Confederate money still worthless

[TAFBSooner]

. . . but apparently Confederate flags will appreciate, for the same reason real estate does:

They aren't making any more.

Major flag companies (following Wal-Mart's and NASCAR's lead) are ceasing production of the symbol of white supremacy.

:triumphant:

[SicEmBaylor]

. . . but apparently Confederate flags will appreciate, for the same reason real estate does:

They aren't making any more.

Major flag companies (following Wal-Mart's and NASCAR's lead) are ceasing production of the symbol of white supremacy.

:triumphant:


Sweet. You're still an ignorant ****.

[SicEmBaylor]

I've always loved my country, but the events of the past week have fundamentally changed something in me. I've never felt more ostracized, reviled, hated, and marginalized than I have as a result of all of this. The 4th of July is coming up, and I'm supposed to honor the flag that invaded, raped, pillaged, burned, and committed an untold number of atrocities against the southern people. A flag that stood for slavery for more than 90 years. A flag that is increasingly tyrannical.

I'm finding less and less to love about this dumpster fire. I love the principles this country was founded upon, but the actual government and realization of that dream our Founders had is another matter entirely. What I want is out of this dumpster fire at some point. If there were some other place to go....

[TAFBSooner]

Sweet. You're still an ignorant ****.

No, we just majorly disagree on the meaning of the War of the Rebellion. You are able to tolerate disagreement on most subjects. You get very hot under the starched gray collar when the subject has to do with the late unlamented confederacy.



I guess I'm not emotionless on the subject myself. :-|

[Ton Loc]

In a country that in every history class children are taught basically 1 consistent thing about the civil war: that the South fought for Slavery while the North fought against it. You have to realize that the symbol for the South during the civil war is always going to be associated with slavery. Regardless of anything else that will never go away. Also - you don't have to honor this country or the flag on the 4th or any other day for that matter.

[SicEmBaylor]

No, we just majorly disagree on the meaning of the War of the Rebellion. You are able to tolerate disagreement on most subjects. You get very hot under the starched gray collar when the subject has to do with the late unlamented confederacy.



I guess I'm not emotionless on the subject myself. :-|

I guess I get a little hot under the collar when I'm accused of being a white supremacist. It's the insulting language that is accompanied by this argument that makes me hot under the collar. The absolutely unfounded accusation that my forefathers committed treason, they were racist, I'm a racist, we're all white supremacists, etc. etc. is the reason I take it personally.

[SicEmBaylor]

In a country that in every history class children are taught basically 1 consistent thing about the civil war: that the South fought for Slavery while the North fought against it. You have to realize that the symbol for the South during the civil war is always going to be associated with slavery. Regardless of anything else that will never go away. Also - you don't have to honor this country or the flag on the 4th or any other day for that matter.

Yes, an education system run by the government (the same government that prosecuted that war and are responsible for the war crimes it committed) is unlikely to give the side it fought against any sort of credit. It isn't just this issue though. Government education is the absolute worst. They manage education as well as the government manages everything else.

[Serenity Now]

I've always loved my country, but the events of the past week have fundamentally changed something in me. I've never felt more ostracized, reviled, hated, and marginalized than I have as a result of all of this. The 4th of July is coming up, and I'm supposed to honor the flag that invaded, raped, pillaged, burned, and committed an untold number of atrocities against the southern people. A flag that stood for slavery for more than 90 years. A flag that is increasingly tyrannical.

I'm finding less and less to love about this dumpster fire. I love the principles this country was founded upon, but the actual government and realization of that dream our Founders had is another matter entirely. What I want is out of this dumpster fire at some point. If there were some other place to go....

I think the issue is that the symbol of state's rights and the "positives" that you harken to from the confederacy has been overtaken as a symbol of racists. 99% of the people who would utilize "your flag" have no understanding as you do of the real historic positives. You've opened my eyes a little to the reasons other than slavery for the civil war. But, I wonder how much of that is historic posturing by those before us wanting to be proven on the right side. War's hell. On both sides.

Get you a gadsden flag and call it a day. :)

[SicEmBaylor]

I think the issue is that the symbol of state's rights and the "positives" that you harken to from the confederacy has been overtaken as a symbol of racists. 99% of the people who would utilize "your flag" have no understanding as you do of the real historic positives. You've opened my eyes a little to the reasons other than slavery for the civil war. But, I wonder how much of that is historic posturing by those before us wanting to be proven on the right side. War's hell. On both sides.

Get you a gadsden flag and call it a day. :)

There's a mantra in this country that we ought not let others define who we are. I won't be party to laying down and allowing the symbols of my history and my heritage to be co-opted by racists and white supremacists who use the flag as a symbol of hate rather than as a symbol of resistance against centralized authority. The irony in this debate is that those politicians who claim the flag is a symbol of racism are arguing on the same side as the racists by accepting their argument that the flag is a symbol of white supremacy. The best way to combat racism here is for them to refuse to accept the flag as the symbol of hate the racists claim it to be. Stand on the side of heritage and take that symbol away from those who misuse it. The principles the flag symbolizes are important.

The flag of the Confederacy stands for the defense of the rights of the states as envisioned by our Revolutionary forefathers. These "so-called" states' rights are the basis for our entire Constitutional system of government beginning with the first settlers who were issued colonial charters to establish colonies governed under rules and law of their choosing with a certain degree of latitude from the Crown. The Revolution severed that authority the Crown had over the colonies; thus, the individual colonies each retained full legal sovereignty and authority. The Revolution was fought and justified with the underlying principle that a people have a right to abolish existing political ties and create new ones of their own choosing. This is precisely what the states did when they created a limited Federal government with specific enumerated powers (Article I, Section 8) relinquishing *only* that sovereignty which was delegated to the Federal government retaining all other legal rights to themselves and their citizens (9th/10th Amendments).

Slavery was absolutely the catalyst that drove the states to secede (an authority any state had prior to the war and still has to this day); slavery was a single component of an overall larger states' rights argument centered around economics. The free trade the south favored over northern-backed tariffs exacerbated the issue of slavery and pushed the southern states to secede. Northern industrialists and capitalists hated competing freely with European factories that demanded southern raw goods, and they didn't like paying their workers a wage while the south had "free" labor. Midwest farmers certainly didn't like having to compete against slave labor either. I won't even get into the racial issues involved here and the racism that those northern factory workers displayed both before and especially after the war when they had to compete with former slaves willing to work for less.

The southern states seceded with slavery as the catalyst, but the war was most certainly that of Lincoln's making. The south had no designs on invading, occupying, or otherwise making war with those states remaining in the Union. When the state of South Carolina seceded, her territory became wholly her own. The state repeatedly asked the Lincoln Administration to remove its (by then foreign) troops from its sovereign territory. Lincoln refused, reinforced that garrison, and made it quite clear his intention was to preserve the Union. Foreign troops on sovereign soil is an act of war; thus, the south fired on Ft. Sumter. Every public statement Lincoln and northern politicians made was that the war was to preserve the Union. Time and time and time again this argument was made -- preserve the Union. Slavery, as a war aim, did not become prevalent until around 1863 when northern support for the war was waning. And, even then, there were Union units on the field who almost mutinied over the issue of fighting to free the slaves.

Lincoln destroyed the foundation of the Constitution when he destroyed states' rights and began the process of centralization that continues to this day. Lincoln is the reason big-government is possible, and the lack of a state 'check' to that Federal power is the reason it has run amok. Lincoln violated a multitude of Constitutional rights during the war, nearly arrested the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, arbitrarily arrested the state legislatures of states considering secession, and prosecuted a war that condoned heinous war crimes against American civilians.

The south fought to preserve the Constitutional framework our forefathers created both in spirit and in letter. There is no justifying slavery, but suggesting the war was a moral crusade to rid the continent of the institution is a farce. Suggesting that Lincoln was fighting for anything other than to preserve the Union and for northern banking/industrialists is a farce. Suggesting hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers died to preserve the slaves of a small % of slave-owning elite is damned insulting.

No one would dare suggest that we abolish the sacred symbols and heritage of other cultures. Please keep that in mind when deciding the fate of the Confederate ‘battle flag.’

