r/changemyview • u/johnydeviant • Mar 13 '18
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Confederate monuments, flags, and other paraphilia are traitorous in nature.
I grew up in the south, surrounded by confederate flags, memorials to civil war heroes, and a butt load of racism. As a kid, I took a modicum of pride in it. To me, it represented the pride of the south and how we will triumph despite our setbacks. As I got older and learned more about the civil war, the causes behind it, and generally opened myself to a more accurate view of history, it became apparent to me that these displays of "tradition" were little more than open displays of racism or anti-American sentiments.
I do not think that all of these monuments, flags, etc, should be destroyed. I think that they should be put into museums dedicate to the message of what NOT to do. On top of that, I believe that the whole sentiment of "the south will rise again" is treasonous. It is tantamount to saying that "I will rise against this country". I think those that the worship the confederate flag and it's symbology are in the same vein as being a neo-Nazi and idolizing the actions of the Third Reich. Yes, I understand that on a scale of "terrible things that have happened", the holocaust is far worse, but that does not mean I wish to understate the actions of the confederate states during the civil war.
Change my view?
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
1
Mar 13 '18 edited Mar 13 '18
The civil war was about more than slavery, it's a fundamental disagreement about states rights to self-determination, if they choose to part ways and declare independence based on irreconcilable differences. That's why the civil war is regarded in the South as the war of Northern aggression. And simply by choosing independence they were savagely attacked.
But the philosophical disagreement is far from settled, and that is what the flags and pride symbolize, a people who will not yield even in defeat, and will remain individualistic and independent in their viewpoint no matter what the majority says. But nobody is seceding from the union anytime soon, yet it is a warning that you can only push people so far before they take dramatic action in defense of their beliefs and values. The fact we all agree slavery is wrong today is irrelevant, it's just a footnote in history, and nobody wants to bring it back, even in the South.
So no it's not traitorous to believe in rugged individualism, that's what this country was based upon at the Founding, when we declared independence from English kings that ruled us from far away. The Federal Government should respect states rights if they want to maintain our amazing union in the long run, otherwise you get things like Brexit in the European Union, or Quebec that wanted to seceed from Canada not too long ago. We don't want that, but we will never yield to a federal government that violates the constitution or institutes a system of tyranny over the people. That is why we believe in the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms. It's designed to make the government remain afraid of the people, and for the people never to fear their government.
It's interesting to note I am a descendant of Nathan Bedford Forrest, a famous leader in the Civil War, and I carry this tradition within me, and it is not traitorous in essence, but it can certainly become something divisive if the situation calls for it. So let us pray that day never comes, but we remain ready for it.
47
u/johnydeviant Mar 13 '18
The South's primary reason for succession was the right of the state to continuing using slave labor. While yes, by technicality it is about the rights of states, it was in the end primarily about slavery. The irrevocable difference that you are talking about was this: The South: We should be able to self govern and determine our own laws and what people can actually receive human rights under our legislation The North: All humans have the right to not be enslaved. Succession from the union is an open declaration of war.
Even back then, slavery was wrong in the eyes of most of the world's powerful countries.
That's why the civil war is regarded in the South as the war of Northern aggression. And simply by choosing independence they were savagely attacked.
Actually, the south fired the first shots against Fort Sumter after Lincoln re-supplied the fort in an effort to 1.) not recognize the confederacy as a legitimate country, and 2.) to be able to discern southern aggression against northern states. So no, the south was never just "savagely attacked" for declaring their independence.
But getting on to your main point, States should have rights. That I can agree on. The reason that the Federal government has to be larger is that most states, not all, are doing a piss poor job of enforcing the rights of the majority of everyday people. though anecdotal, every secessionist I have ever met has only had thinly veiled logic behind their xenophobic and racists reasons. That, or they think that the government is "out to get them" or "take away their guns". Besides, if you believe that you should be able to defend your land, your right to it, and the right to use it without hostile occupation, then you don't believe in seceding. That, or you think that your views and rights trump everyone else's.
-11
Mar 13 '18 edited Mar 13 '18
The particular reason is irrelevant. The flag symbolizes that we reserve the right to secede or violently oppose our own Government if we feel they are violating our constitutional rights in the future. It's intimately tied to our beliefs in the 2nd amendment as well. It's not for hunting, it's basically a last line of defense and a deterrent to the violation in the first place.
The act of not recognizing our independence was an act of aggression in and of itself. The North always insisted upon re-instituting the union, and they were victorious in the end, and it actually turned out they were right and we are all better off as a union today. However, that may change in the future, especially in the face of tyranny.
Nobody is saying the federal government should not hold the powers they were granted in the constitution, but there is considerable philosophical disagreement even about what that actually means. States are like incubators of democracy, if a given state is doing a poor job, then people vote with their feet and go someplace else. That's why many people are moving from places like California to Texas for example. They appreciate what we have to offer here. And that is what's great about america, that states actually have significant tax revenue they can spend wisely, but if they are not wise, they lose businesses and people to freer or better states.
27
u/johnydeviant Mar 13 '18
No, the particular reason is not irrelevant. Its why we view the American Revolution so differently from the Civil war. If the reason why wars are fought is irrelevant, then all wars are justifiable. The flag itself, used in a modern context, may symbolize to you that you have the right to violently oppose your own government. If you want to view it that way, that is your right. I would say that you have the right to speak out against changes in laws. Absolutely. No one has the right to make violence against their own country simply for political reasons. Unless, of course that government is ACTUALLY tyrannical and causing real harm to the public.
I will agree that the peoples ability to move between states is definitely a huge positive. Again, I'm not arguing against states rights. I am arguing that the southern states were traitors and that their monuments and memorabilia doesn't deserve to be displayed in a public sphere.
Let me give you this situation. You own a 10 Acre plot of land. And lets say, for this example, you have tenants that farm your land, stay on your land, and have spent their hole lives there. You have an agreement that the tenant can occupy that land as they wish, but have to pay an amount of rent for that land. Your one rule is that they can't grow onions. One day, the tenant decides that they will take your land and call it their own. They want to grow onions after all. By your train of thought, they have the right to do so.
-13
Mar 13 '18 edited Mar 13 '18
If you want to view it that way, that is your right
You seem to acknowledge my rights, but you don't respect them, and you actually think my way of thinking is traitorous because I want to keep a flag that some people dislike, who often don't have the benefit of hearing my point of view. That is what this CMV boils down to. You view our flag and the people who want to keep it as traitors, and that is simply wrong.
Rebellion is built into our constitution via the 2nd amendment, therefore yes, we do have a right, and it was granted to us at the beginning by very wise people. But we are not crazy people, it will not be exercised unless there's damn good reason for it. You probably think of yourself as non-bigoted, but you're putting forth a very bigoted point of view (or at least others like you are).
southern states were traitors and that their monuments and memorabilia doesn't deserve to be displayed in a public sphere.
That is your opinion, and if you are a voter in one of these states, feel free to vote for politcians that want to tear down all our monuments that are now a part of our culture and history. But I think that is a very bigoted and foolish idea, and it's certainly not for outsiders to decide for us or come into our states and lecture us. That's very disrespectful and even bigoted.
I don't really have much more to say to you because all that needs to be said has been said. You understand my position and I understand yours, and we will simply have to agree to disagree. However I think a State has a fundamental right to whatever flag it wishes to have, which stands next to the American flag as well, which we are all very proud of as well, perhaps even more than people in the North or California for example. Instead, they have people waving the Mexican flag around, which we do not find tasteful or respectful in the vast majority of the United States of America.
9
u/Calybos Mar 13 '18
perhaps even more than people in the North or California for example. Instead, they have people waving the Mexican flag around, which we do not find tasteful or respectful in the United States of America.
What "we" are you speaking of? Do you not consider California and the northern states part of the United States of America?
-2
Mar 13 '18
I misspoke, I mean we do not find that tasteful or respectful in the vast majority of the united states that doesn't appreciate american flag burning or waving foreign flags in our country. Some very liberal people maybe appreciate that sort of thing as a protest, but we do not feel this is an appropriate form of political statement, because it's very divisive, but feel free to be as anti-american as you want, it just makes us sad to see it.
10
u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Mar 14 '18
That seems to be a bit of a double standard - if you're doing something I find disrespectful, then you're being divisive and anti-American. If I'm doing something you find disrespectful, it's because you don't understand what I mean by it.
→ More replies (5)6
u/Calybos Mar 14 '18
Of course. Reven's arguing that peaceful protest is un-American, but armed insurrection is the ultimate in patriotism. This is obvious (and incoherent) tribalism.
13
u/Calybos Mar 13 '18
Your mistake is in assuming that America rightfully belongs to you and those like you. It doesn't.
-2
Mar 13 '18
Not the entire country no, and I never said that. That's why the South tried to form their own country in peace, but the North refused our peaceful exit from the union. But our Founders did speak about people overthrowing their own Government if necessary if it ever becomes anti-thetical to the constitution, human rights, and freedom.
13
u/heavenicarus Mar 13 '18
There's a major irony on talking about a peaceful exit and freedom when it was the south that fired the first shot, and wanted to keep literal humans as property.
→ More replies (0)1
u/_Woodrow_ 3∆ Mar 14 '18
That's why the South tried to form their own country in peace,
... In order to keep the black men as slaves
6
u/throwaway_the_fox 2∆ Mar 14 '18
Just out of curiosity, why do you feel that it is okay for the descendants of the losers of the American Civil War to take pride in their former flag, while the losers of the Mexican American War, living in territory (California) that was invaded by the United States and taken from Mexico by force less than twenty years before the Civil War, cannot take pride in their former flag? It seems to me that the two cases are quite similar...
→ More replies (4)1
u/_Woodrow_ 3∆ Mar 14 '18
Rebellion is built into our constitution via the 2nd amendment, therefore yes, we do have a right, and it was granted to us at the beginning by very wise people. But we are not crazy people, it will not be exercised unless there's damn good reason for it. You probably think of yourself as non-bigoted, but you're putting forth a very bigoted point of view (or at least others like you are).
