Racism or Heritage?

[Milks Empire]

So the South freeing slaves so they would fight in their Army doesn't count for much, eh?

When you consider why they did so, not really.

[Allanea]

Furthermore, the North did not have slaves. A few border states that chose not to secede were allowed to maintain slavery for a few more years (essentially the end of the Civil War) since Lincoln didn't want to risk their secession.

And because eliminating slavery was not Lincoln's main goal.

[New Genoa]

It could be both. I mean, the United States flag could also be used to represent racism seeing as the people who founded the United States supported slavery. But more often that not it is seen as a symbol of liberty, at least in the US. Still can't deny that it more explicitly represents a nation founded solely to defend slavery whereas slavery was just a part of the US, not the main reason for its foundation.

[Allanea]

seeing as the people who founded the United States supported slavery.

Err, some of them did, not all.

[New Genoa]

seeing as the people who founded the United States supported slavery.

Err, some of them did, not all.

Right, well enough of them did I should say. Otherwise it would've been banned from the get-go.

[New Genoa]

Ok, this is for future posters who decide to not read the thread and blurt out: "But it was about states' rights, not slavery!"

Please read this link posted earlier by Pirated Corsairs, it is a side-by-side comparison of the CSA Constitution and US Constitution: http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm

Now my question is: how do you justify that the CSA was founded to protect states' rights and not to protect slavery? If you read the analysis, you'll find that 3 rights are stripped from states, and 4 rights are granted to them. Furthermore, the analysis concludes that the rights added are only minor, while those taken away were quite major.

So, what part of this do you disagree with? How do you reconcile your beliefs that the Civil War was fought for states' rights reasons when the confederate constitution, the law above all laws in the Confederacy, did nothing to particularly advance states rights too radically? Do you believe that the analysis is incorrect? Are there more rights afforded in the CSA constitution than meets the eye? Did the author misinterpret what rights were taken away and what ones were given? Furthermore, the CSA Constitution specifically mentions slavery four times, and SPECIFICALLY makes the right to own slaves part of the constitution. So, the right to own slavery in the CSA is given the same protections of the law as say, the US first amendment.

Do you believe that specifically including slavery as a constitutionally-protected right does not clue in to the major motives behind the south's secession? Why? What makes you believe otherwise, given the analysis and questions above? Also, could you provide primary sources to back up your statements?

Finally, it's nice to wax poetically about how wars are fought for philosophical reasons (ie, states' rights). I'm sure there were some southern intellectuals at the time who believed this. But we live in the real world. How many wars are fought SOLELY over ideals? Most wars need another political motivating factor to get them off the ground - resources, land, maintaining the balance of power or acquiring more of it. Slavery was an integral part of southern society at the time; it was essential to the south's economy and kept the southern elite nice and wealthy. The powers that be obviously thought Lincoln was going to threaten that by taking away slavery or severely limiting its expansion. Doesn't make sense that this would be reason enough for them to secede? I mean...tariffs hurt the south, but I don't think they'd ever secede solely over that to be honest.

[Allanea]

If you read the analysis, you'll find that 3 rights are stripped from states, and 4 rights are granted to them.

The analysis is boneheadedly wrong due to omitting the fact that multiple very important authorities are also stripped from the Federal government.

[Tmutarakhan]

I wouldn't say that. The Confederate flag represents what the South was actually fighting for in the Civil War - which is freedom from Taxation without Representation. It was not about slavery.

This is the kind of dishonest denial that I cannot stand. The South was totally explicit about what they were fighting for: slavery. That was the one and only issue cited in all their declarations of why they were seceding and going to war. Don't call it "states rights": there was ONE and ONLY ONE "right" the Southern states, and that was to keep blacks in chains.

[New Genoa]

If you read the analysis, you'll find that 3 rights are stripped from states, and 4 rights are granted to them.

The analysis is boneheadedly wrong due to omitting the fact that multiple very important authorities are also stripped from the Federal government.

Such as? And what about the rest of the post.

[Allanea]

1. The general welfare clause is omitted from the powers of the Federal government (article 1, Secion 8, , clause 1). This is one of the major clauses that enabled latter-day enhancement of FedGov power.