[TAFBSooner]

I've always loved my country, but the events of the past week have fundamentally changed something in me. I've never felt more ostracized, reviled, hated, and marginalized than I have as a result of all of this. The 4th of July is coming up, and I'm supposed to honor the flag that invaded, raped, pillaged, burned, and committed an untold number of atrocities against the southern people. A flag that stood for slavery for more than 90 years. A flag that is increasingly tyrannical.

I'm finding less and less to love about this dumpster fire. I love the principles this country was founded upon, but the actual government and realization of that dream our Founders had is another matter entirely. What I want is out of this dumpster fire at some point. If there were some other place to go....

Young Dylann was using the Confederate flag to make a statement in favor of white supremacy, before he acted on those beliefs by shooting black people in a church. I don't believe you think of it that way, but the white supremacists certainly do, as do the black citizens of this country.

Invaded? The South shot first.

When you talk about atrocities against the southern people, you must mean white southern people. 'Cause white southern people have sure committed a lot of atrocities against black southern people.

The 90 years that you reference should make us all question the "exceptionalism" of this country. Why did it take 90 years and a vicious, deadly civil war for us to abolish slavery? When the tyrants that we broke free of did so in 1833, without such a war? At least we got there before Brazil.

We agree that our government currently is becoming more tyrannical. Would it have somehow been less tyrannical if we hadn't killed legal slavery in 1865?

[Ton Loc]

There's a mantra in this country that we ought not let others define who we are. I won't be party to laying down and allowing the symbols of my history and my heritage to be co-opted by racists and white supremacists who use the flag as a symbol of hate rather than as a symbol of resistance against centralized authority. The irony in this debate is that those politicians who claim the flag is a symbol of racism are arguing on the same side as the racists by accepting their argument that the flag is a symbol of white supremacy. The best way to combat racism here is for them to refuse to accept the flag as the symbol of hate the racists claim it to be. Stand on the side of heritage and take that symbol away from those who misuse it. The principles the flag symbolizes are important.

The flag of the Confederacy stands for the defense of the rights of the states as envisioned by our Revolutionary forefathers. These "so-called" states' rights are the basis for our entire Constitutional system of government beginning with the first settlers who were issued colonial charters to establish colonies governed under rules and law of their choosing with a certain degree of latitude from the Crown. The Revolution severed that authority the Crown had over the colonies; thus, the individual colonies each retained full legal sovereignty and authority. The Revolution was fought and justified with the underlying principle that a people have a right to abolish existing political ties and create new ones of their own choosing. This is precisely what the states did when they created a limited Federal government with specific enumerated powers (Article I, Section 8) relinquishing *only* that sovereignty which was delegated to the Federal government retaining all other legal rights to themselves and their citizens (9th/10th Amendments).

Slavery was absolutely the catalyst that drove the states to secede (an authority any state had prior to the war and still has to this day); slavery was a single component of an overall larger states' rights argument centered around economics. The free trade the south favored over northern-backed tariffs exacerbated the issue of slavery and pushed the southern states to secede. Northern industrialists and capitalists hated competing freely with European factories that demanded southern raw goods, and they didn't like paying their workers a wage while the south had "free" labor. Midwest farmers certainly didn't like having to compete against slave labor either. I won't even get into the racial issues involved here and the racism that those northern factory workers displayed both before and especially after the war when they had to compete with former slaves willing to work for less.

The southern states seceded with slavery as the catalyst, but the war was most certainly that of Lincoln's making. The south had no designs on invading, occupying, or otherwise making war with those states remaining in the Union. When the state of South Carolina seceded, her territory became wholly her own. The state repeatedly asked the Lincoln Administration to remove its (by then foreign) troops from its sovereign territory. Lincoln refused, reinforced that garrison, and made it quite clear his intention was to preserve the Union. Foreign troops on sovereign soil is an act of war; thus, the south fired on Ft. Sumter. Every public statement Lincoln and northern politicians made was that the war was to preserve the Union. Time and time and time again this argument was made -- preserve the Union. Slavery, as a war aim, did not become prevalent until around 1863 when northern support for the war was waning. And, even then, there were Union units on the field who almost mutinied over the issue of fighting to free the slaves.

Lincoln destroyed the foundation of the Constitution when he destroyed states' rights and began the process of centralization that continues to this day. Lincoln is the reason big-government is possible, and the lack of a state 'check' to that Federal power is the reason it has run amok. Lincoln violated a multitude of Constitutional rights during the war, nearly arrested the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, arbitrarily arrested the state legislatures of states considering secession, and prosecuted a war that condoned heinous war crimes against American civilians.

The south fought to preserve the Constitutional framework our forefathers created both in spirit and in letter. There is no justifying slavery, but suggesting the war was a moral crusade to rid the continent of the institution is a farce. Suggesting that Lincoln was fighting for anything other than to preserve the Union and for northern banking/industrialists is a farce. Suggesting hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers died to preserve the slaves of a small % of slave-owning elite is damned insulting.

No one would dare suggest that we abolish the sacred symbols and heritage of other cultures. Please keep that in mind when deciding the fate of the Confederate ‘battle flag.’

Yeah - Lots of good points. I still get tired of all the praise thrown at Lincoln today. That guy was a mother****er.

Regardless of anything and everything else - Slavery vs Non-slavery - will always be the biggest part of the what the civil war and the south are/were known for. Therefore - Confederate Flag = bad slavery symbol. There's not a thing you can do about it.

[FaninAma]

I've always loved my country, but the events of the past week have fundamentally changed something in me. I've never felt more ostracized, reviled, hated, and marginalized than I have as a result of all of this. The 4th of July is coming up, and I'm supposed to honor the flag that invaded, raped, pillaged, burned, and committed an untold number of atrocities against the southern people. A flag that stood for slavery for more than 90 years. A flag that is increasingly tyrannical.

....

Don't forget what the country under the Stars and Stripes did to the Native Americans(Lincoln approved of the massacres of Native Americans). This "purge all symbols of the past that we disagree with" hysteria will lead no where good.

[SicEmBaylor]

Young Dylann was using the Confederate flag to make a statement in favor of white supremacy, before he acted on those beliefs by shooting black people in a church. I don't believe you think of it that way, but the white supremacists certainly do, as do the black citizens of this country.

And why should I allow some sociopathic 20-something year old, who knows absolutely jack **** about what the flag stands for, to define what that flag means? Here is what is being missed in this asinine debate over the flag: The kid is a narcissistic sociopath with severe mental health issues. The flag and what it stands for are absolutely meaningless to this kid. The flag did not make him shoot those people. He was looking for a reason to justify his desire to kill, and this provided the excuse he needed to convince himself that murder would be justified. If it hadn't been racism and the flag, it would have been something else entirely -- it just so happens that this is the issue he latched onto.


Invaded? The South shot first.
Invading and shooting first are two separate issues; however, Ft. Sumter was sitting on sovereign South Carolina soil when SC was no longer part of the Union. Foreign troops on sovereign soil without permission is an act of war. The Union invaded the south as a result.


When you talk about atrocities against the southern people, you must mean white southern people. 'Cause white southern people have sure committed a lot of atrocities against black southern people.

White northern people committed a lot of atrocities against black people as well. Not the least of which was actually starting the slave trade in the first place and then still holding slaves in Union territory even after the war had been going on for years. Do you know how yankee factory workers treated freed slaves looking for jobs? Do you know how many slaves were treated by the Union army? Southern treatment of blacks was certainly not unique to the south. In any case, it's a matter of throwing the baby out with the bath water. The slaves ended up being freed, but at the expense of enslaving all of us to the authority of centralized government.


The 90 years that you reference should make us all question the "exceptionalism" of this country. Why did it take 90 years and a vicious, deadly civil war for us to abolish slavery? When the tyrants that we broke free of did so in 1833, without such a war? At least we got there before Brazil.

Because the war was not over slavery! The south seceded with slavery as a catalyst, but the war itself was to preserve the Union in order to protect northern industrialists and banking interests. Slavery would have died out peacefully in the south just as it had everywhere else in the world. There were several southern organizations dedicated to creating a framework for eventual emancipation over time. My own belief is that slavery would have been dead by the end of WWI.