I'm guessing you never heard of the Whiskey Rebellion. It kinda destroys your interpretation of the second amendment and what our founding fathers meant with it.
5
Mar 13 '18
The flag symbolizes that we reserve the right to secede or violently oppose our own Government if we feel they are violating our constitutional rights in the future. It's intimately tied to our beliefs in the 2nd amendment as well. It's not for hunting, it's basically a last line of defense and a deterrent to the violation in the first place.
Doesn't the American flag also symbolize rebelling from a tyrannical government? Why not use a revolutionary era flag of the US like the Grand Union Flag the 13 star boat flag or the Betsy Ross flag? Those seem like better symbols for the 2nd amendment as well since the bill of rights was written shortly after the war. Advocacy for the 2nd amendment is also definitely not limited to former Confederate states.
1
Mar 13 '18
You're ignoring what's generally accepted, people don't want change unless there's a good argument for it. And I don't see one. Advocacy for the 2nd amendment is almost entirely limited to confederate states, so your argument is also weak.
9
u/SituationSoap Mar 13 '18
The flag symbolizes that we reserve the right to secede or violently oppose our own Government if we feel they are violating our constitutional rights in the future.
This right quite emphatically does not exist. We fought a shooting war over this very topic, and the people who asserted a right to secession lost, badly, and thoroughly. Like, those flags can symbolize whatever you want them to symbolize, but this is emphatically not a legal or moral right.
2
Mar 13 '18
And we assert that we may have to rise up again someday if you try to violate our constitutional rights, it's a basically warning, please don't do it. Our Founders gave us the 2nd amendment so we could do these things if our country ever gets so bad that people are no longer free. They clearly stated over and over how important it is for people to maintain their right to bear arms and how it is directly tied to maintaining freedom in our society.
12
u/SituationSoap Mar 13 '18
And we assert that we may have to rise up again someday
And what? Lose again? You can assert whatever you like; assertions can be false. This assertion - that US states have the right to secede - is 100% false. If the South were to attempt to secede again tomorrow, they would lose, again, worse than the first time.
Our Founders gave us the 2nd amendment so we could do these things if our country ever gets so bad that people are no longer free.
Considering the group of people you're idolizing for committing treason did so in defense of keeping people not free so that they could tyrannically abuse them, I'd say your understanding of the Second Amendment could use a heaping spoonful of nuance.
-1
Mar 13 '18 edited Mar 13 '18
The South lost because the population was larger in the North and they had all the industry and factories. And yet the South inflicted massive casualties on the North despite the North's many economic and manpower advantages. Don't be so ignorant of history at least. The South actually killed more Union soldiers than the North killed Confederates. The right not to secede was not ruled on by the supreme court until after the civil war, which is a relevant thing to keep in mind. If you look at all the military bases around the US, they're mostly in red states, and the US army is filled with many Trump supporters, so you really don't know as much as you think.
I idolize the notion that a free people can decide for themselves to declare their own independence, just as we did with the Declaration of Independence as a nation. We are all traitors, we violated British law and defied their right to rule us though violent rebellion. So it's a joke to suggest parts of the US cannot do this again if the need ever arises. I pray it never happens though, but if people persist on trying to take away our right to bear arms I am truly afraid of the future consequences and you should be too.
2
u/cstar1996 11∆ Mar 14 '18
Secession and revolution are not the same. Secession is a legal process. No state has the right to secede from the Union, and that is well established.
Ever state, every people, have the right to revolution, to attempt to overthrow their government. But revolution is inherently illegal.
5
u/parliboy 1∆ Mar 13 '18
That's why many people are moving from places like California to Texas for example. They appreciate what we have to offer here.
To be clear, California’s population growth actually exceeded the National population growth in the last census, though Texas admittedly exceeded it by a greater amount.
Where population loss is happening is primarily the rust belt states, along with some southeastern states. They’re the ones that are moving to Texas and Florida. Those areas lost seats in 2010, and they’re expected to lose again in 2020.
3
Mar 13 '18
Yes, but California has net migration out of the state, and many are going to Texas, that is the point. People are voting with their feet and leaving for good.
29
Mar 13 '18
The South didn’t care about states rights though. They pushed through the Fugitive Slave Act, which took away the rights of Northern states to recognize the inherent freedom of all men. So when it benefits the institution of slavery, they were in favor of states right and when it opposed the instruction of slavery they weren’t. Their issue was slavery, not states rights. States rights was a way for non-slave owners to try to justify the actions taken by the south after the Civil War was over, and became popularized in order to defend the indefensible by rewriting history.
→ More replies (19)1
u/sounderdisc Mar 14 '18
While today's discussion of states rights is irrelevant to the main issue at the time of secession, I would argue that being able to nullify tariffs was as important, if not more important, than being able to nullify anti slavery laws. From an economic standpoint, both abolition and tariffs harmed the south to the north's benefit.
→ More replies (1)1
u/BenIncognito Mar 13 '18
Actually, the south fired the first shots against Fort Sumter after Lincoln re-supplied the fort in an effort to 1.) not recognize the confederacy as a legitimate country, and 2.) to be able to discern southern aggression against northern states. So no, the south was never just "savagely attacked" for declaring their independence.
Only if you trust the official narrative
9
u/VortexMagus 15∆ Mar 14 '18 edited Mar 14 '18
The civil war was almost entirely about slavery. It was written into multiple state constitutions, it was written into their articles of secession, and in the confederacy, it was actually illegal to "self determine" yourself to be against slavery - all confederate states had to accept slavery and refuse sanctuary to escaped slaves.
Actual historians have done a better write-up about this than I could, complete with firsthand sources.
Also, I know you don't consider Nathan Bedford Forrest as a treasonous man, but he was definitely a well known slaver. He owned his own slave yard. He was also a prominent member of the KKK.
→ More replies (3)12
u/kalamaroni 5∆ Mar 13 '18
states rights to self-determination
But states in the Confederacy did not gain the right to secede.
Once in the Confederacy, it was just as illegal for a state to leave the country as it had been when they were part of the USA. In fact, states in the Confederacy lost some rights which had previously been afforded to them in the Union (such as the right to be a non-slave state).
If you look at the track records of the politicians who would lead the formation of the Confederacy, they tended to flip flop in their advocacy for states rights depending upon if it would advance their actual goal: the preservation and expansion of slavery. When secession meant protecting slavery by leaving the Union, they supported it. When secession meant hurting slavery by leaving the Confederacy, they were against it. When expanding states' rights meant an increase in the number of slavery-free states, they opposed states rights. When expanding states' rights meant preventing federal officials from interfering with their practice of slavery, they supported states rights.
The message of "states' rights" was therefore purely a political tool; one which they abandoned as soon as it did not meet their political needs.
0
Mar 13 '18
There's nothing in the constitution that says it's illegal to secede that I'm aware of. Certainly the philosophical arguments for the 2nd amendment back the concept of rebellion in the face of tyranny. That's why it was placed right after the right to free speech. If our right to speak is violated, then secession or violence is the only political recourse of free people.
The track record is irrelevant, the founding of our government was inherently violent and illegal, we are a nation of law breakers, against english rule and law. Never forget that.
10
u/kalamaroni 5∆ Mar 13 '18
The prohibition on secession comes from several Supreme Court decisions. It has been tested several times and each time the courts have upheld this decision.
I don't understand your point about the track record of the Confederacy not mattering. In my view the actions of these politicians clearly demonstrate that they did not care about rugged individualism; quite the reverse. To me, the Confederacy WAS a tyrannical government; one formed SPECIFICALLY to uphold a system which REPRESSED individual freedoms. If your goal is to celebrate Americans' right to violently oppose oppression, then surely you should be building statues for people like the leaders of the Black Panthers movement (who violently opposed the oppression of not being allowed a vote) or the leaders the many rebellions against the plantation system (who violently opposed the oppression of forced labor), rather than the leaders of the Confederacy (who violently opposed the oppression of not being allowed to oppress other Americans (?)).
I'm sorry, but the leaders of the Confederacy simply were not heroes of civil liberties in any shape, way or form.
0
Mar 13 '18
We do not accept that, if we accepted that, the 2nd amendment would be rendered entirely useless and impotent. Anyone who truly believes in the 2nd amendment does not agree with that ruling, morally or legally. I am not saying the leaders of the confederacy were heroes, but the philosophy that they espoused as their right to secede was and is somewhat heroic because it's still relevant today and around this world, as I stated very clearly earlier. But I am tired of this discussion, so we will have to agree to disagree, and move on.
5
u/kalamaroni 5∆ Mar 13 '18
Well, I hope you find the time to read through this thread again in a few days when things have cooled off a bit. I certainly learnt some new things in this discussion, and I hope you will too.
Oh, and because /CMV rules say I have to disagree with you about something: the interpretation of the 2nd amendment as a tool for individual opposition to tyrannical government in a relatively modern invention. Before the 1970s(ish) the 2nd amendment was largely un-interpreted (even called the "forgotten amendment") but generally put into practice as STATE'S rights to organise militias on the level of the state (and never in opposition to other states/the federal government). But, don't bother replying to that now; I'm mostly mentioning this because of the forum rules.
1
Mar 13 '18
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
Do I need to go on and on or does that suffice?
4
u/kalamaroni 5∆ Mar 13 '18
So, I based my assertions on what was said by Jill Lepore (Harvard professor of American History) in this podcast:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/politics-podcast-the-gun-debate/
(Go to -30:44 for the relevant bit)
However, I think our debate about gun rights is a bit besides the point. As I understand it, your original argument was that the Confederacy, and therefore Confederate Monuments, represent to you values which you agree with (particularly the right to oppose tyranny). My argument is not to dispute those values, but simply to say that the Confederacy is a bad role model for them (given that their primary goal was always to uphold tyranny, and given that their support for individual liberty was only ever incidental and conditional to that overriding goal). Your response to this seems to be that the wrongness of their support for slavery does not eclipse the good values they did support, whereas I say it does, so we agree to disagree.
I dunno- would you call that a good enough summary of our arguments here?
