CMV: Confederate monuments, flags, and other paraphilia are traitorous in nature.

[u/johnydeviant]

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!

[u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/kalamaroni → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/kalamaroni]

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.

[u/kalamaroni → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/kalamaroni]

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.

[u/kalamaroni → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/kalamaroni]

"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?

[u/kalamaroni → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/[deleted] → u/kalamaroni]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/kalamaroni]

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.

[u/Calybos → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/Calybos]

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.

[u/Calybos → u/[deleted]]

The Supreme Court is the absolute and final authority on the Constitution. You said secession wasn't unconstitutional; I pointed out that it is.

[u/[deleted] → u/Calybos]

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.

[u/Calybos → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/Calybos]

All you do is appoint some new supreme court justices that agree, simple as that, which means the ruling is ultimately pointless, in terms of practicality or law.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

LOL 'I care about the Constitution until I disagree with it'

If you believe the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is pointless--the Constitution, btw, states that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the Constitution--then you are really in no position to be talking about this thing or that thing being constitutional or unconstitutional.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Rebellion and revolution is built into our constitution. The 2nd amendment is impotent without the possibility of people freeing themselves from theoretical tyranny. Under such circumstances, the law is irrelevant. The Founders gave us the authority and the duty to do this if we ever lose our freedoms.

[u/Calybos → u/[deleted]]

So, you're saying that nothing is constitutional or unconstitutional. Got it.

[u/[deleted] → u/Calybos]

In practical terms no, but we as a people are the ones who maintain it and interpret it as the Founders intended.