We agree that our government currently is becoming more tyrannical. Would it have somehow been less tyrannical if we hadn't killed legal slavery in 1865?

I believe the Confederate States would have been fundamentally more protective of individual privacy and individual rights (blacks notwitstanding for some time, obviously) than the United States, yes.

[Tear Down This Wall]

In these very soonerfans.com forums, I have for years argued that the Confederate Flag was a flag of a country the United States defeated. And, so, I considered it the same as a Nazi flag or the Soviet Hammer and Sickle.

But, now that it is being banned, I'm going to buy one, two, or a few.

We also defeated Mexico, yet the Mexican flag is proudly waved here in America today. It reminds people of how much they love the f*cked up country they abandoned; the country that refuses to give them as many freebies as America does.

If people in the South want to fly the Confederate Flag to remind themselves of their f*cked up past as well, I don't see a problem with it. Plus, if I can buy a few, I can sell them at a jacked up rate. They are quite popular in several pockets of Texas. I'm sure it's the same in the Little Dixie part of Oklahoma.

I imagine this will be like the AR-15 deal. For a few months, price will be jacked way up. But, by this time next year, prices will be normal again...

...and, both the Mexican and Confederate flags will both still be flying in various parts of America, the country that conquered them both.

[TAFBSooner]

There's a mantra in this country that we ought not let others define who we are. I won't be party to laying down and allowing the symbols of my history and my heritage to be co-opted by racists and white supremacists who use the flag as a symbol of hate rather than as a symbol of resistance against centralized authority. The irony in this debate is that those politicians who claim the flag is a symbol of racism are arguing on the same side as the racists by accepting their argument that the flag is a symbol of white supremacy. The best way to combat racism here is for them to refuse to accept the flag as the symbol of hate the racists claim it to be. Stand on the side of heritage and take that symbol away from those who misuse it. The principles the flag symbolizes are important.

The flag of the Confederacy stands for the defense of the rights of the states as envisioned by our Revolutionary forefathers. These "so-called" states' rights are the basis for our entire Constitutional system of government beginning with the first settlers who were issued colonial charters to establish colonies governed under rules and law of their choosing with a certain degree of latitude from the Crown. The Revolution severed that authority the Crown had over the colonies; thus, the individual colonies each retained full legal sovereignty and authority. The Revolution was fought and justified with the underlying principle that a people have a right to abolish existing political ties and create new ones of their own choosing. This is precisely what the states did when they created a limited Federal government with specific enumerated powers (Article I, Section 8) relinquishing *only* that sovereignty which was delegated to the Federal government retaining all other legal rights to themselves and their citizens (9th/10th Amendments).

Slavery was absolutely the catalyst that drove the states to secede (an authority any state had prior to the war and still has to this day); slavery was a single component of an overall larger states' rights argument centered around economics. The free trade the south favored over northern-backed tariffs exacerbated the issue of slavery and pushed the southern states to secede. Northern industrialists and capitalists hated competing freely with European factories that demanded southern raw goods, and they didn't like paying their workers a wage while the south had "free" labor. Midwest farmers certainly didn't like having to compete against slave labor either. I won't even get into the racial issues involved here and the racism that those northern factory workers displayed both before and especially after the war when they had to compete with former slaves willing to work for less.

The southern states seceded with slavery as the catalyst, but the war was most certainly that of Lincoln's making. The south had no designs on invading, occupying, or otherwise making war with those states remaining in the Union. When the state of South Carolina seceded, her territory became wholly her own. The state repeatedly asked the Lincoln Administration to remove its (by then foreign) troops from its sovereign territory. Lincoln refused, reinforced that garrison, and made it quite clear his intention was to preserve the Union. Foreign troops on sovereign soil is an act of war; thus, the south fired on Ft. Sumter. Every public statement Lincoln and northern politicians made was that the war was to preserve the Union. Time and time and time again this argument was made -- preserve the Union. Slavery, as a war aim, did not become prevalent until around 1863 when northern support for the war was waning. And, even then, there were Union units on the field who almost mutinied over the issue of fighting to free the slaves.

Lincoln destroyed the foundation of the Constitution when he destroyed states' rights and began the process of centralization that continues to this day. Lincoln is the reason big-government is possible, and the lack of a state 'check' to that Federal power is the reason it has run amok. Lincoln violated a multitude of Constitutional rights during the war, nearly arrested the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, arbitrarily arrested the state legislatures of states considering secession, and prosecuted a war that condoned heinous war crimes against American civilians.

The south fought to preserve the Constitutional framework our forefathers created both in spirit and in letter. There is no justifying slavery, but suggesting the war was a moral crusade to rid the continent of the institution is a farce. Suggesting that Lincoln was fighting for anything other than to preserve the Union and for northern banking/industrialists is a farce. Suggesting hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers died to preserve the slaves of a small % of slave-owning elite is damned insulting.

No one would dare suggest that we abolish the sacred symbols and heritage of other cultures. Please keep that in mind when deciding the fate of the Confederate ‘battle flag.’

After Fort Sumter, the Union began fighting to preserve the Union. No disagreement there.

The South was fighting to preserve slavery. Process questions/arguments such as state's rights are used as chips in the argument over the real issue, in this case slavery.*

See the Mississippi statement of secession:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

The South Carolina statement begins with a states' rights argument, but then is larded all over with arguments for preserving slavery. Slavery was no mere catalyst, but the whole reason the South seceded.

For what it's worth, I do agree with you that the centralization of the government beginning with the Civil War has enabled its current authoritarian bent. I just don't think an alternate history where slavery had survived would have led to a more enlightened country (or pair of countries) than we actually have.

*Watch conservative attorneys general crap on the rights of states to allow their citizens to smoke marijuana without fear of being stopped at gunpoint. For that matter, part of the Confederate argument was that northern states were exercising their rights in ways the slaveholders didn't like.

[TAFBSooner]

In these very soonerfans.com forums, I have for years argued that the Confederate Flag was a flag of a country the United States defeated. And, so, I considered it the same as a Nazi flag or the Soviet Hammer and Sickle.

But, now that it is being banned, I'm going to buy one, two, or a few.

We also defeated Mexico, yet the Mexican flag is proudly waved here in America today. It reminds people of how much they love the f*cked up country they abandoned; the country that refuses to give them as many freebies as America does.

If people in the South want to fly the Confederate Flag to remind themselves of their f*cked up past as well, I don't see a problem with it. Plus, if I can buy a few, I can sell them at a jacked up rate. They are quite popular in several pockets of Texas. I'm sure it's the same in the Little Dixie part of Oklahoma.

I imagine this will be like the AR-15 deal. For a few months, price will be jacked way up. But, by this time next year, prices will be normal again...

...and, both the Mexican and Confederate flags will both still be flying in various parts of America, the country that conquered them both.

We didn't conquer the Soviet Union. It failed because it had a Loser of an economic "system." We did out-compete them economically and in the "hearts-and-minds" arena.

Mexico is fracked up because of our drug war and NAFTA.

And, good luck with your business opportunity.

[SicEmBaylor]

After Fort Sumter, the Union began fighting to preserve the Union. No disagreement there.

The South was fighting to preserve slavery. Process questions/arguments such as state's rights are used as chips in the argument over the real issue, in this case slavery.*

See the Mississippi statement of secession:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

This is quite a difficult and nuanced concept for you to understand, evidently. Slavery was the *catalyst* for secession. The states legally seceded, but secession itself does not "cause" a war. The war was caused by the Union refusing to evacuate troops from sovereign SC soil. The result was that southern troops fired on the Fort to remove them by force. The Union DID NOT march into the south to free the slaves. They invaded the south to keep the southern states in the Union.

The south did not "fight the war to preserve slavery." They fought the war because they were being invaded by a hostile force. They fought to preserve the independence of the Confederate States of America, and they fought to protect their homes from being burned and their families raped and killed.

The south was doing what any country does when it's invaded -- it resisted.