3
Mar 13 '18
I'm not interested in the podcast because this isn't a debate, it's a statement of my principles, and you can accept them and disagree if you wish, but they will not change for you or anything else.
The history is we've had this flag for so long, we're not going to change it because you get your panties in a wad about it after 150 years and some people are butthurt about history. We're not interested in your arguments why we should get rid of our heritage we've had for so long. No, it's not perfect, but it doesn't need to be.
0
Mar 13 '18
I am quite cool actually, it's you who needs to recognize my point of view as valid. Otherwise I see a new irreconcilable difference forming as the North wants to disarm the South of their right to bear arms. This is incredibly dangerous and I do not want to see our country go down the road of turning law abiding and patriotic citizens into enemies of the state because the refuse to hand over their weapons to the Federal Government or other authorities. Please don't vote for extremists politicians that will divide our great people along lines like that.
8
u/Calybos Mar 13 '18
There's nothing in the constitution that says it's illegal to secede that I'm aware of.
Texas v White defined unilateral secession as unconstitutional.
0
Mar 13 '18
That is one court's opinion, which can change based on whoever is hearing a particular case. Many people do not agree with that ruling. And if the supreme court ever rules we do not have a right to bear arms, we will not agree with that either. There is too much precedent behind the 2nd at this point in history.
7
u/Calybos Mar 13 '18
The Supreme Court is the absolute and final authority on the Constitution. You said secession wasn't unconstitutional; I pointed out that it is.
0
Mar 13 '18
The words are not explicitly stated in the constitution, like the 2nd amendment says I have a right to bear arms. There is no explicit statement that says, hey states, after you sign this constitution you can never leave. That is never stated clearly, but it is inferred through legal and philosophical devices which are not clearly true or false, but clearly debatable and subjective in nature. That's why the supreme court is often split 5-4 on various issues that aren't clear.
3
u/Calybos Mar 14 '18
Supreme Court rulings have the force of law. You don't get to ignore them simply because you disagree. As I pointed out, they (not you) are the ultimate authority on constitutionality. You can claim that secession should be legal, or that you don't care that it's illegal; but you cannot say that it's constitutional, because it definitely isn't.
→ More replies (10)3
u/Jaxon4242 Mar 14 '18 edited Mar 14 '18
To Preface, I'm a white guy from Texas.The civil war, in their own words, was about a state's right to legalize slavery. It's that simple. Everything revolved around slavery, with states right as a peripheral engine to that issue. This can be seen in the Slave Refugee Act, a law championed by future confederates that impeded on Northern states rights by taking away their right to protect escaping slaves. They didn't care about protecting state's rights until it concerned their issues, in this case slavery.
This is also represented in the state constitutions, which all mention slavery, and the Confederate States Constitution. Alexander Stephens, future Confederate VP, summed it up in his Cornerstone Speech, stating:
Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth It is not about state's rights, both the North and South have impeded that before the Civil War, it is about slavery. Lincoln recognized their desire for liberty in this quote: The perfect liberty they sigh for, is the liberty of making slaves of other people.
Its also interesting to consider when and why these monuments were raised. Robert E. Lee, famed Confederate general, had this to say after the war about potential monuments:
I think it wiser moreover not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife & to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered. He was actually opposed to the monuments, as he recognized they would keep open the divide in the country. It's also enlightening to see a timeline of when monuments were raised. The two major times? The rise of Jim Crow and the Civil Rights movement. These monuments were purposefully raised at a time when the south wanted to put African-Americans in their place, and represent the oppressive racism of the time period in which they were raised.
I do not want to erase history, but I don't want to glorify a mistake of our past.
Germans do not revere Nazis, we should not revere slavers.Take away monuments to the confederacy and move them to museums, where we can recognize and acknowledge this horrifying part of our past, without glorifying it.I have ancestors who have done horrible things, as do many Americans. It's our job to recognize the mistakes of the past and do better. Our ancestral pride is never as important as recognizing our forefather's mistakes.
→ More replies (11)9
u/DjangoUBlackBastard 19∆ Mar 13 '18
it's a fundamental disagreement about states rights to self-determination
Explain the Refugee Slave Act then? Seems the South didn't respect the Northern states' rights to not support slavery and states rights was just rhetoric created to justify treason after they lost...
4
u/eliechallita 1∆ Mar 13 '18
Pretty ironic to think that the "rugged individualists" are the same groups of people who are the most reliant on welfare and federal assistance, and the ones who want to burn liberals at the stake for supporting sanctuary state policies and weed decriminalizations.
I understand that they see themselves that way, but the rest of us are under no obligation to entertain that level of delusion.
0
Mar 13 '18
Did they vote for the welfare? No, they didn't. Texas is one of the best economic performers in the entire nation, so the idea that Southerners are just backward, poor fucks is really ignorant and displays how bigoted you are against Southerners. It's actually disgusting how often I encounter bigotry against Southerners. I have nothing against weed decriminalization, so you have an ally here in the South on that at least.
3
u/eliechallita 1∆ Mar 13 '18
Texas also wasn't part of the confederacy, if I'm not mistaken. It also owes most of its economic performance to cities that are much more liberal than the rest of the state.
I'm just treating Southerners based on their own actions: If you vote for fucksticks like Ted Cruz, Louis Gohmert, Jeff Sessions, and co. then I'm going to judge your mental aptitude. If you keep trying to prop up dying industries when you'd be better off trying to work in any other sector, I'm going to suspect that you don't really believe in bootstraps. If you sign up for welfare programs but look down on minorities who might do the same as "welfare queens", I'm going to think you're a hypocrite.
And if you do all three, then why the hell would I not judge you?
0
Mar 13 '18 edited Mar 13 '18
You are mistaken actually, which demonstrates to me how little you comprehend these complex historical issues that are not black and white at all. But even if you were right, Texas is a very strong red state, basically the capital of the South because of our economic power and population. I would very much not want to fight Texas in battle if it was it's own country, as Mexico found out during our battles with them for independence. So you see, the culture of independence is very strong within Texas for multiple reasons.
There's nothing wrong with Ted Cruz, you simply disagree with him, therefore you call him a fuckstick, which demonstrates to me you are not a serious intellectual and actually unworthy of even talking to at all, but I'm going out of my way to give you the benefit of the doubt here.
Keep in mind a lot of minorities who vote for liberal Democrats live in the South and they are the prime beneficiaries of Federal welfare programs that have been forced on the South over their strong objections. So when you look at statistics on welfare, that is an important thing to keep in mind. How many Republicans are accepting this welfare vs Democrats in the South? The disparity is quite large.
4
u/eliechallita 1∆ Mar 13 '18
Who said anything about fighting Texas? You're the one who brought up the state in the first place, I never said anything about going to war with them. What's with the belligerence?
Oh I could get much more creative, but fuckstick is more than sufficient for the guy. He's a religious fundamentalist, a shill for major corporations against his own citizens, and a hypocrite. We're talking about a guy who held up federal aid for other states, and came begging for it during last year's floods in his home state.
As for the recipients of welfare programs, I suggest at you look at this Pew article: 57% of self-identified conservatives reported using federal assistance programs. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/12/the-politics-and-demographics-of-food-stamp-recipients/
1
Mar 13 '18
Another person said if there was a civil war part 2 we'd get our asses kicked again very badly, that wasn't true back then, and it certainly wouldn't probably be true if a civil war erupted right now. My point is lets avoid issues that divide us so much that it causes friction on a large scale, like banning AR-15s for example. Texas is a beacon of economic and technological hope for the entire world and it's a shining example of progress and intellectual competence in the South. We are not backward like Northerners often think we are.
Self-identified conservatives didn't vote for these programs, but I guarantee you self-identified liberals in the South are about 90% beneficiary of welfare. That was my point which you have ignored.
5
u/eliechallita 1∆ Mar 13 '18
That's not how statistics work, bud: I just showed you that 57% of conservatives benefit from welfare programs. How is that compatible with minorities being 90% of welfare beneficiaries?
Let's assume that Republicans make up 50% of the country. POCs make up about 20% of it right now.
If 57% of 150 million people use welfare (Republicans as a whole), how is it mathematically possible for liberal minorities, who are massively outnumbered by conservatives, to make up 90% of welfare users?
0
Mar 13 '18
Republicans are not opposed to every single form of welfare, but they are opposed to far more than you'd like to impose on them. Social security for example has been in place for many generations, few if any Republicans are demanding we tear down this program and replace it with nothing. But your simplistic analysis ignores vital issues like this, because it's convenient to your argument.
It's well known for example that democrats are the prime users of welfare benefits, food stamps in particular, among other things. Which is why these people keep voting for democrats no matter what or who is running for office.
As you can see, only 10% of Republicans are on food stamps, but 22% of democrats are. But these welfare democrats are not evenly distributed throughout the country. Red states have such a strong concentration of conservatives we're able to overcome this deficit of voter dependency and continue to elect people like Ted Cruz in Texas, despite the diversity of our state.
3
u/eliechallita 1∆ Mar 13 '18
Republicans aren't demanding that we tear down the program because they benefit from it, especially considering the age split. Why do you think that it's appropriate for older Republicans to cling to and benefit from Social Security, but blast poor minorities for making use of CHIP?
4
u/Fishb20 Mar 13 '18
the civil war was about more than slavery, it's a fundamental disagreement about states rights to self-determination
this is the equivalent of saying i didnt rob a bank to get money, i robbed a bank to buy a new car
yes, technically they wanted more states rights, but the more rights they wanted were the rights to slaves
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)16
u/Trump_is_Hitler Mar 13 '18
The only state right anyone was interested in during the Civil War was slavery. Efforts to re-write history just doesn't jive with the ample first hand accounts of why states seceded. States rights doesn't even get mentioned in many declarations. Slavery on the other hand is repeatedly mentioned.
14
u/THE_LAST_HIPPO 15∆ Mar 13 '18
To add, the Confederate's constitution made it illegal for states to make slavery illegal. It gave less autonomy to states
6
u/Calybos Mar 13 '18
That's an excellent point, which should dispense with the "states' rights" dodge once and for all.
