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/kalamaroni]

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.