The South Carolina statement begins with a states' rights argument, but then is larded all over with arguments for preserving slavery. Slavery was no mere catalyst, but the whole reason the South seceded.

You understand that slavery is a states' rights issue, right? I mean, you understand the Constitution well enough to get this (hopefully)....right?

For what it's worth, I do agree with you that the centralization of the government beginning with the Civil War has enabled its current authoritarian bent. I just don't think an alternate history where slavery had survived would have led to a more enlightened country (or pair of countries) than we actually have.
Maybe not for your country.

[quote*Watch conservative attorneys general crap on the rights of states to allow their citizens to smoke marijuana without fear of being stopped at gunpoint. For that matter, part of the Confederate argument was that northern states were exercising their rights in ways the slaveholders didn't like.

The idea of human beings as property is disgusting, but nonetheless slaves were considered property. If I take a television set across state lines to Arkansas -- Arkansas shouldn't be able to seize my private property. That was the essence of the debate. Now, of course, drug laws didn't exist back then. You could probably make an argument in contemporary times that Oklahoma can seize property if that 'property' is marijuana brought across state lines by someone living in Colorado.

[TAFBSooner]

I guess I get a little hot under the collar when I'm accused of being a white supremacist. It's the insulting language that is accompanied by this argument that makes me hot under the collar. The absolutely unfounded accusation that my forefathers committed treason, they were racist, I'm a racist, we're all white supremacists, etc. etc. is the reason I take it personally.

In all seriousness, I take your word for it that you're not a bigot or white supremacist. (We're all racists. Goes with the genome.) However, your forefathers, if they were confederate elites, were white supremacists and slaveholders.

Calling the confederate elites "traitors" depends on there being no right of secession in 1860. Your position certainly has some merit. Today, folks say that the right of secession was settled in 1865. However, that is a de facto settlement of the issue. Has it ever been settled de jure?

[FaninAma]

In these very soonerfans.com forums, I have for years argued that the Confederate Flag was a flag of a country the United States defeated. And, so, I considered it the same as a Nazi flag or the Soviet Hammer and Sickle.

But, now that it is being banned, I'm going to buy one, two, or a few.

We also defeated Mexico, yet the Mexican flag is proudly waved here in America today. It reminds people of how much they love the f*cked up country they abandoned; the country that refuses to give them as many freebies as America does.

If people in the South want to fly the Confederate Flag to remind themselves of their f*cked up past as well, I don't see a problem with it. Plus, if I can buy a few, I can sell them at a jacked up rate. They are quite popular in several pockets of Texas. I'm sure it's the same in the Little Dixie part of Oklahoma.

I imagine this will be like the AR-15 deal. For a few months, price will be jacked way up. But, by this time next year, prices will be normal again...

...and, both the Mexican and Confederate flags will both still be flying in various parts of America, the country that conquered them both.

We also defeated Great Britain and heaven knows the atrocities committed under the Union Jack during the British Colonialist expansion from 1500 to the turn of the 20th century yet nobody is demanding that flag not be sold in this country and , in fact, Hawaii has incorporated it into their state flag. I'm not advocating that the British flag be taken out of stores....just pointing out the inconsistency of the ban the Confederate flag hysteria mongers.

[TAFBSooner]

(blacks notwitstanding for some time, obviously)

Ironically, that brings to mind the question, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

[Tear Down This Wall]

We also defeated Great Britain and heaven knows the atrocities committed under the Union Jack during the British Colonialist expansion from 1500 to the turn of the 20th century yet nobody is demanding that flag not be sold in this country and , in fact, Hawaii has incorporated it into their state flag. I'm not advocating that the British flag be taken out of stores....just pointing out the inconsistency of the ban the Confederate flag hysteria mongers.

Agree 100%. Plenty of British flag still flying here. Even though we didn't have to conquer them with our military, the faggy Canadians that live here still fly their gay flag.

[Tear Down This Wall]

We didn't conquer the Soviet Union. It failed because it had a Loser of an economic "system." We did out-compete them economically and in the "hearts-and-minds" arena.

Mexico is fracked up because of our drug war and NAFTA.

And, good luck with your business opportunity.

We did conquer the Soviets. They chose a way to govern and run their economy and tried to spread it all over the world by force. We met them at almost every turn, forcing them to burn up their economy.

Ironically, a quarter century later, we are turning more and more to the socialist model we destroyed.

Sad.

[Serenity Now]

Trying to defend the south or the current use of that flag doesn't serve you well. Your way of saying the north was an invading army seems like a stretch. Given that slavery was referenced in such a way by those states seccession documents, to say that war wasn't about slavery but about "states rights" is merely semantics that make people making said statements look like they're trying to make their ancestors appear as if they weren't racists trying to hold on to slaves. Hell, my Creek ancestors were from Louisiana and I think were slave holders. It doesn't mean that I'm a racist slavery supporter.

Atrocities have taken place under the view of all flags. The issue is that psychos and haters have co-opted that flag as a symbol.

[SicEmBaylor]

Trying to defend the south or the current use of that flag doesn't serve you well. Your way of saying the north was an invading army seems like a stretch. Given that slavery was referenced in such a way by those states seccession documents, to say that war wasn't about slavery but about "states rights" is merely semantics that make people making said statements look like they're trying to make their ancestors appear as if they weren't racists trying to hold on to slaves.
Lord. I hate to get snippy, but these are not difficult concepts to understand here. It isn't a stretch to say that the Union invaded the south since, well, that's precisely what they did.

This isn't semantics at all. I think I explained that fairly well in what I wrote above. It's incredibly important both in justifying the actions of the south, and it's important in contemporary political discourse. To disregard these arguments as mere 'semantics' disregards the very real and important Constitutional arguments at play here that effect absolutely everything in modern political life.

Slavery was a states' rights issue. That isn't semantics -- that's legal and Constitutional fact. Unless you can find an enumerated power authorizing the Federal government to regulate intrastate slavery then slavery was a states' rights issue. There's really no argument there. In any case, it's irrelevant because the Union did not invade the south and wage war to end slavery -- they waged war to preserve the existing Union on behalf of Union industrialists and banks. There is not a 1:1 causation/reaction between the south/union on the issue of the war. The south left the Union with no intention of invading or otherwise making war with the Union so long as the Union peacefully removed its troops from southern territory and left the south in peace. The Union invasion of the south was precisely that -- an illegal armed invasion of a sovereign nation.[/QUOTE]

[SicEmBaylor]

Ironically, a quarter century later, we are turning more and more to the socialist model we destroyed.

Sad.

Do you know what's even more ironic? Do you want to take a little bit of a gander at how and why the government has been able to increasingly centralize like Soviet Union with purview over almost all facets of American life? Wouldn't it be nice if there was a strong Constitutional check on Federal power? Want to take a guess or two as to why there isn't?

[Serenity Now]

Lord. I hate to get snippy, but these are not difficult concepts to understand here. It isn't a stretch to say that the Union invaded the south since, well, that's precisely what they did.

This isn't semantics at all. I think I explained that fairly well in what I wrote above. It's incredibly important both in justifying the actions of the south, and it's important in contemporary political discourse. To disregard these arguments as mere 'semantics' disregards the very real and important Constitutional arguments at play here that effect absolutely everything in modern political life.

Slavery was a states' rights issue. That isn't semantics -- that's legal and Constitutional fact. Unless you can find an enumerated power authorizing the Federal government to regulate intrastate slavery then slavery was a states' rights issue. There's really no argument there. In any case, it's irrelevant because the Union did not invade the south and wage war to end slavery -- they waged war to preserve the existing Union on behalf of Union industrialists and banks. There is not a 1:1 causation/reaction between the south/union on the issue of the war. The south left the Union with no intention of invading or otherwise making war with the Union so long as the Union peacefully removed its troops from southern territory and left the south in peace. The Union invasion of the south was precisely that -- an illegal armed invasion of a sovereign nation.[/QUOTE]

If Union troops were at Fort Sumpter...South Carolina secceeded...then fired on the fort to remove union troops from Fort Sumpter...then Union troops didn't "invade". They invaded after that but so did the south. Gettysburg was fought in Pennsylvania.