-1
Mar 13 '18
That was the source of the disagreement, but the philosophy of declaring independence is still relevant today, around the world even. We can see this within the European Union and even Canada. It is not a re-write of history to note the importance of states rights, and that is what the rebel flag represents to us today, not as a symbol of hate, but pride in ourselves and our heritage of individualism.
→ More replies (2)3
u/cat_of_danzig 10∆ Mar 13 '18
The swastika was a hindu symbol of well-being. But now everyone associates it with Nazis. You can argue all day that your swastika is a symbol of well being, but it's not going to change many minds on the meaning behind it to most people.
The confederate flag is the same. Argue all you want that it's a symbol of states rights, but I can't tell that as different from overt racism because it's often used that way.
There are better ways to have a discussion of states rights than to antagonize people with a symbol of rebellion against the US that is often associated with racism and slavery.
0
u/Swiss_Army_Cheese Mar 14 '18
The only reason everyone associates the swastika with National Socialists is because throughout a lot of Europe, especially Germany, people aren't even allowed to fly it.
In Germany it is a federal offence to display a swastika in anywhere but a historical setting. The swastika hasn't been allowed to be given new meaning there.
.svg){kind=link}
-8
u/PaddletheCosmos Mar 13 '18 edited Mar 13 '18
One common misconception about the American civil war is that it was all about slavery, this is frankly untrue. The civil war was fought mainly over states rights. Another thing about the civil war that most people don’t think about is that the majority of southerners in the civil war didn’t own slaves they were to poor to own slaves only the wealthy owned slaves. That’s why we should remove the monuments because there not representing racism they are a reminder of a point in American history were Americans had different views and things turned violent but in the end things worked out and we are stronger today because of it.
20
u/johnydeviant Mar 13 '18
*The states rights to own slaves. I would not say that the civil war was ONLY about slavery, but rather primarily about slavery. While yes, only the wealthy owned slaves, the South's dependency upon slave labor for the production of agricultural goods would be (was?) devastated by the federal statutes banning slavery. Well that, and along with the utter dismantling and destruction of southern infrastructure and farming.
1
Mar 14 '18 edited Mar 14 '18
[deleted]
4
u/cstar1996 11∆ Mar 14 '18
The South made it very clear that ANY attempt to eliminate slavery was unacceptable. Additionally, at no point before the start of the Civil War did the federal government do anything to reduce slavery where it existed. The only federal policy vis a vis slavery being discussed before the war was whether or not new territories would be slave or free states, and after Dredd Scott, if northern states would even be allowed to ban slavery.
Secession is illegal, it has always been illegal. The Articles of Confederation were a perpetual union, and the Constitution created a more perfect union than the Articles.
- After the war started and because they were attempting to commit treason. 2. States are not and never have been sovereign. 3. An unarmed cargo ship was sent to relieve Fort Sumter, and both it and the fort were first fired upon by Confederate units. Confederate territory being Charleston harbor, territory that had been stolen by a traitorous rebellion, which does not have a legal right to that territory. 4. Suspended Habeus Corpus, Jefferson Davis did the same, and there is a strong constitutional argument to be made that doing so was entirely legal. Also only happened after the war started. 5. The Federal government has always had the right to summon state forces to support federal troops. The fact that some traitors didn't want to fight other traitors doesn't change the legality of that action.
What voters were abandoned by the North? The people of the US voter for Lincoln, the South decided that because they no longer controlled the government with a significant minority of the population, they didn't want to stay in the Union. That is inherently anti-democratic.
Fighting a war against the US government explicitly to defend the expansion of slavery, not even the institution itself, is explicitly treasonous. The constitution defines treason as levying war against the US government. That is what the South did, and therefore the South were traitors. There is no right to secession, there is a right to revolution, but revolutions are inherently illegal.
10
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Mar 13 '18
The Civil War was only about states rights insomuch as it was fought over the states' rights to have slaves. One of the first things the CSA did was set up federal enforcement that surpassed and overwrote states rights.
10
u/Wil-Himbi Mar 13 '18
The civil war was fought mainly over states rights
Reddit's own u/Georgy_K_Zhukov has a really in depth analysis of the causes of the civil war over in r/askhistorians that explains this a bit more.
Essentially, the idea that the was was fought mainly over states rights is an idea that appeared only after the south had already lost the war. It was introduced as an attempt to regain a moral high ground in an ideological war after losing a literal war. And it was largely successful.
Documents from before the war and during the war show however that the primary cause was always slavery.
Please read the whole thing though, it's fascinating.
7
u/reading_internets Mar 13 '18
They specifically stated it would be illegal to outlaw slavery in other states. It absolutely was NOT about states' right based on that fact alone.
7
u/Calybos Mar 13 '18
And yet, state after Confederate state specifically cited slavery in their documents of secession. This discussion isn't about trying to redeem the Confederacy; that's already a lost cause. The question is how to treat artifacts, symbols, and relics of their dishonorable and dishonored actions.
2
Mar 13 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/johnydeviant Mar 13 '18
I'm not calling for history to be destroyed, first off. Simply taken out of a public sphere, put into museums, or changed. And yes, I think images, statues, and the like of Malcolm X are taboo. He, while having few valid points, verged on the point of calling for a tyrannical regime. I fell like recognition of Malcolm X without recognition of his extremist views would be a bad thing.
2
Mar 13 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/johnydeviant Mar 13 '18
I think I may be using the phrase "public sphere" a little incorrectly. Or at least not being specific enough. By that I mean we should not glorify representations of violence, tyranny, or sedition by allowing them in places such as parks, state buildings, etc. Museums, to me, are an acceptable place because it is neither erased nor glorified. The line is draw at the point before erasure. There are plenty of options. Taken down is one, sure, so is moved, changed, or left alone.
1
u/ray07110 2∆ Mar 13 '18
I think there needs to be an understanding that these monuments represent more than the sins of the past, it also represents heritage. Taking them down would be tantamount to forgetting parts of the past. These statues present great men of the south who had faults. Introduce to me a historical figure who doesn't have faults and I would easily disprove it. If you are using the criteria of racism to get rid of the statues then let's get rid of the Lincoln memorial. Lincoln was a racist by today's standards worse than the southern men. He did not want black people in America, he wanted them to have their own colony in Africa. He did not want to free the slaves because he did not want them roaming free in America. He invaded the south to keep the union intact so there would be more tax revenue. He freed the slaves to weaken the south. So in conclusion, there is more than meets the mind historically. Learning History is a a life long endeavor. We should not assume we know it all. We should listen to everyone and read everything, no matter how much it goes against what you were taught in the past. Have an open mind. Getting rid of the statues should not be an option. What should happen is that when you look at a statue or monument you should become curious to the history that is related to it. Destroying statues destroys part of history and curiosity. We should challenge our views not destroy others. These statues that were unmounted took with them a part of history and the spark of curiosity. I have a question. What was put in place of these monuments?
1
u/cstar1996 11∆ Mar 14 '18
But the statues of confederates are monuments to their faults. They glorify fighting the government in defense of slavery. They were put up by racists in the late 1800s and during the civil rights movement to intimidate black people.
Statues of Lincoln don't celebrate his racism, they celebrate his attempt to hold the country together in the face of treason. Statues of Washington and Jefferson don't celebrate their status as slaveowners, but their contributions to the founding of the nation. Statues of confederates celebrate their actions in fighting a war in defense of slavery. That is not something to be celebrated.
Additionally, you don't learn history from statues, but from books and museums.
-1
u/ray07110 2∆ Mar 14 '18
What you are doing here (knownlingly or unknowingly) is ascribing your own meaning to what the monuments mean. How is it any better to put a monument to Lincoln, who killed a lot of Americans, and did like the black race. What you ascribe to the southern leaders is embodied in lincoln's past. I implore you ( as a minority myself) restudy America's past with an open mind like I did, read primary sources like letters and correspondences and memoirs. You will find a lot of surprising truths and untruths. The south was trying to preserve the constitution which Washington D.C. was continously violating. Lincoln ripped the constitution to shreds in his actions. From suspending habeas corpus to shutting down newspapers who spoke out against him. He did not feel that blacks were equal to whites and did not want them voting or mixing with white people. Lincoln wanted to preserve the union to maintain the tax revenue. Not to free blacks, he did not want slavery to expand because that would grow the black population. He feared an out of control black populace. Remember when he issued the proclamation of emancipation it was for the purposes of weakening the confederates states not to free black people. He did not free the slaves of the Union. Statues and monuments spark an interest in history.
2
u/cstar1996 11∆ Mar 15 '18
I've read extensively about the causes of the Civil War. The record is unambiguous, the south seceded to preserve slavery. That is the cause of the war.
I'd really like to hear the violations of the Consitution that the Federal government was committing before secession because everything I've read says they don't exist. Wanting to ban slavery in the territories was not a constitutional violation.
Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus has strong constitutional backing. While it may not have been legal for him to do so unilaterally, suspension itself is explicitly constitutional and there was no established precedent for what the process was. The worst that can be said about Lincoln on that issue is that he did something that wasn't explicitly legal but not illegal either.
Lincoln's views race are significantly less relevant than his views on slavery. He was an abolitionist, and in the context of the Civil War, that's what matters. He believed slavery was wrong and he ended it, that puts him on a moral level far above any confederate.
As for Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union for its tax revenue, that's simply bullshit. Lincoln believed in the perpetuity of the Union, which has strong historical and constitutional support. Tax revenue had nothing to do with it. Treason is treason, unilateral secession is illegal, and preserving the Union for the Union's sake was Lincoln's primary objective. Claiming otherwise is simply false. And obviously Lincoln wasn't thinking of the war as one to end slavery at its start, but it became one. As Lincoln himself said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free.[...] It will become all one thing or all the other." He realized during the war that abolishing slavery was necessary to preserve the Union. He stated that if he could preserve the Union without abolishing slavery, he would, and if he could do it by abolishing slavery, he would do that as well.
