Symbols are appropriated by undesirable groups and causes all the time. The Swastika had some pre-Nazi use throughout Europe and remains in use by Jains & Buddhists.

While we're busy hacking apart history - Saint Lincoln did not make slaves into citizens. His preference was to free them and send them off to Liberia. He was sort of an anti-slavery racist.

 

[kookbreaker]

For example he was expected to use Federal power to tell Texas and other new Western states they couldn't practice slavery. Texas had no prior history as a slave state and few slaves.

Ummm, what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Texas

 

[thaiboxerken]

I just get nervous when suddenly retailers start removing things from store shelves like they are doing. There's almost a witch hunt mentality about it. It's like they are being forced to prove their loyalty.

It's their free choice to stop selling that merchandise.

Who are they forced to prove loyalty to? Oh wait, the public. Weird.

 

[DavidJames]

Libertarian types typically invent/subvert history regarding slavery because it exposes the darker side of human nature and therefore how Libertarian ideas are bad for society.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

No - that's not it at all.

Seven Southern states formed the confederation and seceeded before Lincoln took office, and largely b/c Lincoln campaigned, both for Senate and Whitehouse as using Federal power to prevent the expansion of slavery. IOW in favor of unlawful Federalism.

Ah, so they did secede over states' rights issues... the states' right to keep slaves apparently. But it wasn't about slavery, no sir. Just about sticking it to those evil tyrants using Federal legislation to tell the individual states what to do with their slaves, something those rugged individualists would never consider doing.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Libertarian types typically invent/subvert history regarding slavery because it exposes the darker side of human nature and therefore how Libertarian ideas are bad for society.

Humans are bad for society. This is why a lot of legislation is an attempt to protect society from humans. Much of the remaining legislation are humans attempting to harm society.

 

[bit_pattern]

Ah, so they did secede over states' rights issues... the states' right to keep slaves apparently. But it wasn't not about slavery, no sir. Just about sticking it to those evil tyrants using Federal legislation to tell the individual states what to do with their slaves, something those rugged individualists would never consider doing.

There's a certain irony about "libertarians" jumping through hoops to defend the right of the state to institutionally deny individual liberty.

 

[thaiboxerken]

There's a certain irony about "libertarians" jumping through hoops to defend the right of the state to institutionally deny individual liberty.

Perhaps, but Libertarianism is all about individual's having the freedom to do whatever they want. By this, I mean they don't care about everyone else's freedoms.

 

[bit_pattern]

Perhaps, but Libertarianism is all about individual's having the freedom to do whatever they want. By this, I mean they don't care about everyone else's freedoms.

Ah... I see.

 

[Aepervius]

I disagree w/ that interpretation. The symbol is used by legitimate organizations with historical or cultural context, like daughters of the confederacy or various southern musical groups and movements, as well as the KKK & skinhead groups.

I think that flag a pretty p*ss poor idea for historical/cultural/musical symbol given the association w/ slavery & support of slavery & the potential to offend; but that's not the only association. The hyper-hysterical PC clowns who imagine that 'Dukes of Hazzard' or 'Lynyrd Skynyrd' has some sort of white supremacist meaning, or that the flag is inappropriate in 'Gone with the Wind' are in need of a sanity check.

Symbols are appropriated by undesirable groups and causes all the time. The Swastika had some pre-Nazi use throughout Europe and remains in use by Jains & Buddhists.

While we're busy hacking apart history - Saint Lincoln did not make slaves into citizens. His preference was to free them and send them off to Liberia. He was sort of an anti-slavery racist.

Look I won't comment on the other part but that one, I have to laugh HARD.

Sure the confederate flag was used a bit in the first half of the 20th by some battle unit, in some place and so forth.

But it is pretty much revisionist history to not recognize that it got a big resurgence once the civil right movement era started. It was the racist segregationist which made it a popular symbol and the reason for that symbol was "separate but not equal". And for some people today it might be as a contention of pride today and just to spite other people not liking the flag, but not too long ago since it was a segregationist used symbol , I am betting a lot it still is for many.

"Heritage of Hate" is spot on.

 

[Mike!]

It's their free choice to stop selling that merchandise.

Who are they forced to prove loyalty to? Oh wait, the public. Weird.

The writing must have been on the wall for some time before the church shootings. I was at Walmart earlier today, and out of curiosity, stopped by the model section to see if the General Lee kits had been pulled. Much to my surprise, they were still on the shelf. Even more to my surprise, they were already missing the confederate flags. These weren't recently (Like the last day or so) modified to conform versions ether. The made in China, sealed packages, never had the flag on them, just a blank orange roof, save the "General Lee" on each side. Even the picture of 'The Duke boys' in the corner, with the Charger's roof right behind them, was missing the flag as well. Lot of photoshop work. So when did they decide to remove it? It had to be at least several months ago, given production and transport time, if not longer.

ETA, from the manufacturers website...
http://www.round2models.com/models/mpc/general-lee

 

[Mumbles]

The goal of the politician who starts the war and the soldier who fights in it may be very different.