The Union fought to maintain the Union. The South quit the union over slavery. To say that the war was about "states rights" and not slavery IS semantics.

[TAFBSooner]

We did conquer the Soviets. They chose a way to govern and run their economy and tried to spread it all over the world by force. We met them at almost every turn, forcing them to burn up their economy.

Ironically, a quarter century later, we are turning more and more to the socialist model we destroyed.

Sad.

I'll concede some fraction of your point. We do seem to be "following their model" in trying to spread our concept of government and economy all over the world, and it isn't working out too well.

But our model is nothing like Soviet communism. Our means of production are in private hands, will remain so for long past our lifetimes, and that's as it should be.

[TAFBSooner]

they waged war to preserve the existing Union on behalf of Union industrialists and banks.

That is an interesting extension of your argument. Cite references to support that Lincoln acted on behalf of industrialists and banks, rather than on the natural instinct of all regimes to first ensure regime survival. Please.

[badger]

Is the Confederate flag racist, or about heritage? The answer seems to be that it means different things to different people.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Do you know what's even more ironic? Do you want to take a little bit of a gander at how and why the government has been able to increasingly centralize like Soviet Union with purview over almost all facets of American life? Wouldn't it be nice if there was a strong Constitutional check on Federal power? Want to take a guess or two as to why there isn't?

That was the point of the 10th Amendment. However, nobody has a crystal ball to see into the future.

So, the Founding Fathers could not have known that 200 years after they fought for independence that we'd be opening the door to immigrants. They could not have known that slaves would be freed. Both groups vote for politicians who hew to federal government over state. And, both are growing.

They certainly could not have known their Electoral College, meant to protect small states, would one day be the very thing that lessened their influence - and, thus, deadened the impact of the 10th Amendment. Although, in judicial reality, the 10th Amendment has never had much clout.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Is the Confederate flag racist, or about heritage? The answer seems to be that it means different things to different people.

I was born in 1969. So, to me, the Confederate flag means The Dukes of Hazzard and not much else.

[TAFBSooner]

Do you know what's even more ironic? Do you want to take a little bit of a gander at how and why the government has been able to increasingly centralize like Soviet Union with purview over almost all facets of American life? Wouldn't it be nice if there was a strong Constitutional check on Federal power? Want to take a guess or two as to why there isn't?

SicEm, I agree with this point - that the Civil War lead to centralization, which is one factor enabling a more authoritarian government.

However, the confederate elite weren't concerned about OSHA, the EPA, and expanding health care, or even the concept of states' rights. They fought the war to preserve the value of what they at the time considered their property, i.e., their slaves, and the income that accrued from those slaves' forced labor.

[Tear Down This Wall]

I'll concede some fraction of your point. We do seem to be "following their model" in trying to spread our concept of government and economy all over the world, and it isn't working out too well.

But our model is nothing like Soviet communism. Our means of production are in private hands, will remain so for long past our lifetimes, and that's as it should be.

I don't mean by exporting Democracy, I mean by our own federal government becoming more powerful.

Although, my guess is there are many South Koreans that are happy we exported our Democracy to them. It does well there, but not in countries rules by the crazy inbreeds that comprise the islamic faith.

[TAFBSooner]

Lord. I hate to get snippy, but these are not difficult concepts to understand here. It isn't a stretch to say that the Union invaded the south since, well, that's precisely what they did.

This isn't semantics at all. I think I explained that fairly well in what I wrote above. It's incredibly important both in justifying the actions of the south, and it's important in contemporary political discourse. To disregard these arguments as mere 'semantics' disregards the very real and important Constitutional arguments at play here that effect absolutely everything in modern political life.

Slavery was a states' rights issue. That isn't semantics -- that's legal and Constitutional fact. Unless you can find an enumerated power authorizing the Federal government to regulate intrastate slavery then slavery was a states' rights issue. There's really no argument there. In any case, it's irrelevant because the Union did not invade the south and wage war to end slavery -- they waged war to preserve the existing Union on behalf of Union industrialists and banks. There is not a 1:1 causation/reaction between the south/union on the issue of the war. The south left the Union with no intention of invading or otherwise making war with the Union so long as the Union peacefully removed its troops from southern territory and left the south in peace. The Union invasion of the south was precisely that -- an illegal armed invasion of a sovereign nation.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter what Lincoln wanted before Fort Sumter, because he didn't have the support to invade the Confederacy to bring them back into the Union. As you have pointed out, most Northern whites weren't all that willing to go to war over slavery. And some states still in the Union were slave states.

After the Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter, northerners responded as do all people when they've been attacked. He started to get volunteers, and the northern states started sending military units to the Union army.

You state that "of course" the Rebs had to take Fort Sumter, since it was sovereign territory, yada yada. However, that is not the only course of action. Cuba has tolerated US troops on its soil since around 1903. (I think the US having a Constitution-free zone for the government to play in has been worse for the soul of our country than having a foreign presence has been for Cuba.) In a similar manner, Spain has tolerated Gibraltar for more years than I'm going to look up. So, there were other options open to the young Confederate government.

IMHO, given the hot-blooded Southern culture, it was impossible to allow such an insult (Fort Sumter) to stand without response. So, the failure of the Confederacy lay in its very nature.

[Serenity Now]

All this and no one has typed "The war of northern aggression".

[Serenity Now]

Maybe a compromise is that it was about "state's rights to allow slavery".

[FaninAma]

Trying to defend the south or the current use of that flag doesn't serve you well. Your way of saying the north was an invading army seems like a stretch. Given that slavery was referenced in such a way by those states seccession documents, to say that war wasn't about slavery but about "states rights" is merely semantics that make people making said statements look like they're trying to make their ancestors appear as if they weren't racists trying to hold on to slaves. Hell, my Creek ancestors were from Louisiana and I think were slave holders. It doesn't mean that I'm a racist slavery supporter.

Atrocities have taken place under the view of all flags. The issue is that psychos and haters have co-opted that flag as a symbol.

You are making Sic em's point. The South seceded because of slavery(and other state rights issues). The North waged war to keep the South from seceding. Seceding does not equate to waging war. So who exactly started the war?

[Serenity Now]

You are making Sic em's point. The South seceded because of slavery(and other state rights issues). The North waged war to keep the South from seceding. Seceding does not equate to waging war. So who exactly started the war?

I don't know, the ones who seceded and the ones who fired the first shots?

[olevetonahill]

If Union troops were at Fort Sumpter...South Carolina secceeded...then fired on the fort to remove union troops from Fort Sumpter...then Union troops didn't "invade". They invaded after that but so did the south. Gettysburg was fought in Pennsylvania.

The Union fought to maintain the Union. The South quit the union over slavery. To say that the war was about "states rights" and not slavery IS semantics.[/QUOTE]

You aint the shiniest penny in the roll are ya!

[FaninAma]

I don't know, the ones who seceded and the ones who fired the first shots?

So you think the South would have invaded the North if they had been allowed to secede? I agree firing on Ft. Sumter was a mistake although I am quite sure the North would have eventually initiated military action against the South when the Southern states stopped paying tarrifs to the federal government.

[badger]

I was born in Wisconsin so the only place I ever saw Confederate flags were in history books...up till I moved down here. Even then, it's limited to occasional license places, car stickers or a t-shirt here and there. Very seldom.

I don't know what the solution to this argument is, but there is (admittedly, in a different country) precedent for removing a flag of the past --- Germany's ban of the swastika.

[Serenity Now]

So you think the South would have invaded the North if they had been allowed to secede? I agree firing on Ft. Sumter was a mistake although I am quite sure the North would have eventually initiated military action against the South when the Southern states stopped paying tarrifs to the federal government.

We'll never know.

[SicEmBaylor]

Germany's ban of the swastika.

These two situations are absolutely 100% different. There is no comparison. It's apples:oranges.

[TAFBSooner]

I don't know, the ones who seceded and the ones who fired the first shots?

Winners write the history books. Seceding could have, probably would have, succeeded if there hadn't been a war. The only reason there was a full-blown war is that the South fired the first shots.

The question of "who started the war" is at least arguable. Did the Constitution of 1787 allow for states to secede? If so, secession wasn't a legitimate casus belli.