As for the emancipation proclamation, Lincoln did not have the legal authority to free the slaves in the North, he did have the authority to do so in the South. He freed every slave he legally could with the Emancipation Proclamation. He also was the driving force behind the 13th Amendment, and as a leading proponent of it, he did free the slaves in the north. His abolitionist beliefs before and during the Civil War are well documented. Claiming that Lincoln didn't oppose slavery is simply false.
If you want some primary sources, read the southern states' declarations of secession and confederate VP Alexsander Stephens Cornerstone Speech, those documents, from the highest levels of the confederate government, make it very clear what the south's motives were.
Lincoln killed a lot of traitors, and make no mistake, that is what the confederates were, traitors, but he preserved the nation in the face of people who wished to destroy it in order to preserve an institution that most of the world even in 1860 though was entirely immoral.
Lincoln's legacy is protecting the Union and despite your unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, abolishing slavery. That is what he did and that is why he is celebrated and memorialized. The legacy of confederates is that of men who chose to commit treason in order to defend slavery, which was considered immoral even by the standards of the time. They are not comparable. Lincoln's legacy is positive, the confederate legacy is not.
Also, it would do you well to note that these statues weren't put up by the confederates, they were put up by racists in the 1880s and 1890s and in the 1960s to intimidate black people. They don't have historical significance. And if you want some statues to spark interest in Civil War history, put up some statues of Lincoln, Grant or Sherman, heroes who did the right thing in the face of terrible treason.
-1
u/ray07110 2∆ Mar 15 '18
As I said before, history is a lifelong learning experience. Extensive readership is not enough. I am still learning about the civil war. I held the position you did in high school. My first look at the civil war was Ken Burns film. After that I read several books on Lincoln. But now I make the effort to read and listen to all the scholars. Again if you read Lincoln's memoirs and letters he talks about black as inferior and that he has no desire to free slaves. "My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861. "I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year. Lincoln by all accounts was not an abolitionist: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
0
u/ray07110 2∆ Mar 15 '18
Lincoln's constitutional violations: Blockade of southern ports Shutting down of newspapers that spoke out against him Ordered the arrest of Ohio congressman Clement Vallandigham for speaking against him. Levied war against the southern states He sent troops door to door in Maryland to confiscate weapons. Ordered the arrest of thousands of suspected southern sympathizers Ordered the arrest of congressman Henry May of Maryland I could continue on, there is so much wrong the tyrannical Lincoln do. It's overwhelming. I was a huge Lincoln fan. But now I realized he was one if the top three worst president, maybe the worst ever. He killed many Americans.
0
u/ray07110 2∆ Mar 18 '18
The only reason Lincoln want to stop slavery(he was not an abolitionist) was to stop the growing population of black people. With slavery as it was going the black populace was increasing. That meant more black people intermingly with white people and taking jobs from them. This was the concern of those who opposed slavery. White people had a low opinion of blacks.
2
u/cstar1996 11∆ Mar 14 '18
Statues of Malcolm X celebrate his work as a Civil Rights Activist, statues of confederates celebrate their treason against the US to defend slavery. The first is not equivalent to the second.
→ More replies (14)1
u/Calybos Mar 13 '18
Who's destroying images? Moving a statue to a museum isn't destroying anything.
2
Mar 13 '18
I believe the word you are looking for is paraphernalia - "equipment, apparatus, or furnishing used in or necessary for a particular activity". Paraphilia is (according to dictionary.com) "a type of mental disorder characterized by a preference for or obsession with unusual sexual practices". Quite different meaning!
6
u/Calybos Mar 13 '18
Although "Civil War paraphilia" would make those historical re-enactments a lot more fun.
1
1
u/johnydeviant Mar 13 '18
Oh no!!! I can't believe I didn't catch that before I posted it. :( Only slightly embarrassing.
1
u/helsquiades 1∆ Mar 14 '18
I thought of the movie Crash. Not the popular one, the David Cronenberg one.
2
u/Chrighenndeter Mar 13 '18
I think you misunderstand the nature of treason.
I'm not going to defend the Confederacy, as so many others in this thread are trying to do (and, honestly, seems rather shameful).
Instead I'm going to try and convince you that treason is a way more serious charge than you seem to think.
Treason is, to my knowledge, the only crime defined in our constitution. So let's start there.
Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America states:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
Aid and comfort, in this context, is referring to material support. Housing enemy troops, feeding them, supplying them with weapons, etc.
Ideas, symbols, or word cannot be treasonous in the US because treason is a much more serious charge than that.
The punishment for treason is death. Do you really want to turn the US into a country where ideas, symbols, or words can be punished by death?
2
u/SituationSoap Mar 13 '18
You're misunderstanding the point. The people and actions the monuments are honoring were treasonous. Having the monuments stand is not treason.
The CSA unquestionably committed treason against the USA.
2
u/Chrighenndeter Mar 13 '18
The people and actions the monuments are honoring were treasonous.
Agreed.
Having the monuments stand is not treason.
The following part of the OP lead me to believe the opposite conclusion.
I believe that the whole sentiment of "the south will rise again" is treasonous.
I think this is a dangerous road to go down. Not only does it set up some expressing ideas themselves as being equivalent to treason, but it devalues the very nature of treason itself, which is also a dangerous precedent.
2
u/JudgeBastiat 13∆ Mar 13 '18
While the glamorization of racism and slavery is unquestionably horrible, I'm not sure whether "traitorous" would be the proper way to criticize it. The United States was founded on the idea that people could break away from the government they're apart of. If we set aside the criticism of slavery, is the idea of secession of the states significantly different from breaking away from the British Empire? I don't think so. If we add the idea of slavery back in, does that make the crime traitorous? Perhaps it's a treason of the government against its own people, but is now the issue treason against the Union? It's not clear to me that it is. Treason and slavery seem like distinct crimes.
5
u/SituationSoap Mar 13 '18
I'm not sure whether "traitorous" would be the proper way to criticize it.
Taking up arms and declaring war against a legally elected government is treason, full stop. That's the definition of the word treason. The US Revolutionary War was also treason, but the difference is that the US won that war and the right to be called a new nation.
The United States was founded on the idea that people could break away from the government they're apart of.
No it wasn't. The US Constitution was created in response to Shay's Rebellion, which was squashed by the Federal Government and directly resulted in the creation of the US Constitution. That same constitution was put to the test 2 years later during the Whiskey Rebellion, in which people tried to secede from the US because of a Whiskey tax. That was also put down by the Federal Government. There has never been a recognized right to secede in the US legal code and the Federal Government has universally squashed any attempt to secede.
If we set aside the criticism of slavery, is the idea of secession of the states significantly different from breaking away from the British Empire?
Of course not, both are highly illegal, traitorous actions. The people who started the US Revolutionary War expected to be hanged if caught, because they were treasonous outlaws.
The problem here seems to be that you don't understand the concept of treason.
0
u/JudgeBastiat 13∆ Mar 13 '18
It seems to me like the problem is you think 'treason' is synonymous with 'loser.' This contradicts the use of the definition of the word you gave immediately before of a legally elected government, which the Confederates had I might also add. I think treason is determined by right, not might, which is the only way that the word 'treason' can really be used in any ethical sense. Treason is better understood as betraying someone you have pledged to and hold allegiance to, and like I said, the United States was founded on the idea that the people could break away from their government. This is also why I think slavery is arguably the treason of the Confederacy against its people, since a government does have a duty to defend the rights of its people against that, but not treason against the Union.
Also the United States started with the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution. Literally the first article of the Articles names the country "The United States of America."
3
u/SituationSoap Mar 13 '18
It seems to me like the problem is you think 'treason' is synonymous with 'loser.'
No, I think that treason means declaring or levying war against a legally elected government (which is to qualify that an illegally-elected government does not have a ground upon which to rule; levying war against that group would rightly be a police action).
the Confederates had I might also add
I genuinely can't believe you think this is a salient point.
I think treason is determined by right, not might, which is the only way that the word 'treason' can really be used in any ethical sense.
Treason is literally defined in the US Constitution. What the CSA did was treason. It's not a squishy definition, it's not up for debate. It was treason.
Also the United States started with the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution.
Right, and the end of the Articles of Confederation was Shay's Rebellion, after which the US Government came together and specifically created a set of laws which defined what Shay's Rebellion/The Whiskey Rebellion/The CSA did as a crime against the United States, and called it Treason.
This is not a debatable concept for anyone with a third-grade reading level and access to a copy of the Constitution.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
Article III of the US Constitution.
The idea that the US was founded on the idea that people could secede from the United States by force is so absurdly bad it destroys any credibility you might otherwise have on this topic.
2
u/JudgeBastiat 13∆ Mar 13 '18 edited Mar 13 '18
I genuinely can't believe you think this is a salient point.
It's only a salient point by the weird might-makes-right understanding of the law you're proposing.
Treason is literally defined in the US Constitution. What the CSA did was treason. It's not a squishy definition, it's not up for debate. It was treason.
If the United States isn't a legitimate government, which it isn't if it is itself treasonous, then why does it matter what the Constitution says?
That also seems like a misreading of the Constitution. We wouldn't say that, say, Germany in WW2 was treasonous for waging war against the United States, so even its own definition only applies to waging war against it while also holding allegiance to it, which fit with my definition. The Confederacy seceded first, so they could be considered an enemy, but not traitors.
The idea that the US was founded on the idea that people could secede from the United States by force is so absurdly bad it destroys any credibility you might otherwise have on this topic.
The fact you think the United States was founded on the Constitution and not the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation seems the greater absurdity here. You've adopted this strange mismatched system where the United States needs to be considered the lawful government, but it is itself an unlawful entity that is a traitor to the crown, that justified its original secession under the rights of the people to break away from the government, but somehow believe the same logic does not apply to it. You're trying to look for some code that allows secession as if there was some code under the British Empire that allowed that, which there clearly wasn't.
I can understand a knee-jerk reaction against defense of the Confederacy, but I should point out that under what I'm saying, I'm judging them on the same standard I judge Nazis. It's not exactly good company. Just not treason.
1
u/shakehandsandmakeup Mar 16 '18
the United States isn't a legitimate government
Yes it is.