2. Trade protectionism (a very key issue of contention at the time) is prohibited on the part of the Federal government. (Again, Article 1, , clause 1)

3. The Federal government is prohibited from setting bounties (Article 1, Section 8, clause 1)

4. Congress is prohibited of spending money to 'facilitate commerce' (Article 1, Section 8, clause 3)

5. Congress is prohibited from declaring its debts void. (Article 1, Section 8, clause 5)

6. The Federal government is prohibited from funding a post office after a certain date (Article 1, Section 8, clause 7)

7. Article 1, Section 9 make the ban on foreign slave trade permanent (except with the Northern states) and empowers Congress to also ban slave importation with the North. This is different from the original Constitution where Congress is simpyl empowered to ban slave importation or legalize it, at will. Again, an overall limitation of Federal powers.

8. Article 1, Section 9, clause 9 limits the power of the Federal government to appropriate money.

9. Article 1, Section 9, clause 10 limits the power of the Federal government to issue paper money.

10. Article 1, Section 9, clause 20 prohibits the Federal Congress from issuing bills with tons of riders, all bills are to be related to a single subject.

11. Article 2, Section 1 introduces a term limit for Presidents.

11. Article 2, Section 2 limits the power of the Federal government to demand that states extradite criminals.

12. Article V removes Congress from the process of Constitutional amendments entirely.

Clearly speaking, the Constitution limits the Federal government (thus protecting the states) in 14 different ways, granting the states 5 different powers and removing 3. This includes one amendment actually limiting the slave trade beyond what the US had.

Any questions?

[Tmutarakhan]

I'm sorry, but you're very sadly wrong. Tariffs were at least as much an issue as slavery

You are very very sadly wrong. Tariffs were not even MENTIONED as an issue when the Southern states broke away. There was only one issue mentioned.

[Allanea]

I'm sorry, but you're very sadly wrong. Tariffs were at least as much an issue as slavery

You are very very sadly wrong. Tariffs were not even MENTIONED as an issue when the Southern states broke away. There was only one issue mentioned.

The story of Southern States breaking away does not begin in 1861.

[Cosmicchaos]

The flag is not Racist,even though some people flying it have racial motives.
Symbols often mean different things to different people
The pentagram is the foremost symbol of the U.S military even though its inherent meaning is that of peace

Pentagram:


Pentagon:

Thanks for your insight but i meant A Pentagram in both the cases (Its painted on all US Tanks and Aircraft)
I did not mean the building (Pentagon)

[Western Mercenary Unio]

Thanks for your insight but i meant A Pentagram in both the cases (Its painted on all US Tanks and Aircraft)
I did not mean the building (Pentagon)

Nope, it' a normal five-pointed star.

[Cosmicchaos]

Thanks for your insight but i meant A Pentagram in both the cases (Its painted on all US Tanks and Aircraft)
I did not mean the building (Pentagon)

Nope, it' a normal five-pointed star.

A pentagram is a Five Pointed Star

[Barringtonia]

The story of Southern States breaking away does not begin in 1861.

As mentioned before, the tariff issues started in 1828, 8 years after the Missouri Compromise of 1820.

[Western Mercenary Unio]

A pentagram is a Five Pointed Star

Yes but a pentagram's hollow. A five-pointed star's solid.

[Cosmicchaos]

A pentagram is a Five Pointed Star

Yes but a pentagram's hollow. A five-pointed star's solid.

If you say so

My real point was that the flag as a symbol assumes different meanings for different people
Symbols assume the meanings we apply to them

[New Genoa]

1. The general welfare clause is omitted from the powers of the Federal government (article 1, Secion 8, , clause 1). This is one of the major clauses that enabled latter-day enhancement of FedGov power.

2. Trade protectionism (a very key issue of contention at the time) is prohibited on the part of the Federal government. (Again, Article 1, , clause 1)

3. The Federal government is prohibited from setting bounties (Article 1, Section 8, clause 1)

4. Congress is prohibited of spending money to 'facilitate commerce' (Article 1, Section 8, clause 3)

5. Congress is prohibited from declaring its debts void. (Article 1, Section 8, clause 5)

6. The Federal government is prohibited from funding a post office after a certain date (Article 1, Section 8, clause 7)

7. Article 1, Section 9 make the ban on foreign slave trade permanent (except with the Northern states) and empowers Congress to also ban slave importation with the North. This is different from the original Constitution where Congress is simpyl empowered to ban slave importation or legalize it, at will. Again, an overall limitation of Federal powers.

8. Article 1, Section 9, clause 9 limits the power of the Federal government to appropriate money.

9. Article 1, Section 9, clause 10 limits the power of the Federal government to issue paper money.

10. Article 1, Section 9, clause 20 prohibits the Federal Congress from issuing bills with tons of riders, all bills are to be related to a single subject.