However, the reason that the South seceded in the first place was to preserve slavery's existence. They didn't do it in order to prevent Federal regulation of, say, carbon emissions a century and a half later.

[SicEmBaylor]

It doesn't matter what Lincoln wanted before Fort Sumter, because he didn't have the support to invade the Confederacy to bring them back into the Union. As you have pointed out, most Northern whites weren't all that willing to go to war over slavery. And some states still in the Union were slave states.[/quote]

Yes, clearly this fact would have stopped the man who tried to arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, suspended the writ of habeas corpus without Congressional authorization, imprisoned thousands of journalists who criticized his administration, and arrested the duly elected legislators of border states.


After the Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter, northerners responded as do all people when they've been attacked. He started to get volunteers, and the northern states started sending military units to the Union army.

If the Russians had a garrison of troops off of Manhattan Island that Putin refused to remove from sovereign United States territory that he was continually re-enforcing and re-supplying, do you suppose we would see that as an aggressive action? It's even more aggressive than having nukes sitting in Cuba 90 miles off the coast.


You state that "of course" the Rebs had to take Fort Sumter, since it was sovereign territory, yada yada. However, that is not the only course of action. Cuba has tolerated US troops on its soil since around 1903.
You're factually incorrect. The United States government leased that land from the Cuban government prior to the Cuban Revolution, and we have continued to lease that land from the Cuban government after the Revolution. We have always had an agreement with Cuba to lease that land from them. Was the United States government leasing that land from South Carolina? I don't think so.


In a similar manner, Spain has tolerated Gibraltar for more years than I'm going to look up. So, there were other options open to the young Confederate government.

Gibraltar is a different situation entirely. They *did* go to war over Gibraltar. It was captured by the Dutch and then ceded to Britain. Nonetheless, the Spanish government has come very close to going to war over Gibraltar several times. But Ft. Sumter was not captured by some 3rd party and ceded to the United States.


IMHO, given the hot-blooded Southern culture, it was impossible to allow such an insult (Fort Sumter) to stand without response. So, the failure of the Confederacy lay in its very nature.

There is a moderate amount of truth to that statement. I think secession itself was hot-tempered reactionism. They should have kept their powder dry and waited to see how things shook out with the Lincoln Administration before seceding immediately after the election results came in.

[SicEmBaylor]

Winners write the history books. Seceding could have, probably would have, succeeded if there hadn't been a war. The only reason there was a full-blown war is that the South fired the first shots.

I absolutely do not believe this. The Union was itching for a fight and provoked one at Ft. Sumter. If you go up to a guy in his home, get in his face, and refuse to leave....whose fault is it when you get punched?


The question of "who started the war" is at least arguable. Did the Constitution of 1787 allow for states to secede? If so, secession wasn't a legitimate casus belli.
The Constitution allowed for secession and the states, as sovereign political units, have ultimate authority over the citizenry of those states (especially pre-14th amendment America). The Founding Generation made it quite clear that a people have a right to dissolve existing political ties and establish new ones and new governments of their own choosing. Even if the Constitution forbid secession (which it doesn't), the states have an ethical and moral right to act in the interest of their citizens.


However, the reason that the South seceded in the first place was to preserve slavery's existence. They didn't do it in order to prevent Federal regulation of, say, carbon emissions a century and a half later.

This doesn't make secession any less legitimate. It may make the *justification* for secession morally suspect, but that doesn't mean secession in and of itself is any less legitimate based on the reasons for the action.

[TAFBSooner]

So you think the South would have invaded the North if they had been allowed to secede?

(I know you were talking to Serenity)
No.


I agree firing on Ft. Sumter was a mistake although I am quite sure the North would have eventually initiated military action against the South when the Southern states stopped paying tarrifs to the federal government.

From what I've read, Lincoln didn't have the support from the Northern state people and governors to be able to prosecute a war, until the Fort Sumter attack.

Still waiting for SicEm to support his claim about the Northern 1%ers.

[TAFBSooner]

I absolutely do not believe this. The Union was itching for a fight and provoked one at Ft. Sumter. If you go up to a guy in his home, get in his face, and refuse to leave....whose fault is it when you get punched?

Not a valid comparison - Fort Sumter was federal property before secession.


The Constitution allowed for secession and the states, as sovereign political units, have ultimate authority over the citizenry of those states (especially pre-14th amendment America). The Founding Generation made it quite clear that a people have a right to dissolve existing political ties and establish new ones and new governments of their own choosing. Even if the Constitution forbid secession (which it doesn't), the states have an ethical and moral right to act in the interest of their citizens.

The Articles of Confederation called for perpetual union (http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/articles.html), and the 1787 Constitution didn't explicitly cover the issue. So saying that "The Constitution allowed for secession " is unsupported.


This doesn't make secession any less legitimate. It may make the *justification* for secession morally suspect, but that doesn't mean secession in and of itself is any less legitimate based on the reasons for the action.

My argument all along is not that secession was illegitimate, but that it was based on the economic interests of the South in maintaining their so-called "property" interests in their fellow human beings that they purported to "own." And NOT in the process question of states' rights.

I'm not even arguing that the North was legally justified in prosecuting the war. I do believe that the end result - the abolition of slavery - was a moral good of a much higher order than the negative consequences of the war, such as centralization of government and the "tyranny"/authoritarianism that are some of its legacies.

[Serenity Now]

If the Russians were in a land that was there's, then we annexed said land, then we fired on them when they refused to leave, then, yes, that would be similar to Ft. Sumpter.

I think the obstructionists of today are more reasonable than they were in 1860. At least they waited until Obama was sworn in to throw their lolipop in the dirt. They did it old school in 1860 months before he was even sworn in.

I expect debating a guy over the details of the 150 year old war of northern/southern aggression with a guy who I seem to remember has been a member of the sons of the confederacy is a waste of binary code.

Sic'em. I appreciate your views and agree to disagree.

[SicEmBaylor]

Not a valid comparison - Fort Sumter was federal property before secession.

Were the 13 colonies still British property after they declared independence?




The Articles of Confederation called for perpetual union (http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/articles.html), and the 1787 Constitution didn't explicitly cover the issue. So saying that "The Constitution allowed for secession " is unsupported.

You have a deep fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. The AOC were rendered null and void the moment the US Constitution went into effect. What the AOC called for or didn't call for is absolutely immaterial.

What you fail to understand about the United States Constitution is that the individual states, retaining all legal rights and sovereignty, created the Federal government via their chosen delegates assembled in convention. They ceded *only* that sovereignty and power found within the enumerated powers of the Constitution. The role of the United States Constitution is not to list the powers of the individual states. All powers and rights not specifically delegated to the Federal government are inherent powers and rights of the states, and all liberties not specifically addressed are reserved to the individual. State power was not enumerated because *everything* was a state power.

In order for secession to not be legal, the states would have had to specifically ban secession in the Constitution. Its absence makes it a reserved power.


My argument all along is not that secession was illegitimate, but that it was based on the economic interests of the South in maintaining their so-called "property" interests in their fellow human beings that they purported to "own." And NOT in the process question of states' rights.

It was absolutely both and it was an economic issue for the north as well. Their policies exacerbated the problem of slavery.


I'm not even arguing that the North was legally justified in prosecuting the war. I do believe that the end result - the abolition of slavery - was a moral good of a much higher order than the negative consequences of the war, such as centralization of government and the "tyranny"/authoritarianism that are some of its legacies.

Slavery would have died out peacefully in the south as it did everywhere else. Instead, they destroyed the underlying intent and letter of the United States Constitution and killed 600,000 people in order to ensure northern industrialists and bankers continued to line their pockets. That's the fact of the matter.

[SicEmBaylor]

I wish I had time to make a bubble chart to illustrate this.

If the states had been bound by the Articles of Confederation, then the states would never have had the sovereign legal authority to call the Constitutional Convention in the first place. Keep in mind, the Congress/Government under the AOC did not authorize and were not involved in the Constitutional Convention. In fact, the Philadelphia Convention's proceedings were done almost entirely in secret. There was actually a decent amount of subterfuge that went on between the Convention trying to keep itself secret and the Congress trying to find any little morsel of information they could.