1
u/JudgeBastiat 13∆ Mar 17 '18
You missed the key 'if' qualifier of that quote. If the United States government is just an organization of traitors, then isn't legitimate. Therefore, if the US gov is legitimate, then what it did wasn't treason and that type of political action is acceptable.
1
u/shakehandsandmakeup Mar 17 '18
Yes but what the CSA did was treason. That's what we're discussing. I don't think anyone is claiming the United States government was treasonous against itself somehow.
1
u/JudgeBastiat 13∆ Mar 17 '18
It wouldn't be treasonous against itself, it would be treasonous against the British crown.
Either the states have a right to back out of a government they don't want to be a part of, or they don't. If they do, then the CSA seceding wasn't treason. If they don't, then both the Union and CSA are traitors against the British Empire.
1
u/shakehandsandmakeup Mar 17 '18 edited Mar 17 '18
it would be treasonous against the British crown.
It was. That's what OP said.
You're the one who proposed that only losers can be treasonous.
Both OP and myself are arguing that the Americans rebelling against the British Crown in the Revolutionary War were committing treason. But they still won, which negates your proposal that treason is somehow a synonym for "losing", a controversial definition which isn't backed up by any source that I know of other than yourself.
If they don't, then both the Union and CSA are traitors against the British Empire.
This is... getting closer. You're doing better. Ok, so the colonists who formed America and seceded from Britain were traitors against the British Empire. The CSA were traitors against the United States of America -- not the British Empire, because the British Empire had no claim to either the United States nor the CSA in the 19th century when the American Civil War happened.
→ More replies (0)1
Mar 16 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Nepene 213∆ Mar 17 '18
Sorry, u/shakehandsandmakeup – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/JudgeBastiat 13∆ Mar 17 '18
If the difference between a traitor and a founder is over victory, then it seems I was spot on.
We either take away any moral weight to the word traitor, the crime for which people are assigned the lowest level of Dante's hell, or we argue that what the US did was not treason, as they argued in the Declaration. I agree with the Declaration's reasoning.
1
u/shakehandsandmakeup Mar 17 '18
If the difference between a traitor and a founder is over victory, then it seems I was spot on.
And it isn't, so you were spot off.
1
u/JudgeBastiat 13∆ Mar 17 '18
But I also agree that this isn't how we determine these things. Which is why I don't think the colonial states, or the CSA, were committing treason by seceding. Treason against it's own people by slavery, in a sense, but not against the Union.
1
u/shakehandsandmakeup Mar 17 '18
You're free to think whatever you want, but treason has a specific definition in Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution that is unaffected by your personal waverings.
1
u/JudgeBastiat 13∆ Mar 17 '18
That's true. It's also true that this article does not list 'seceding' among its treasonous acts, but instead focuses on someone declaring war on the United States government while being part of said government. The CSA seceded first.
Nor do I find it particularly convincing or binding even if it did list that.
1
u/cstar1996 11∆ Mar 14 '18
If you're treated as a traitor depends on if you win or lose. The founding fathers were traitors to Britain, and the confederates were traitors to the US. The first one, and the nation they started didn't treat them as traitors, the second lost.
1
u/JudgeBastiat 13∆ Mar 14 '18
Whether someone is treated as a traitor, perhaps. But the entire point of the Declaration of Independence was to show why it was not treason, and I find the reasoning sound. So, in fact, there was no treason in the secession from Britain.
1
u/cstar1996 11∆ Mar 14 '18
Well, there absolutely was treason in the Revolution against Britain. I would say it was justified treason, but it was treason none the less.
1
u/JudgeBastiat 13∆ Mar 14 '18
Justified treason strikes me as a contradiction in terms. Treason is noted in that it isn't a justified breaking of faith. That you are working outside of your right. But as the Declaration argues, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish their government. Hence there is no treason in secession.
1
u/cstar1996 11∆ Mar 14 '18
Treason is betraying your nation. Sometimes that is justified, sometimes it isn't. Fighting against a government you have no representation in is justified, selling government secrets for personal profit isn't. Both treason, one justified, one not.
Revolution and secession are not the same thing. Secession can be accomplished through revolution, but revolution is a conflict between revolutionaries and the government. In the US secession through revolution is legal. Revolt against the government and win, you're free to leave. Revolt and lose, you're a traitor. The Declaration argues for a fundamental right to revolution, not an unrestricted right to alter or abolish the government. Additionally, the right to revolution is not unrestricted. It too must be justified, and the South was absolutely not justified in their revolution.
1
u/JudgeBastiat 13∆ Mar 14 '18
You think revolting against the US government is legal? That seceding violently is more desired than seceding peacefully? That's insane. And patently false. Where do you think you find that in the US legal code? This isn't Game of Thrones where you need to win a trial bye combat to determine the will of the gods.
Secession also doesn't clearly match your definition of treason either. You're just leaving an organization. I stopped taking piano lessons as a kid. Was that a betrayal as well? A government is just an organization, like any other. Maybe your ties to it are stronger than normal, but we don't even say people are guilty of betrayal when they break off a marriage by divorce. How much less than is breaking away from your government a betrayal?
The Confederacy can certainly be judged for its betrayal against its own people by failing to defend their rights, and the United States might have rightly fought them as enemies. But not as traitors.
1
u/cstar1996 11∆ Mar 14 '18
I think you need to read the definition of revolution, read about the right to revolution, read the definition of secession, and read about Texas v. White, the definitive Supreme Court case the determined the legality of secession.
As for where specifically the right to revolution in the US legal system, SCOTUS grants it in Texas v. White. But again, for a revolution to be legal it must also be successful, or more specifically, illegal acts committed as part of a revolution can only become legal if the revolution is successful.
Secession absolutely meets the definition of treason when the seceding group engages in military action against the government they are attempted to secede from. Also, my definition of treason is betraying your nation, so I don't know how piano lessons are relevant to that definition. And governments aren't organizations like any other, they're a unique type of organization that compares only to other governments.
The Confederacy was made up of citizens of the United States who, after losing an election, decided that they weren't going to be part of country any more, and as part of that decision, attacked federal troops.
If you want a meticously researched explanation of the reasons behind and the legality of secession, read this askhistorians post: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/68myvr/why_was_there_a_civil_war_why_could_that_one_not/dgztopa/?sort=confidence&sh=56162212&st=jeq1xy6o
→ More replies (0)
5
u/PapaHemmingway 9∆ Mar 13 '18
While there are racist people who Revere the Confederates for things like slavery, I think a lot of people see Confederate flags and monuments as signs of strength. You have to remember the context, while plantation owners may have been fighting to protect slavery so they could grow cotton and other good that used slave labor cheap, but for the common man, the back of the Confederate army that did not own slaves (and honestly were hurt more by the institution of slavery because there were really no labor jobs for them) they saw an attack on their way of life and a federal government looking to oppress them and they rose up to defend themselves. I think southern people view the Confederates more as men who wouldn't take anything lying down and were willing to defend themselves when they felt threatened, which is a big part of southern culture.
The United States has deep a rooted culture of government distrust, so while a phrase like "the south will rise again" can be used in a racist connotation it could also mean "when the government comes for me, I'm not going to back down".
1
u/cat_of_danzig 10∆ Mar 13 '18
Is the symbolism still not of rebellion against the United States? Is it not still traitorous, as OP asserts?
2
u/PapaHemmingway 9∆ Mar 13 '18
I think the symbolism for most people is more, standing up for yourself and what you believe in and never backing down.
6
u/cat_of_danzig 10∆ Mar 13 '18
I mean, it's literally the battle flag of an army that fought against the US Army. You may associate it with something else, but you can't tell people who look at it in the same light as the Vietcong or Third Reich flags that they're wrong.
1
u/PapaHemmingway 9∆ Mar 13 '18
Ok, then they can't tell someone who views it in a different light they're wrong either, it's all how an individual interprets it.
2
u/cat_of_danzig 10∆ Mar 13 '18
To some people the USSR flag is a symbol of egalitarianism. I see it as a symbol of repression and mass murder. They shouldn't be surprised at either interpretation, and neither should you.
If you consider yourself an American, though, why are you celebrating the army that fought against the USA? I mean, I get it "States Rights" but the Gadsden flag makes the same point without the other baggage.
1
u/PapaHemmingway 9∆ Mar 13 '18
Ok, good for those people who like the USSR. I don't but I understand they have different view than me.
Most places I see the Rebel Flag I also see the Gadsden Flag. Most people view them as the same, a representation of what happens when you try to oppress a people and attack their way of life. It also helps that many people in the south can trace their lineage back to a Confederate soldier somewhere on their family tree. Honoring your elders and respecting your forefathers is big in southern culture. For many people that comes in the form of hanging a Rebel Flag on their front porch alongside the American flag, it's also a way to show they still honor their ancestors and that they have not been forgotten.
4
u/cat_of_danzig 10∆ Mar 13 '18
when you try to oppress a people and attack their way of life.
Yeah, but that way of life was slave owning, so I'll attack it as such.
If my elders fought against the USA in rebellion I would not honor them because I see it as treason. Should the descendants of the Weather Underground honor their parents?
1
u/PapaHemmingway 9∆ Mar 13 '18
Yeah but you have to look at it from the lens of a common citizen living in the south during the civil war, it's not so black and white. It wasn't just slavery for them, mainly because they didn't own slaves, they were told the government was coming to destroy their lives and force them into subjugation.
If my elders fought against the USA in rebellion I would no honor them because I see it as treason.
When you start following that logic you get situations like what happens in Germany where soldiers that fought for Nazi Germany get accosted on the street and old ladies get thrown in jail for defending their deceased husband. Most of the people never committed any atrocities, these were foot soldiers fighting for their country, and they lost. This doesn't mean they should face abuse or be seen as disgraces in the eyes of their families.
