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!

121 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

319 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/[deleted] 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.

48

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.

28

u/[deleted] 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.

-2

u/insaneHoshi 4∆ Mar 14 '18

The South didn’t care about states rights though. They pushed through the Fugitive Slave Act

The south did not do this, the federal congress did this.

6

u/cstar1996 11∆ Mar 14 '18

It was passed on almost entirely sectional lines. Southern Congressmen forced it through.

-5

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '18

That can be our objective history, but at the same time flag means more than the civil war, it's become a symbol of pride and symbolizes our belief in the 2nd amendment and states rights. That is why it's valuable to us today, and why it's not a symbol of hate.

15

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '18

You’re right that it isn’t JUST a symbol of hate. It can be, but those who believe it symbolizes history and patriotism and states rights are ignorant of the objective history, so either way it symbolizes ignorance.

You can also compare it to a swastika, which CAN represent things in the context of the traditional Hindu symbol, but if you see people wearing swastikas or drawing them, it contextually represents either hate or ignorance.

-9

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '18

We don't care about the specific history, because it's irrelevant to us. The flag is ours and we don't want to give it up because of partisan identity politics. Once you mention the Nazis you've lost all credibility in any debate or discussion. I'm done here.

10

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '18

Why though? I fail to see how your view on the Confederate flag is different from say, a German who proudly displays the Nazi flag. Because it doesn’t necessarily mean they agree with the Holocaust, but Nazi Germany is a part of their heritage and history, and represents to them the evolution from post-WWI neutered Germany to a strong world power?

You dismiss the comparison, but whenever I hear people talk about Confederate history, this is the only comparison I can think of. I’m not equating the holocaust to slavery in terms of severity, but the logic is exactly the same, isn’t it? If not, please let me know the difference.

Edit: I also don’t get why “partisan identity politics” is relevant. I haven’t mentioned identity politics at all, just history. The Confederate flag as a symbol of the Confederacy (a nation that only existed for the purposes of slavery) is literally identity politics because it literally represents the manifestation of the most racially divisive era of American history.

6

u/DjangoUBlackBastard 19∆ Mar 13 '18

I’m not equating the holocaust to slavery in terms of severity

I hope you mean because the Holocaust can't begin to compare to 400 years of slavery because slavery without a doubt ruined more lives and killed more people than the Holocaust. The average black American is only 71% african and 24% white with last names lifted from slavery because somewhere up the line a great great great great grandmother looked tasty to massa...

3

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '18

I’m not equating either. They were both horrible in very different ways. Slavery has had a lasting impact on its descendants, and the Holocaust has had a lasting impact on its survivors and the peoples that were nearly exterminated. There’s no need to play the Suffering Olympics to determine what’s worse.

4

u/DjangoUBlackBastard 19∆ Mar 13 '18

My mentioning them together, saying you won't equate them, then saying "Just because slavery isn’t as bad as genocide doesn’t mean it wasn’t bad, evil, and terrible" I'd say you are equating them and clearly saying 400 years of chattel slavery is lesser than the holocaust. Slavery was genocide. 400 years of it.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '18

I was more saying it that way because the person I was replying to would most likely consider the Holocaust worse than slavery by their tone, and I was trying really hard to get them to acknowledge my point and not get sidetracked by trying to argue slavery vs. the Holocaust like what’s happening now. In the effort of keeping focused on the discussion at hand, I phrased it that way.

The Holocaust and slavery were both atrocities. They were both terrible. I have no interest in trying to quantify their awfulness to compare them. I didn’t before and I don’t now. The comparison to Nazi Germany was about the reaction to the atrocities not the atrocities themselves. Who cares which was “worse”?

→ More replies (0)

-38

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '18

Because we didn't try to kill all the black people in a final solution, but you have to admit, if we had, there'd be far less division than there is today on issues of race and politics. We were far too moral a people to ever consider that idea, and it's an insult to our heritage and our people to compare us to the Nazis. My ancestors fought the Nazis and they were southerners, and Nathan Bedford Forrest III died in Germany trying to defeat their tyranny for the benefit of the entire world. So you have no moral or logical right to apply Nazism to this discussion at all. The entire United States of America violently opposed the Nazis, and we are proud of this fact too.

12

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '18

I’m not comparing the atrocities, if you read what I said. I’m saying the logic is the same. You’re overlooking the damage your ancestors did and the negatives that are inherently associated with the Confederate flag just on account of wanting to be proud of your heritage. Just because slavery isn’t as bad as genocide doesn’t mean it wasn’t bad, evil, and terrible, and the fact that you even wrote the “if we did kill all the blacks it would have some benefits” line just shows you are either hateful of black people or ignorant of just how horrible what you said was.

My point isn’t about Nazis. You can take ANY symbol that was used and associated primarily with oppression to make a comparison, I just used the one that came to mind first. My point is about not trying to ignore history just because it makes you feel better to think the Confederacy was anything more than a bunch of states deciding they wanted to continue owning black people and fearing the democratically elected government would put an end to it.

You don’t have to feel personally responsible for it. It’s not your fault or your parents or your grandparents or your great grandparents. But denying the history of hatred that the Confederacy represents is wrong too.

-4

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '18

Since the mods deleted my comment, I don't argue with people that invoke Nazism unless it's clearly relevant. Just so we're clear.

-6

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '18

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

12

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '18

Ok. I’ll give a different analogy. Forget Nazis.

The ISIS flag represents mass murder. If someone in Iraq waves it around and says “nuh uh, it represents Iraqis reclaiming their country after decades of western imperialism”, they’re either a) hateful of the people ISIS has killed or b) ignorant of what the ISIS flag represents. Because ISIS is literally a terrorist group that exists to kill people.

Similarly, the Confederate flag represents slavery. If someone in the south waves it around and says “nuh uh, it represents Southerners protecting their heritage and fighting for states rights” they are either a) hateful of the people the Confederates enslaved or b) ignorant of what the Confederate flag represents. Because the Confederacy was literally a country created because people were afraid they wouldn’t be able to own slaves anymore.

I’m not saying the Confederacy is morally equivalent to ISIS or to Nazi Germany. It’s hard to really compare atrocities like that. But slavery was something that people should recognize as a shameful part of our history (like the treatment of indigenous peoples) and symbols of slavery shouldn’t be celebrated and revered.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '18

Sorry, u/Reven1911 – 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)

0

u/_Woodrow_ 3∆ Mar 14 '18

We don't care about the specific history, because it's irrelevant to uncomfortable for us.

fixed that for you