The point is this -- the states knew and understood that ultimate sovereignty rested with themselves. They understood it was within their right to abolish the existing government and form a new one. Something they could not do unless you accept the legitimacy of secession.

[TAFBSooner]

If the Russians were in a land that was there's, then we annexed said land, then we fired on them when they refused to leave, then, yes, that would be similar to Ft. Sumpter.

I think the obstructionists of today are more reasonable than they were in 1860. At least they waited until Obama was sworn in to throw their lolipop in the dirt. They did it old school in 1860 months before he was even sworn in.

I expect debating a guy over the details of the 150 year old war of northern/southern aggression with a guy who I seem to remember has been a member of the sons of the confederacy is a waste of binary code.

Sic'em. I appreciate your views and agree to disagree.

The Civil War is the central fact of American history. Even in your post you point out echoes of it in today's politics. So I don't think it's a total waste.

One thing I've been doing by debating the Civil War with SicEm (and that has been going on for a while) is to try to tease out how much of his beliefs come from sons of the confederacy meetings and how much from research. It seems to be more of the former.

[SicEmBaylor]

The Civil War is the central fact of American history. Even in your post you point out echoes of it in today's politics. So I don't think it's a total waste.

One thing I've been doing by debating the Civil War with SicEm (and that has been going on for a while) is to try to tease out how much of his beliefs come from sons of the confederacy meetings and how much from research. It seems to be more of the former.

If you had ever been to an SCV meeting then you would know it's most certainly not the former. That's downright laughable.

I've been studying constitutional and political theory since I was, literally, 8. I didn't read bull**** comics when I was a kid. This is what I was reading. Everything ever written I could find on the Constitutional convention, the Continental Congresses, political philosophy, Revolutionary war history, the political and economic meanderings of the first half of the 19th century, the War Between the States, etc. etc. etc.

You would be absolutely shocked about what goes on at SCV meetings. Shocked.

[olevetonahill]

Brace yerself Sicem they coming fer ya


After the flag: Confederate symbols come under fire

http://news.yahoo.com/confederate-flag-symbols-under-fire-183208677.html

[SicEmBaylor]

I've had these arguments more times than I can count with my Baylor professors. We had a fantastic history department, and I would have these same arguments with them time and time again. Great people. What those arguments eventually boiled down to was basically what this debate has boiled down to: Yes, the states may have had a right to secede...yes the initial war aim of the north was preservation of the Union...however, the ends justify the means. Slavery was ended and perpetual union was solidified.

I was never satisfied with that.

[FaninAma]

Brace yerself Sicem they coming fer ya



http://news.yahoo.com/confederate-flag-symbols-under-fire-183208677.html

This country is going ****ing insane.

[TAFBSooner]

Were the 13 colonies still British property after they declared independence?





You have a deep fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. The AOC were rendered null and void the moment the US Constitution went into effect. What the AOC called for or didn't call for is absolutely immaterial.

What you fail to understand about the United States Constitution is that the individual states, retaining all legal rights and sovereignty, created the Federal government via their chosen delegates assembled in convention. They ceded *only* that sovereignty and power found within the enumerated powers of the Constitution. The role of the United States Constitution is not to list the powers of the individual states. All powers and rights not specifically delegated to the Federal government are inherent powers and rights of the states, and all liberties not specifically addressed are reserved to the individual. State power was not enumerated because *everything* was a state power.

In order for secession to not be legal, the states would have had to specifically ban secession in the Constitution. Its absence makes it a reserved power.



It was absolutely both

No. Slavery was the reason for secession. States' rights, regardless of the validity of the argument, was just a fig leaf used to justify secession - not a reason for it.


and it was an economic issue for the north as well. Their policies exacerbated the problem of slavery.

What policies? Allowing slaves that made it to northern states to stay there and be free? Actually the South's objections to northern states' anti-slavery policies belies the South's claim to revere states' rights.


Slavery would have died out peacefully in the south as it did everywhere else. Instead, they destroyed the underlying intent and letter of the United States Constitution and killed 600,000 people in order to ensure northern industrialists and bankers continued to line their pockets. That's the fact of the matter.

Assuming you ever provide support for the "industrialists and bankers" claim, it's a shame and a sorrow that it took a countervailing economic interest to bring about the end of slavery. But it's a shame whenever we have to depend on the interests of the 1% to trickle down for the rest of us.

The assigned monetary value of human beings held in slavery in the United States was more than that of all the industries, banks, and railroads in the country. The southern elites would not have given them up peacefully - in fact they did their best to keep blacks in slavery-like conditions even after abolition, by arresting them on minor charges and renting their labor to plantation owners.

Slavery might not have lasted until today, but it would have persisted for generations if not for the South's secession and the Civil War.

[FaninAma]

I've had these arguments more times than I can count with my Baylor professors. We had a fantastic history department, and I would have these same arguments with them time and time again. Great people. What those arguments eventually boiled down to was basically what this debate has boiled down to: Yes, the states may have had a right to secede...yes the initial war aim of the north was preservation of the Union...however, the ends justify the means. Slavery was ended and perpetual union was solidified.

I was never satisfied with that.
The Perpetual Union with no option of reigning in an ever-expanding, grasping,wasteful, controlling federal bureaucracy. This is Lincoln's real legacy.

[TAFBSooner]

I've had these arguments more times than I can count with my Baylor professors. We had a fantastic history department, and I would have these same arguments with them time and time again. Great people. What those arguments eventually boiled down to was basically what this debate has boiled down to: Yes, the states may have had a right to secede...yes the initial war aim of the north was preservation of the Union...however, the ends justify the means. Slavery was ended and perpetual union was solidified.

I was never satisfied with that.

OK, you apparently are happy with the result of the shenanigans you mentioned earlier in Philly in 1787 - you just wish we all would have continued under the original system that resulted. OTOH, the fact that the beginning of the Civil War wasn't all cut and dried and aboveboard, either, leaves you unhappy.

I'm curious. What (if you remember, being age 8), first got you interested in American Revolutionary and Civil War history?

[SicEmBaylor]

OK, you apparently are happy with the result of the shenanigans you mentioned earlier in Philly in 1787 - you just wish we all would have continued under the original system that resulted. OTOH, the fact that the beginning of the Civil War wasn't all cut and dried and aboveboard, either, leaves you unhappy.

I'm curious. What (if you remember, being age 8), first got you interested in American Revolutionary and Civil War history?

It actually started with The Alamo. It's the first movie I can remember watching from beginning to the end. This would be the John Wayne Alamo, of course. So I had my parents get me a coonskin cap and toy musket. I'd spend all day in my fort outside killing Mexicans. Here I am: https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/483827_10152198716648484_2114791861_n.jpg?oh=85a98 5bf1b47c9a445b34b4e1db68fff&oe=56323A4E

I'm not sure but at some point I started wondering *why* the Mexicans were trying to kill Davy Crockett. I wish I could remember the title, but I had this book that was a little advanced for me that better explained the *why.* I struggled but worked at it, and I asked a lot of questions.

It snowballed from there. My parents, especially my dad, are very historically-inclined individuals. My dad was working on a MA in Anthropology/archaeology before he got accepted to Med School. My dad was almost entirely interested in the actual war/battle history while my mom was fascinated by antebellum architecture.

The actual war history didn't interest me all that much. Again, I wanted to know the *why.* I got into politics by 4th grade and asked my parents if I could help out at the local H.W. Bush campaign office. Eventually I really combined the politics + history. Still fascinates me.

A big reason I'm such a defender of the Confederacy (besides the heritage issue) is that all of the different individual strands of political ideology fascinates the absolute hell out of me. Peeling back, step by step, the layers of why this political group believes this and that is fun as hell. Understanding the origins of different political ideas and ideological strands is sort of like a scavenger hunt, and all of the interweaving thoughts and ideas are fun to unravel. I mean, who knew that Trotsky-style communism would be so closely linked to the dominant strand of American conservatism at present? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Is it unusual remembering being 8 years old? I guess I have a pretty amazing long-term memory because I can recall almost every detail of my 5th birthday party (and a lot of other stuff from that age). I remember several things from 2-3, and I even have two memories of me as an infant.