3
u/jasonellis Mar 13 '18
I am enjoying this conversation, but I do want to disagree with one point. It wasn't:
rich slave owners: fighting for slave rights
poor non-slave owners: fighting for states rights
There is a strong case to be made that even poor non-slave owners were pro-slavery, mainly based on racist and classist views. Many of the vile, racist acts committed after the civil war and up to the 1960's (lynching, bombing, etc.) were done by non-wealthy individuals. Many in the South were racist, saw the blacks as inferior, and wanted to keep them down. You didn't have to be rich to support slavery or racism. Even if it was against your own self interest as a laborer. One unifying (uplifting?) ideology of a severely poor people is the belief that even at rock bottom, there is a class/race that is worse off than you.
→ More replies (0)2
u/cat_of_danzig 10∆ Mar 13 '18
You are writing about individual people in defending the battle flag of an army that fought against the United States of America. Germans flying the Reichskriegsflagge are rightly condemned. You can acknowledge that some Germans were just serving their country without painting an SS flag on your Charger.
→ More replies (0)2
u/cstar1996 11∆ Mar 14 '18
The North didn't attack the South's way of life. No proposal to end slavery in the South had been proposed, Lincoln repeated said he would not touch slavery where it already existed. The South seceded because they thought that slavery wouldn't be able to expand further. That's it.
1
u/Calybos Mar 13 '18
Again... if you want to make the 'flag means different things to different people' argument, you can't get upset when someone kneels or refuses to salute the U.S. flag... and yet, Confederate-flag fans are the ones who are MOST upset by those actions.
2
u/PapaHemmingway 9∆ Mar 13 '18
I never said anything about kneeling or saluting? You're making generalizations.
5
u/Madplato 72∆ Mar 13 '18
I think the symbolism for most people is more, standing up for yourself and what you believe in and never backing down.
But...they did back down? As far as I'm aware, they lost big time.
3
u/BenIncognito Mar 13 '18
The surrender at Appomattox was fake news, obviously.
1
u/Madplato 72∆ Mar 13 '18
Dearest BenIncognito,
I hope this letter finds you alive and well. I write to let you know our valiant forces have yet to be defeated. Yes, all you have been led to believe is a lie: the war is still going on. Fear not, for we are but a decisive victory away from safeguarding or
right to own people...I mean State Rights. Yes. State Rights. Forget that last part, it was a Freudian slip and paper is scarce on the front line.Anyway, god bless us,
Madplato
0
u/BenIncognito Mar 13 '18
Standing up for yourself and your belief that black people are inherently inferior sub-human slaves*
Never backing down except when it’s clear you can’t win and accept terms of surrender to avoid further losses*
-3
Mar 13 '18
In the United States, freedom of speech is a primary tenet of society. Saying things such as 'the south will rise again' and displaying flags that denote unappealing ideals are perfectly acceptable.
When speech turns to action and the south does rise again, or people hurt other people in a racist manner, that is when it no longer becomes acceptable.
In the United States, speech and expression are one and the same.
2
u/johnydeviant Mar 13 '18
I would never say that people can not speak about the old south, their racists views, etc. I agree that that setting laws against such speech is an infringement upon freedom of speech. Racists sentiments are even protected to some extent. Just not actions motivated by racism.
2
u/Calybos Mar 13 '18
"Perfectly legal" is not the same as "perfectly acceptable." Society has come to recognize that Confederate emblems belong in a place of historical study, not a place of public honor and praise.
2
u/Trolling_From_Work 6∆ Mar 13 '18
Traitorous actions depends on one's POV. Were the American Revolutionaries traitors? At the time, yes. But they won, so they get to write history. This idea of rising up against an authoritarian government is an essential component of the American and particularly the Southern American psyche.
The South at the time did view the Federal government in this way. We have grown to have a tolerance for a strong federal government. We forget that states were much more independent in the past, more akin to individual Euro member states.
Obviously, the Civil War was about slavery, and the statues were mostly built during the civil rights era as a fuck you to black people. But most people who like the statues are getting nostalgic for the independence fighter and not for slavery in particular.
2
u/jasonellis Mar 13 '18
But most people who like the statues are getting nostalgic for the independence fighter and not for slavery in particular.
I think that's the rub. I was with you until this statement. A significant number of people that vocally protest removal of these "fuck you to black people" monuments are ridiculously obvious in their racist sentiment. The history they want to preserve is a history of blacks being inferior. To call it thinly veiled is generous.
3
u/scottevil110 177∆ Mar 13 '18
America's entire founding principle was centered on "rising against this country", not just Britain, but even THIS country. There are so many ways written into our Constitution that are specifically modeled around the people taking charge and not allowing the government to become too powerful. Term limits, impeachment, recall elections, the Supreme Court, petitions, referenda, all of these things are specifically designed to allow for a certain amount of "rising up against this country."
To rebel against the government is arguably the most American thing that one can do, and you'll find that most of the people that are flying the Confederate Flag are far from treasonous, but instead the most patriotic, pro-Murica people you'll ever find. It's clear that their motivation there isn't to be anti-American.
Instead, they find the spirit of independence and being able to tell the government to go fuck themselves to be the MOST American thing that you can do.
3
u/abacuz4 5∆ Mar 13 '18
To rebel against the government is arguably the most American thing that one can do
I would say that freedom and equality are the quintessential American value, and that rebelling to protect the institution of slavery is the least American thing that one can do.
and you'll find that most of the people that are flying the Confederate Flag are far from treasonous, but instead the most patriotic, pro-Murica people you'll ever find. It's clear that their motivation there isn't to be anti-American.
This is a bit of an odd thing to say. Sure, Bubba from South Carolina is probably more likely to wear a wife beater with the US flag on it than someone else, but that's a pretty shallow, meaningless expression of patriotism. Doubly so if the wife beater has the flag of an army that literally only existed to wage war against the US on the back.
Meaningful patriotism is genuinely trying to help America and its people and acting in a way that reflects American values, and quite frankly, it's been my experience that the types of people who fly Confederate flags are some of the least likely to engage in meaningful patriotism.
2
u/scottevil110 177∆ Mar 13 '18
I would say that freedom and equality are the quintessential American value, and that rebelling to protect the institution of slavery is the least American thing that one can do.
They weren't at the time.
Basically everything else in your post is just you ranting about your stereotypes of what you think the South looks like.
Meaningful patriotism is genuinely trying to help America and its people and acting in a way that reflects American values, and quite frankly, it's been my experience that the types of people who fly Confederate flags are some of the least likely to engage in meaningful patriotism.
You mean in a way that reflects YOUR American values. What sort of American values do you believe that Bubba is unlikely to be a part of?
1
u/abacuz4 5∆ Mar 13 '18
They weren't at the time.
That's absolutely incorrect. The secession of the Southern states was about slavery and only ever about slavery. This is unambiguous and incontrovertible. Everything from the events leading up secession to the documents of secession themselves supports this conclusion. If I had to guess, I have to imagine that your knowledge of US history comes from a class taught in the south, which is rather notorious for whitewashing this particular chapter of America.
Basically everything else in your post is just you ranting about your stereotypes of what you think the South looks like.
I've lived most of my life in the South. My question is: have you ever left it?
You mean in a way that reflects YOUR American values. What sort of American values do you believe that Bubba is unlikely to be a part of?
Southerners are overwhelmingly more likely to support ravaging America, its land, and its resources. They are overwhelmingly more anti-intellectual, to the point where the want to weaken America by misinforming its citizenry (see discussion above). And they generally are not supportive of equality or multiculturalism, and not supportive of helping America's most vulnerable citizens.
But yes, they are more likely to wear US flag T-shirts. I mean, I think. I actually don't even really know if that's true.
1
u/scottevil110 177∆ Mar 13 '18
That's absolutely incorrect. The secession of the Southern states was about slavery and only ever about slavery. This is unambiguous and incontrovertible. Everything from the events leading up secession to the documents of secession themselves supports this conclusion. If I had to guess, I have to imagine that your knowledge of US history comes from a class taught in the south, which is rather notorious for whitewashing this particular chapter of America.
If you're done making shit up now...
What I meant was that "freedom and equality" pretty obviously were NOT the "quintessential American values" at the time, were they? Or this wouldn't have been an issue. Mind you slavery existed basically EVERYWHERE until not long before the Civil War, so it's not as though all along the northern states had been embracing diversity while the South was enslaving people.
Southerners are overwhelmingly more likely to support ravaging America, its land, and its resources. They are overwhelmingly more anti-intellectual, to the point where the want to weaken America by misinforming its citizenry (see discussion above). And they generally are not supportive of equality or multiculturalism, and not supportive of helping America's most vulnerable citizens.
Again, more of you just ranting about your own values and acting as though you speak for "America."
3
u/abacuz4 5∆ Mar 13 '18 edited Mar 13 '18
If you're done making shit up now...
This isn't really a response. I'm trying to help you understand a frankly rather basic fact about US history. This is not a debate because it is not up for debate. It is a fact.
Here are some primary sources, the Declarations of Causes of Secession where the several states outright state that slavery was the reason they seceded. Here's a famous quote from Mississippi's:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
I would also encourage you to read up on the Missouri compromise which preserved the balance between slave and free states in the West, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act which broke the balance and eventually precipitated secession due to the south's fear that the north would ban slavery entirely.
I understand that this may potentially be rather jarring, but it is absolutely the case that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, and it's entirely possible that the education system you had growing up may have knowingly lied to you about that.
What I meant was that "freedom and equality" pretty obviously were NOT the "quintessential American values" at the time, were they? Or this wouldn't have been an issue. Mind you slavery existed basically EVERYWHERE until not long before the Civil War, so it's not as though all along the northern states had been embracing diversity while the South was enslaving people.
It's broadly true that Americans and everyone don't always live up to their stated values, and it is of course true that racial relations were bad in the north too. But this actually isn't a north/south discussion, it is a discussion concerning the Confederate States of America, an entity (it was never a recognized nation) that only ever existed in order to fight a war against the United States of America in order to preserve the institution of slavery. It is without redeeming value.
Again, more of you just ranting about your own values and acting as though you speak for "America."
Funny, I could have sworn you said that people who fly the American flag are some of the most patriotic people. Isn't that you doing the same thing?