That's true of every fight. The individual fighter does what s/he needs, but the greater fight is defined by the leaders.

I support the people who would like that flag taken down from the South Carolina capital. I just get nervous when suddenly retailers start removing things from store shelves like they are doing. There's almost a witch hunt mentality about it. It's like they are being forced to prove their loyalty.

Stop.

The fact is, we won't be able to eliminate the battle flag wavers. They'll figure out a way. It just won't be as simple as walking into your local retail store. They'll have to work for it.

And that's good, because it'll force them to think about what they're doing.

There's also an element of meddlesomeness. Some government official took it upon himself to issue an edict that confederate flag coffee cups were no longer welcome at battlefield gift shops. Well thank goodness someone finally took care of that weighty issue. The chains of the oppression have finally been broken. And yet, somehow there's a voice inside my head saying that there might actually be something bad about it. Maybe someone who would impose such an edict might not be content to stop there, and might move on to something that affects me more directly.

And what could that be? I don't know, and that's the point. If someone is willing to condemn my choice of coffee cups, I'm not sure that anything is off limits.

Well, yes. Nothing is off limits. Everything's up for criticism. And some of it will be unreasonable, of course. And in this case, well, why would you want a hate symbol on your coffee mug in the first place?

 

[jimbob]

Nice avatar, Mumbles - I feel I've seen it somewhere before.

 

[DavidJames]

If someone is willing to condemn my choice of coffee cups, I'm not sure that anything is off limits.

So freedom of speech isn't your thing?

 

[Mumbles]

Nice avatar, Mumbles - I feel I've seen it somewhere before.

Well, R. Nathan Forrest deserves to remembered, right?

 

[lobosrul]

Another hard to accept notion is that our Federal government has extremely limited powers, enumerated in the Constitution, and many modern institutions, like Social Security or ObamaCare clearly violate the powers of the FedGov. This isn't some radical view - I've heard US Federal judges enunciate this clearly. Don't mistake the overwhelming Central government/weak-State system of the modern era with the Federal Government of 1860s. We have no Constitution any longer and live in a land of ad hoc-ery. Back then they actually considered the Constitution seriously.

May I suggest actually reading the US Constitution, specifically the supremacy clause.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[jimbob]

Well, R. Nathan Forrest deserves to remembered, right?

I think that work of artistry is somehow appropriate to the subject matter.

 

[RandFan]

May I suggest actually reading the US Constitution, specifically the supremacy clause.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Marriage equality for gays and lesbians IS the law of the United States. So is Citizens United.

 

[Joe Random]

Well, R. Nathan Forrest deserves to remembered, right?

I can't be the only person who thought of this when they saw that statue :



(readers are invited to make their own Strom Thurmond jokes)

 

[lobosrul]

No - that's not it at all.

Seven Southern states formed the confederation and seceeded before Lincoln took office, and largely b/c Lincoln campaigned, both for Senate and Whitehouse as using Federal power to prevent the expansion of slavery. IOW in favor of unlawful Federalism. For example he was expected to use Federal power to tell Texas and other new Western states they couldn't practice slavery. Texas had no prior history as a slave state and few slaves. Nor did Lincoln plan to outlaw slavery in existing slave state (tho he would likely prefer it).

So the question was - did the Federal government have the right to create this imposition on new states economies (clearly not based on the Constitution) and not about maintaining the institution of slavery in slave states.

Texas was hardly a new state in 1861... I can't believe I'm arguing with someone who doesn't even know that.

Someone else already corrected you on slavery in Texas, but please see:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vaul...s_map_to_see_where_slavery_was_strongest.html

Wrong, it's about the federal government dictating that something lawful in one state should be unlawful in another.

OK so allowing states to keep their slaves that wanted to but not forcing existing states to allow it, or forcing new states to accept it is anti-states rights Forcing states to use their police force to capture runaway slaves, and had the southern states gotten their way, actually allow citizens of slave states to legally bring in their "property", that is pro state rights!

WTF ? Slavery was outlawed in most Northern states between 1777 & 1848 (iow slowly), although not outlawed in NH & NJ till the 13th amendment (which was ~8 months after Civil war ending, 1865)

The emancipation proclamation (Jan 1863) outlawed slavery suddenly during the war throughout the South with a few exceptions.

NH in 1783, NJ in 1804 actually. Yes the emancipation proclamation only applied to the south because Lincoln didn't have the authority to make it illegal in non-seceding states.

I think that flag a pretty p*ss poor idea for historical/cultural/musical symbol given the association w/ slavery & support of slavery & the potential to offend; but that's not the only association. The hyper-hysterical PC clowns who imagine that 'Dukes of Hazzard' or 'Lynyrd Skynyrd' has some sort of white supremacist meaning, or that the flag is inappropriate in 'Gone with the Wind' are in need of a sanity check.

Do you have evidence that Skynyrd in their original lineup (pre plane crash) used the Southern Cross flag? I'm not sure they did. The band calling themselves Skynyrd these days really isn't. Edit: OK I think they did.