The Confederate Flag
- Thread starter Bullgrit
- Start date
- Status
Good question!
Off the top of my head, I'd start with:
1) the colonies were ruled without a say in how they were governed. Besides the taxes, there were laws in place that criminalized domestic production of certain goods to ensure English craftsmen & merchants got the $$$. The British could house soldiers in colonial houses without permission. Etc. they were treated very much like an occupied territory.
In contrast, the southern states were fully-fledged equals in the government of the country. They simply got outvoted, and went to war over it.
2) the Revolutionary War was a fight to cast off oppressive government, the Civil War was a fight to protect an oppressive practice.
3) history is written by the winners.
Off the top of my head, I'd start with:
1) the colonies were ruled without a say in how they were governed. Besides the taxes, there were laws in place that criminalized domestic production of certain goods to ensure English craftsmen & merchants got the $$$. The British could house soldiers in colonial houses without permission. Etc. they were treated very much like an occupied territory.
In contrast, the southern states were fully-fledged equals in the government of the country. They simply got outvoted, and went to war over it.
2) the Revolutionary War was a fight to cast off oppressive government, the Civil War was a fight to protect an oppressive practice.
3) history is written by the winners.
Henry
Autoexreginated
I'd go with this last one the most. You want to know who "won"? Read a textbook from a given region or period.
I'm still torn about the more recent confederate flag furor - I believe it doesn't and never did have a place on taxpayer icons or grounds whatsoever (it's the battle standard for another COUNTRY, for crying out loud) but the desire to rip it off of any and every form of expression is getting silly. You have people turning their nose up at things like the Dukes of Hazzard (a show without a malicious message or intent, and something I used to love as a kid, even if it's corny by today's standards) and even companies like Amazon and Apple going so corporately blindly as to start removing Civil War games and textbooks for sale because "oops, stars & bars, killit!" And having to go back and restore them because they didn't give it a second glance the first time.
For me, Wheaton's Law would solve it like so many other things. Something is blatantly offensive? Fine, don't put it where the offended have to see it (like on money, state grounds, or downtown rallies.) But someone wants to go flying it on their private property or put it on their car? Don't publicly shame them, Dox them, Swat them, or call their intelligence into question. Just don't associate with them.
Agreed, 100%.
I have a real problem with the push to remove it from shows it was a part of it- DoH was a guilty pleasure of my childhood- CW-based video game apps (WTF, Apple?) and the like is a bit too PC for me. Symbol of hate though it may be, it is entirely appropriate in those contexts.
There's a fine line between consigning the CBF to the annals of history and trying to whitewash it away from EVERYWHERE.
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
Being a minority myself (Japanese American), I have been the target of racist comments/prejudice to some degree as a child growing up, but for the most part, because I don't look overly Asian, it hasn't been a problem for me as an adult. So I recognize that the world could be a bit better in its treatment of various ethnic and other social niche groups overall. That said, I personally detest the entire political correctness movement - or any social movement that goes too far in the opposite direction of what the complaints are about invoking the movement.
I can agree with the removal of the Confederate flag from government buildings and institutions as being the right thing to do, however, the total removal of any symbol used in the free market, I consider an action against the 1st Amendment, and should never occur, not in the US at least.
I can agree with the removal of the Confederate flag from government buildings and institutions as being the right thing to do, however, the total removal of any symbol used in the free market, I consider an action against the 1st Amendment, and should never occur, not in the US at least.
While I'm sure you understand your laws better than I do, the Amendment to which you refer prohibits Congress from passing laws restricting free speech. It doesn't prohibit removal of anything by anyone. And to my knowledge, there's been no hint of Congress passing any such law, or any suggestion of such, has there? It sounds unlikely.
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
Of course they were, but America won the war - that's the difference. Had the Confederacy won the civil war, undoubtably they wouldn't currently be called traitors to the country today (they might have been for a time, in the first decades after the war).
nightwind1
Explorer
No, but the Confederacy was founded on the pretty much the sole premise of the state's right to own human beings. In the Confederacy's OWN words, from their OWN documents, it was mostly founded to continue slavery:
Mississippi Declaration of Causes for Secession, 1861:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin...we do not overstate the dangers to our institution...
Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederate States of America, in his "Cornerstone Speech" of March 21, 1861:
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution...
Our new government is founded upon...its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
Constitution of the Confederate States of America, Article I, Section 9, (4):
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Constitution of the Confederate States of America, Article IV, Section 2, (1) and (3):
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due.
Constitution of the Confederate States of America, Article IV, Section 3, (3):
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
Mississippi Senator Albert Gallatin Brown, 1858:
"I want Cuba, and I know that sooner or later we must have it. If the worm-eaten throne of Spain is willing to give it for a fair equivalent, well--if not, we must take it. I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican Stats; and I want them all for the same reason--for the planting and spreading of slavery."
Southern Punch, 1864:
"'The people of the South,' says a contemporary, 'are not fighting for slavery but for independence.' Let us look into this matter. It is an easy task, we think, to show up this new-fangled heresy -- a heresy calculated to do us no good, for it cannot deceive foreign statesmen nor peoples, nor mislead any one here nor in Yankeeland. . . Our doctrine is this: WE ARE FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE THAT OUR GREAT AND NECESSARY DOMESTIC INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY SHALL BE PRESERVED, and for the preservation of other institutions of which slavery is the groundwork."
Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, after the slaughter of hundreds of surrendering black Union troops at Fort Pillow in Tennessee, April 1864:
"It is hoped that these facts will demonstrate to the Northern people that negro soldiers cannot cope with Southerners."
Chant of Confederate troops at the Battle of the Crater, July 30, 1864:
"'Spare the white man, kill the
!"General John Bell Hood, refusing Union General William Tecumseh Sherman's request for the evacuation of civilians from Atlanta, September 12, 1864:
You came into our country with your army avowedly for the purpose of subjugating free white men, women, and children, and not only intend to rule over them, but you make negroes your allies and desire to place over us an inferior race, which we have raised from barbarism to its present position, which is the highest ever attained by that race in any country in all time. I must, therefore, decline to accept your statements in reference to your kindness toward the people of Atlanta, and your willingness to sacrifice everything for the peace and honor of the South, and refuse to be governed by your decision in regard to matters between myself, my country, and my God. You say, "let us fight it out like men." To this my reply is, for myself, and, I believe, for all the true men, aye, and women and children, in my country, we will fight you to the death. Better die a thousand deaths than submit to live under you or your Government and your negro allies.
Henry
Autoexreginated
I found this part of the article you posted kinda funny...
...you don't say, Tiago! Very strange, indeed...
- Status