[SicEmBaylor]

***previous post***

[TAFBSooner]

It actually started with The Alamo. It's the first movie I can remember watching from beginning to the end. This would be the John Wayne Alamo, of course. So I had my parents get me a coonskin cap and toy musket. I'd spend all day in my fort outside killing Mexicans. Here I am: https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/483827_10152198716648484_2114791861_n.jpg?oh=85a98 5bf1b47c9a445b34b4e1db68fff&oe=56323A4E

I'm not sure but at some point I started wondering *why* the Mexicans were trying to kill Davy Crockett. I wish I could remember the title, but I had this book that was a little old for me that better explained the *why.* I struggled but worked at it, and I asked a lot of questions.

It snowballed from there. My parents, especially my dad, are very historically-inclined individuals. My dad was working on a MA in Anthropology/archaeology before he got accepted to Med School. My dad was almost entirely interested in the actual war/battle history while my mom was fascinated by antebellum architecture.

The actual war history didn't interest me all that much. Again, I wanted to know the *why.* I got into politics by 4th grade and asked my parents if I could help out at the local H.W. Bush campaign office. Eventually I really combined the politics + history. Still fascinates me.

A big reason I'm such a defender of the Confederacy (besides the heritage issue) is that all of the different individual strands of political ideology fascinates the absolute hell out of me. Peeling back, step by step, the layers of why this political group believes this and that is fun as hell. Understanding the origins of different political ideas and ideological strands is sort of like a scavenger hunt, and all of the interweaving thoughts and ideas are fun to unravel.

Thanks for this.


I mean, who knew that Trotsky-style communism would be so closely linked to the dominant strand of American conservatism at present? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

If you only could have convinced people of that in 2002! Or better yet 2000.

[SicEmBaylor]

Thanks for this.



If you only could have convinced people of that in 2002! Or better yet 2000.

I was such a Bush boy back then. I was the news editor of our school paper, and I inserted secret pro-Bush messages into news copy. Like, the first letter of each paragraph would spell out "Vote Bush." The journalism sponsor eventually thanked me for my 'journalistic integrity at remaining neutral during the election.' :D

[SicEmBaylor]

Also, not surprisingly, I didn't get laid much in HS.


....or college.




....or now.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Buncha bitch *** ***** libs.

[Serenity Now]

Buncha bitch *** ***** libs.

That flag really says a lot.

[hawaii 5-0]

Not too long ago I was at Akins cemetery, near Salisaw to see Charles Arthur 'Pretty Boy' Floyd's grave and the Confederate Battle Flag was well represented.

However, I'm still amazed at all the yahoos who still think that the Confederate Battle Flag was ever an official Flag of the Confederacy in the first place or that it was called the Stars and Bars.

Personally I think it belongs in museums and cemeteries. Confederates fought for their cause with honor. The defeated should allowed to honor their dead.

5-0

[Turd_Ferguson]

Not too long ago I was at Akins cemetery, near Salisaw to see Charles Arthur 'Pretty Boy' Floyd's grave and the Confederate Battle Flag was well represented.

However, I'm still amazed at all the yahoos who still think that the Confederate Battle Flag was ever an official Flag of the Confederacy in the first place or that it was called the Stars and Bars.

Personally I think it belongs in museums and cemeteries. Confederates fought for their cause with honor. The defeated should allowed to honor their dead.

5-0

Word.

[Serenity Now]

https://twitter.com/Bipartisanism/status/613498975555944448/photo/1

[olevetonahill]

https://twitter.com/Bipartisanism/status/613498975555944448/photo/1

http://www.whatsonoundle.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/strange.jpg

[BigTip]

However, I'm still amazed at all the yahoos who still think that the Confederate Battle Flag was ever an official Flag of the Confederacy in the first place or that it was called the Stars and Bars.




http://www.n-georgia.com/images/stars-and-bars-flag.jpg

I thought I had a solution to this problem. Yes, since the KKK used the battle flag so much it has become a symbol of hate. (They burned crosses too but the cross has not become a symbol of hate, but that's another argument!)

Anyway, why can't the Stars and Bars replace the battle flag as a symbol of heritage? Most people are so dumb they wouldn't even know it was a Confederate flag.

But that solution probably won't work now that they are going after the Confederacy itself. Now Jeff Davis statues and other Confederates are "bad".
Orwell's "1984" rewriting of history has become spot on.

sigh

[SicEmBaylor]

http://www.n-georgia.com/images/stars-and-bars-flag.jpg
Anyway, why can't the Stars and Bars replace the battle flag as a symbol of heritage? Most people are so dumb they wouldn't even know it was a Confederate flag.

The United Daughters of the Confederacy actually does use the 1st National Flag. The SCV does not because the battle flag was considered the "soldier's flag" rather than the government flag. Since the SCV is the direct successor to the United Confederate Veterans (who considered the battle flag their own), the battle flag is used by our organization. It's flying in public spaces across the south for the same reason. It was Confederate veterans their sons and grandsons who placed the flag in those spots.

There were two other national flags after the Stars and Bars. There was the "stainless banner" and the "blood stained" banner.

[BigTip]

Six Flags Over Texas always used The Stars and Bars to represent The Confederacy.

I just went to their website. Now their logo does not use any of the six flags, only six banners. I suppose that might not be political correctness since they have so many parks now that "six flags of Texas" does not mean much.

But their park map shows what use to be labeled "the Confederacy" as "The Old South" now. That is a bow to p.c.

There was an op-ed in our paper this morning. The writer mentions Section 16 of Arlington National Cemetery where hundreds of Confederate soldiers are buried. They are grouped around a monument to "their devotion to duty as they understood it." So even the victors of their day understood that the opposing side needed to be honored for their sacrifices.

[FaninAma]

After this fiasco I am joining with the Native Americans who want Old Glory taken down as a symbol of atrocities committed under it by the Union. I want the Redskins to change their name because it hurtful. I want reparations paid to all slave decendents. As an Irish decendent I want the British to pay reparations for the atrocities committed against my people.

What else can we be offended by that happended in the past or recently?

[BigTip]

After this fiasco I am joining with the Native Americans who want Old Glory taken down as a symbol of atrocities committed under it by the Union. I want the Redskins to change their name because it hurtful. I want reparations paid to all slave decendents. As an Irish decendent I want the British to pay reparations for the atrocities committed against my people.

What else can we be offended by that happended in the past or recently?

Exactly. Where does it stop?

Being of German decent, I am going to seek reparations from the Italian government for all the wrong doings the Romans did to "my people."
Hopefully we will also get them to take down and destroy some of those despised symbols of Rome like the Colosseum and such.

[FaninAma]

I guess I get a little hot under the collar when I'm accused of being a white supremacist. It's the insulting language that is accompanied by this argument that makes me hot under the collar. The absolutely unfounded accusation that my forefathers committed treason, they were racist, I'm a racist, we're all white supremacists, etc. etc. is the reason I take it personally.
You need to consider the source. I start to get worried if I'm not called a racist or bigot by a liberal when discussing contentious social issues. That's how they roll. They call conservatives and the GOP the party of angry old white men but if you're paying attention you will quickly see it is always the libs that are quick to insult and impugn the motives of those they disagree with. It will be extremely informative to watch what the libs do with the new SCOTUS rulings safely secured in their attack quiver.

[FaninAma]

Exactly. Where does it stop?

Being of German decent, I am going to seek reparations from the Italian government for all the wrong doings the Romans did to "my people."
Hopefully we will also get them to take down and destroy some of those despised symbols of Rome like the Colosseum and such.
Not to mention the what they did to Christians......oh wait, Christians aren't one of the protected political/social classes. My bad.

[REDREX]

In the name of Diversity we all need to think and act the same

[BigTip]

In the name of Diversity we all need to think and act the same

Can I buy that bumper sticker? lol

[REDREX]

Can I buy that bumper sticker? lol---Get it printed----I will split it with you

[dwarthog]

I'll take one of those too.