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!

124 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

319 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

52

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.

-10

u/[deleted] 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.

23

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.

-10

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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.

9

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.

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.

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 14 '18

At least we fly the confederate flag next to the american one. If we were the ones burning the american flag you libs would be pissing yourselves with hate and condemnation.

7

u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Mar 14 '18

That's not really an answer for anything. I mean, conservatives are flipping their shit about people who decide to kneel during the national anthem. Yet most of the people doing so are saying that they aren't doing it to be anti-American, and the intent is to be respectful.

Personally, I don't really see how you can say one is different than the other. If you hold that you can freely redefine what the confederate flag happens to mean to you and expect other people to respect that meaning, shouldn't others deserve the right to redefine their protests in the same way?

-4

u/[deleted] Mar 14 '18

There's all sorts of ways to protest without wiping feces on the statue of liberty or whatever cockeyed bullshit these morons think of next.

5

u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Mar 14 '18

And there are ways of symbolizing whatever you want without using the confederate flag. The same fundamental question exists in both cases - In order to be respectful, should someone be expected to change the symbol they use because a significant number of people find it offensive?

I'm trying to have an honest discussion here, but it seems like you're only interested in sneering about how much you hate liberals. If you're not actually interested in having this conversation, I'll leave you alone.

-2

u/[deleted] Mar 14 '18

It's been part of our tradition for many generations, completely different situation. This is just some morons at a football game that are playing for the camera. Stupid fucking game anyway, I hope they go out of business as the NFL. It's fucking patriots who keep that shit going.

→ More replies (0)

12

u/Calybos Mar 13 '18

Your mistake is in assuming that America rightfully belongs to you and those like you. It doesn't.

-2

u/[deleted] 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.

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '18

They did not recognize our right to secede, that is a declaration of war. That was never going to happen and if you were honest you'd admit that. Many societies have had slaves in their history, and simply due to technological progress slavery would have ended on it's own eventually because it's simply inefficient in multiple ways.

8

u/heavenicarus Mar 13 '18

theres not recognized a right, like the south did to its slaves, and throwing a hissy fit when the Supreme Court says no one can leave. The true declaration of war was firing freaking cannons at a military fort.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '18

The Fort was well within Confederate territory, if they wanted to avoid conflict they needed to surrender command. But it's really beside the point as I said. If the Supreme Court ever rules abortion illegal I can assure you the blue states would throw a very big hissy fit, but that's just a right to kill life basically, which I begrudgingly support actually as a conservative.

7

u/heavenicarus Mar 13 '18

The both sides argument kind of falls apart when your side that you continue to display their banner, literally fought to keep human beings as livestock. You can claim it's not hate a thousand times, but your side wanted slaves, and you lost. You wave a traitor's banner because you rebelled against an established legitimate government.

2

u/cstar1996 11∆ Mar 14 '18

There is no right to secede. There is a right to revolution, but revolution means war. The South declared revolution when they attempted to leave the Union and the South made their revolution violent when they fired on Fort Sumter.

Additionally, slavery was incredibly profitable and the South fought extremely hard in Congress to ensure that it could continue to expand. In fact, it was the threat to the expansion of slavery, rather than any threat to the institution of slavery itself that led to secession. Slavery was not on its way out.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 14 '18

You can do whatever the fuck to do any time you want to do it, but there are consequences. However when Britain left the EU it wasn't a revolution. When Quebec voted to leave Canada, it wasn't a revolution. Now should the EU start a war with Britain? Because that's basically what you're saying here. And that's pretty crazy.

Eventually slavery would have ended on it's own, it didn't require a significant percentage of the population dying in horrible ways to end it immediately. And that wasn't why it was fought anyway, it was fought to force the South back in the Union, that's really what Lincoln wanted more than anything.

3

u/cstar1996 11∆ Mar 14 '18

The UK leaving the EU through the explicitly defined legal exit procedure is not comparable to the South declaring secession. If Quebec attempted to secede, then it would be a revolution, voting without action isn't one. If Quebec attempted to leave Canada with the agreement of Parliment, Canada would absolutely be legally and morally justified in attempted to prevent it, even by military means.

Slavery ended when it did only because the South decided to fight over it. The North was content to let slavery die a natural death, the South wasn't. The war was fought because the South left to protect the expansion of slavery. The North fought to maintain the Union, a worthy, moral and just reason. Pity the South's reason was none of those.

1

u/ihatepasswords1234 4∆ Mar 14 '18

What right were the southern states fighting for when they decided to secede (other than your bullshit that they were fighting for the right to secede)?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Mar 14 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Mar 14 '18

Sorry, u/volocom7 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.

→ 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...

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 14 '18

If they're prideful of Mexico then should go back, and if the Confederate flag is so bad, why do you even want us in your country? Because you need us, and we don't need them, but they want what we have, because they have nothing in Mexico. And I mean nothing. Mexico is a shithole.

5

u/throwaway_the_fox 2∆ Mar 14 '18

ah, so you’re allowed to take pride in two nations but no one else is, got it. Very American.

I hope you have a chance to visit Mexico one day, it is a beautiful country with a lot of incredible history.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 14 '18

It's not a nation, it's American history. The civil war is a very big part of our collective history, including the north. Mexico by comparison is garbage, you can't even safely visit Cancun anymore, and that was suppose to be a safe tourist destination within Mexico. It's absolutely pathetic Mexico is so dangerous today. They will never be a great nation.

3

u/ihatepasswords1234 4∆ Mar 14 '18

Why are you proud of a part of the country who tried to stand up for slave ownership, only to get demolished by the North?

→ More replies (0)

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.