11. Article 2, Section 1 introduces a term limit for Presidents.

11. Article 2, Section 2 limits the power of the Federal government to demand that states extradite criminals.

12. Article V removes Congress from the process of Constitutional amendments entirely.

Clearly speaking, the Constitution limits the Federal government (thus protecting the states) in 14 different ways, granting the states 5 different powers and removing 3. This includes one amendment actually limiting the slave trade beyond what the US had.

Any questions?

Ok, so I was slightly wrong. 5 different powers granted, 3 removed. That's still not exactly a huge step towards states' rights. I didn't ask about limiting federal power, I asked about states' rights. And yes it bans slave trade. But it also specifically protects the right to own slaves and as you said, removes congress from amendments. This seems to make it hard to change the rules concerning slavery.

Also, Wikipedia provides a coherent article on the issue of the origins of the war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_ ... _Civil_War

A few choice quotes:

States' rights was an issue in the 19th century for those who felt that the federal government was superseded by the authority of the individual states and was in violation of the role intended for it by the Founding Fathers of the United States. Kenneth M. Stampp notes that each section used states' rights arguments when convenient, and shifted positions when convenient.[45] For example, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was justified by its supporters as a state's right to have its property laws respected by other states, and was resisted by northern legislatures in the form of state personal liberty laws that placed state laws above the federal mandate.

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. noted that the states' rights “never had any real vitality independent of underlying conditions of vast social, economic, or political significance.”[46] He further elaborated:

From the close of the nullification episode of 1832-1833 to the outbreak of the Civil War, the agitation of state rights was intimately connected with the new issue of growing importance, the slavery question, and the principle form assumed by the doctrine was the right of secession. The pro-slavery forces sought refuge in the state rights position as a shield against federal interference with pro-slavery projects.... As a natural consequence, anti-slavery legislatures in the North were led to lay great stress on the national character of the Union and the broad powers of the general government in dealing with slavery. Nevertheless, it is significant to note that when it served anti-slavery purposes better to lapse into state rights dialectic, northern legislatures did not hesitate to be inconsistent.[47]

Historians today generally agree that economic conflicts were not a major cause of the war. While an economic basis to the sectional crisis was popular among the “Progressive school” of historians from the 1910s to the 1940s, few 'professional historians' now subscribe to this explanation.[10] According to economic historian Lee A. Craig, "In fact, numerous studies by economic historians over the past several decades reveal that economic conflict was not an inherent condition of North-South relations during the antebellum era and did not cause the Civil War."[11] When numerous groups tried at the last minute in 1860-61 to find a compromise to avert war, they did not turn to economic policies. The three major attempts at compromise, the Crittenden Compromise, the Corwin Amendment, and the Washington Peace Conference, addressed only the slavery related issues of fugitive slave laws, personal liberty laws, slavery in the territories, and interference with slavery within the existing slave states.[12]

The main explanation for the origins of the American Civil War is slavery, especially the issue of the expansion of slavery into the territories. States' rights and the tariff issue became entangled in the slavery issue, and were intensified by it.[1] Other important factors were party politics, expansionism, sectionalism, economics and modernization in the Antebellum Period.

(emphasis is mine)

[Trve]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=125433

Many people think the Civil War of 1860-1865 was fought over one issue alone, slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth. The War Between the States began because the South demanded States' rights and were not getting them.

The Congress at that time heavily favored the industrialized northern states to the point of demanding that the South sell is cotton and other raw materials only to the factories in the north, rather than to other countries. The Congress also taxed the finished materials that the northern industries produced heavily, making finished products that the South wanted, unaffordable. The Civil War should not have occurred. If the Northern States and their representatives in Congress had only listened to the problems of the South, and stopped these practices that were almost like the taxation without representation of Great Britain, then the Southern states would not have seceded and the war would not have occurred.

Actually read it.

lol, Ron Paul is wrong on this, like he is on everything else. Its just the typical Dixie whining of "DAMN YANKEES STARTED IT!"

[Hydesland]

Sometimes a flag, is just a flag.

[Maurepas]

Sometimes a flag, is just a flag.

until someone makes a thread bitching about it anyway...

[Blasphemulopia]

how about a new flag with a depiction of a bunch of Indian scalps. It's part of our countries heritage after all. Manifest destiny!!

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

how about a new flag with a depiction of a bunch of Indian scalps. It's part of our countries heritage after all. Manifest destiny!!

Did you really went there?

[Scarsaw]

how about a new flag with a depiction of a bunch of Indian scalps. It's part of our countries heritage after all. Manifest destiny!!

Could always adopt the non-racist South Park flag