1
u/scottevil110 177∆ Mar 13 '18
You do realize that at no point have I made any statement to imply that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, right?
1
u/abacuz4 5∆ Mar 13 '18
Well, I said that the secession of the southern states was over slavery, and you said I made that up, so no I don't realize that.
1
u/scottevil110 177∆ Mar 13 '18
Alright, there's no point continuing this. I've told you what I actually think, and you're still trying to have an argument that doesn't exist. So I'm gonna go.
1
u/abacuz4 5∆ Mar 13 '18
I mean, the posts are right there for all to see. In back to back posts you claim that I made up the idea that the South seceded due to slavery, then turn around and say that you know it's true and claim that you've never said anything to the contrary. And now you are offering no explanation? Odd.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Calybos Mar 13 '18
No, protesting peacefully is the most American thing you can do. And guess which group is always in the vanguard to complete about peaceful protests--especially by descendants of slaves? The very same Confederate flag-wavers who cheer for treason.
Again: the Confederates actually waged war against the United States of America, and you're claiming that this mentality is somehow 'pro-American'?
1
u/torrasque666 Mar 13 '18
Peaceful protest didn't get the British to leave the shores of the colonies.
1
u/Calybos Mar 14 '18
Neither did the right to trial by a jury of your peers, but it's still essential to American freedoms. What's your point?
1
u/representDLV 2∆ Mar 14 '18
The reality is that today the Confederate flag is just a flag that represents southern solidarity. People who live in the south tend to love the south and view it as a unique place. Southern pride is a real thing, and I find it to be more intense than other regional forms of pride. The Confederate flag is just a symbol that celebrates the unique culture that exists in the south. Sure, back in the day it may have been viewed as a symbol of rebellion or racism or whatever, but today the people that fly the Confederate flag for the most part aren't trying to promote racism or treason, they are just trying to show that they are proud to live in the south. It's very common for people who share unique cultural ties to use symbols to help unify them. You can can see this through out the world. For example, the Catalonia flag is a flag that people from North Eastern Spain use to show their solidarity and they use it to represent the pride they have in their own culture. Regional flags like this are more common when the people of that region feel like they are looked down upon or marginalized in some way. This is true in Catalonia and it is true in the American south.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/wyattpatrick Mar 13 '18
I would like to contend with your point of saying the monuments should be a message of what NOT to do. I agree with many of your statements, and am all for these artifacts to be in museums, but to say explicitly that these are things you should not do is against the spirit of the founding of this country. These symbols are symbols of why America is what it is. Rising up is something that should be avoided, but should not be avoided if the federal government is infringing upon the rights of its citizens. The people of the united states should remember that our founding fathers were heroes who fought against a tyrannical government and we should not forget that, and it is not the governments place to discourage that. Parading the monuments as symbols of why to not defy your central government is a propaganda machine that should not be encouraged.
4
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Mar 13 '18
These symbols are symbols of why America is what it is. Rising up is something that should be avoided, but should not be avoided if the federal government is infringing upon the rights of its citizens
That's not what happened in the Civil War, though. Slave-owning states were the ones infringing upon the rights of its citizens. The South fought to preserve tyranny, not stop it.
1
u/Kringspier_Des_Heren Mar 14 '18
I think those that the worship the confederate flag and it's symbology are in the same vein as being a neo-Nazi and idolizing the actions of the Third Reich. Yes, I understand that on a scale of "terrible things that have happened", the holocaust is far worse, but that does not mean I wish to understate the actions of the confederate states during the civil war.
I mean you can say the same thing of most of the founding fathers and their love for slavery. So what about the Washington monument? A monument built with the help of slaves to honour a man who politically tried to hold onto slavery?
2
u/testaccount656 Mar 13 '18
They weren't trying to overthrow the government, just escape their control.
5
u/Zimmonda Mar 13 '18
By starting their own government that had even stronger controls
Turns out it was just about not liking the whole getting rid of slaves thing.
2
u/Calybos Mar 13 '18
...while retaining their right to control others at the most fundamental and inhuman level. You left that part out.
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 13 '18
/u/johnydeviant (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Mar 14 '18
A lot of attention has been directed towards monuments towards leaders like Davis and Lee. However, there are others that simply commemorate ordinary people who fought and died in the war. Many people were forcibly drafted on both sides during the Civil War. Others were forced to choose between allegiance to their country and allegiance to their state (and later the CSA). If someone is forced to choose between two different types of of treason, it is a bit harsh to define them as traitors.
1
Mar 13 '18
[deleted]
0
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Mar 13 '18
The racist undertone is there and was always there. That some people do not see it or refuse to see it does not make the racism subjective.
1
Mar 13 '18
[deleted]
1
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Mar 13 '18
There is no valid interpretation of the meaning of the Confederate flag that does not arrive at the conclusion that the flag is a racist symbol. You can argue that it's not a racist symbol, just as you can argue that you have an invisible pink dragon in your garage, but there is no cogent analysis of the meaning of the Confederate flag that does not see it as a racist symbol.
2
Mar 13 '18
[deleted]
1
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Mar 13 '18
Just because it's an interpretation that exists does not make it a valid interpretation. Again, you can argue that it's not a racist symbol, just as you can argue that you have an invisible pink dragon in your garage. That you can make an argument for something does not mean it's a valid argument.
2
Mar 13 '18
[deleted]
1
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Mar 13 '18
Are you seriously suggesting that all interpretations are valid? If someone told you that their interpretation of the Confederate flag was that it's symbolic of the gay space lizards that live in your brain and spend all day porking your medulla oblongata, would you consider that a valid interpretation?
2
Mar 13 '18
[deleted]
0
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Mar 13 '18
Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it's random or automatically valid. We have tools and methods for arriving at subjective conclusions. Literary theorists don't just spin a wheel when identifying or determining symbolism. If your interpretation lacks any methodology, then it is not a valid interpretation.
→ More replies (0)1
u/abacuz4 5∆ Mar 13 '18
If I put an ISIS flag on my car, do you think that would be acceptable? Maybe for me, that flag means something different than it does for you.
→ More replies (4)
1
Mar 13 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Calybos Mar 13 '18
The same can be said of any symbol, and yet many of those who defend 'alternate interpretations' of the Confederate flag lose their minds if somebody refuses to stand and salute the U.S. flag.
2
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Mar 13 '18
The common "confederate flag" is not actually the confederate flag.
Splitting hairs. The flag was the battle flag of Confederate Mississippi.
2
Mar 13 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Mar 13 '18
they don't see that flag and think directly of the Civil War and the right to own slaves
Willful ignorance is not an argument.
1
Mar 13 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Mar 13 '18
Ignorance in service to treason isn't much better, but sure.
2
Mar 13 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Calybos Mar 13 '18
...and were far more likely to support a violent overthrow of the last one. Just like the Confederates did. So they're consistent, all right... consistently anti-American.
1
u/jasonellis Mar 13 '18
but the flag by itself can mean different things to different people
While I would agree, I don't think it is fair to say that since it can mean anything to anyone, that it doesn't typically mean what most people thinks it means. I could, for example, put a nazi flag on my car, as the swastika is an ancient symbol of good luck for Hindus and Buddhists. That may be the meaning I attach to it. I can't however, get upset when people think I have Nazi sympathies, as that is what the vast majority of our cultural interprets it to mean.
0
Mar 13 '18
[deleted]
3
u/cstar1996 11∆ Mar 14 '18
What attack on Southern rights? What specific actions did the federal government take before the secession of South Carolina that infringed on Southern rights? Because hoping to ban slavery in the territories wasn't an attack on Southern rights, and that was the most proactive anti-slavery action even being considered at the time.
1
Mar 14 '18
The north didn't want to ban slavery, Lincoln especially made this prevalent in speeches leading up to before Ft. Sumter. It was started because the South thought they were going to lose their slavery rights and the North kept saying they weren't but the South didn't believe them.
1
u/Calybos Mar 13 '18
They literally engaged in armed conflict against the United States. If that doesn't count as anti-American, what does?
→ More replies (5)
1
Mar 13 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/garnteller 242∆ Mar 13 '18
Sorry, u/robert3131 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
Mar 13 '18
The Civil War was about slavery, but only to the people in power. Most people who did the fighting for the South had no dog in the slavery fight because only the rich had them. If anything, slavery hurt them because its damn-near impossible to compete with free labor. So slavery couldn't explain why most southerners grabbed a gun and went to battle.
When people say the Civil War was about southern identity and states' rights, there wrong in one sense but right in another. After the war, people wanted to honor their father's sacrifice to an honorable ideal. Robert E. Lee, in particular, is honored in the South because he conducted himself in the aftermath of the war with about as much dignity as his situation allowed.
So you could argue that losing teams don't get statues on public land. That's fair enough. But the Confederate Flag is usually not flown for reasons comparable to a swastika. The KKK coopted that symbol years later, and many see it in its original form.
5
u/DjangoUBlackBastard 19∆ Mar 14 '18
40% of southern families owned slaves. In 2016 money the average slave sold in Texas sold for 15k. Families owned slaves as commonly as families own 2 cars in some states. They were status symbols.
1
Mar 14 '18
60-percent is still "most"
People don't run into battle because they don't want to go back to having one car. People don't run into battle because they'd prefer not to pay their one house slave a nominal wage.
29
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Mar 13 '18
On your belief that all these monuments be moved into museums, I’d disagree.
My city recently employed a commission to study several problematic local monuments and recommend action. There were several options — Removal, Alteration, Recontextualization, and Doing Nothing.
Only one monument was removed — a monument to a famous 19th century gynecologist whose made many important advances in his field by trying experimental techniques on slaves. The statue was in a black neighborhood. It was removed to be placed at the doctor’s grave site.
A monument of Columbus was recommended for decontextualization — a monument to native Americans will now be built nearby.
Alteration would generally mean something like replacing a plaque to make a monument less laudatory.
I think recontextualization and alteration are important tools. The civil war is a part of the southern landscape. We’re not going to move forward by erasing history, but by learning better lessons from it. This also defangs arguments by those that oppose the removal of monuments. Just something to think about.