A very, very important event happened yesterday.
Seven South Carolina State Troopers, two of whom were black, hoisted down the Confederate Flag from the pole outside the state house. The lowering of this flag is the lowering of the history of a bloody, four-year war that happened because of segregation and slavery. This war resulted in 620,000 American lives lost, that number only surpassed by the Vietnam War. Let's remember those lives lost.
First question: Do you want to start an all-out forum war? Because with all due respect, that's very likely to happen with a topic and first post like this.
Second question: Do you actually know what the Confederate flag stands for? Because it isn't blood and slavery.
I'm a born and bred Wisconsinite, but I can still understand why some people in the South take pride in their heritage. It isn't about war or controversial topics, it's about a separation from a state that the people at the time disagreed with. In a way, it's a homage to what America used to stand for, the ability of the people as a whole to take control of the government.
I'm no expert on the topic, but celebrating the downing of someone else's history as a representation of a war that the flag did not symbolize is a bit inflammatory.
Thanks for the criticism.
No, I don't mean to start a war, and when I said the "blood and slavery" part I meant it metaphorically. I only meant the flag's American history, not the entire history of it. If you take offense from my post, I'm sorry. If you want me to edit the post, I'll do that. So, for now, let me rephrase.
The lowering of this flag is a step in a better direction, according to many Southerners at the flag pole when they took the flag down.
(This post is not meant to be inflammatory. It's just my honest opinion.)
The banning of the Confederate flag is flat-out stupid. There are so many more important things to worry about these days. The Confederate flag did not cause the Charleston shooting. Why the overreaction? It's completely crazy.
As a side note, someone went to Walmart and asked for a Confederate flag cake. They were rejected. Then they asked for a cake with the flag of a certain terror organization on it, and they gladly made it for them. Now, it's likely that it was just the fault of one employee who didn't recognize the terrorist flag. But it goes to show how America has gotten its priorities completely out of whack.
I understand that some people see the flag as part of their culture, but I still think it had to go. The flag, as far as I know, was created for use by the CSA during the Civil War.... And they lost the war. With that in mind, wouldn't having a Confederate flag up in the state capitol be a little like waving a Soviet flag around after the fall of the USSR?
*Puts hands over face and shakes head* Not another one of these...
This is going to be ugly.
I guess I'm new enough that I have t seen this "battle" before. Sorry.
I used to feel more sympathetic to the Confederacy, but as I've grown older (and actually read their Constitution), I have a much more nuanced view of the war than I used to. The trouble with claiming the flag as a part of Southern heritage is that the only right the states wanted to protect was their 'right' to own slaves. The very phrase "states' rights" has been misused as a euphemism for institutional racism for over a century.
That said, I understand most people who support the flag are just brandishing it as a general anti-government, pro-Southern culture statement. I also don't see how the Confederate flag relates to anything that happened recently. We're allegedly adults. If you want to get rid of the flag, just say it; don't pretend like it was somehow the cause of the tragedy at Charleston.
Quote from: James Gryphon on July 11, 2015, 07:14:13 PM
I also don't see how the Confederate flag relates to anything that happened recently. We're allegedly adults. If you want to get rid of the flag, just say it; don't pretend like it was somehow the cause of the tragedy at Charleston.
Exactly. And why did it take this terrible event to get rid of the flag? It's been around for years without the huge outcry raised because of that nut's actions. (By the way, because of a mistake with the FBI, he was allowed to purchase the handgun used in the shooting (http://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-admits-error-in-charleston-suspects-gun-background-check-1436548909). If that mistake hadn't been made, it's quite possible the shooting wouldn't have happened.)
I'm just sick of the powers that be taking away everyone's freedoms of expression (unless, of course, you're an atheist or a member of a certain terror organization). >.<
What do you mean by athiests' freedoms of expression?
What did the Confederate flag (and the CSA) stand for besides being allowed to own another human being?
Quote from: BadgerLordFiredrake on July 11, 2015, 08:24:08 PM
What do you mean by athiests' freedoms of expression?
What did the Confederate flag (and the CSA) stand for besides being allowed to own another human being?
I mean, basically, that they're purging government buildings and all that of even the slightest vestiges of Christianity, all in the name of "separation of church and state" (which was NOT how the Founding Fathers intended that to be interpreted). Of course, it's the atheist groups who are supporting that. I'm sick of political correctness. The Confederate flag is just one more thing they've decided to crack down on, even though it has nothing to do with Christianity.
The Civil War wasn't all about slavery. People had different reasons for joining the war. Now, I don't know that much about the history of the Confederacy, so I'd have to look into it before saying any more.
I could very well be wrong about the flag, but I see it as yet another example of extreme political correctness when there are far, far more important issues at stake than banning a flag.
I agree that you banning the flag isn't a very important issue, but in the words of it's creator:
"As a people we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race."
I have no idea what you all are even talking about, to be honest. But I know you all are civil, nice, and respectful people. So please. Don't let this escalate. I know all Sage wanted from this was a calm discussion.
(I feel like I'm mini-modding, but I'm just trying to make everything better)
Quote from: Jukka the Sling on July 11, 2015, 09:32:13 PM
Quote from: BadgerLordFiredrake on July 11, 2015, 08:24:08 PM
What do you mean by athiests' freedoms of expression?
What did the Confederate flag (and the CSA) stand for besides being allowed to own another human being?
I mean, basically, that they're purging government buildings and all that of even the slightest vestiges of Christianity, all in the name of "separation of church and state" (which was NOT how the Founding Fathers intended that to be interpreted). Of course, it's the atheist groups who are supporting that. I'm sick of political correctness. The Confederate flag is just one more thing they've decided to crack down on, even though it has nothing to do with Christianity.
The Civil War wasn't all about slavery. People had different reasons for joining the war. Now, I don't know that much about the history of the Confederacy, so I'd have to look into it before saying any more.
I could very well be wrong about the flag, but I see it as yet another example of extreme political correctness when there are far, far more important issues at stake than banning a flag.
Give me examples of the "purging", please? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" in any case. I doubt anyone can say exactly what long-dead people wanted. Times have changed, too - there's no way they could have predicted a lot of what is going on right now.
Tell me a single thing that the Civil War was about besides slavery (or something stemming from the debates regarding)
I honestly don't feel this topic to be that controversial. I mean, I in no way support the South, I get annoyed with Rednecks that drive around with Confederate flags flying from their pickups- but I feel keeping the flag at the state capitol is justified. It is a part of our history, and history should be studied, not buried.
Regardless of my views on the flag, the Civil War was definitely a war over slavery. Slavery was the South's economic lifeblood at the time (Thank you, Eli Whitney), and they feared the addition of free states would cause an imbalance against them- thus they utilized an excuse of states' rights to justify secession.
Interesting article - http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-right-way-to-remember-the-confederacy-1436568855
Quote from: Wylder Treejumper on July 12, 2015, 02:34:50 AM
Regardless of my views on the flag, the Civil War was definitely a war over slavery. Slavery was the South's economic lifeblood at the time (Thank you, Eli Whitney), and they feared the addition of free states would cause an imbalance against them- thus they utilized an excuse of states' rights to justify secession.
The northern states kind of pressured the southern states into doing what they did, because it was their way of life. What would they do without their workers? Taking away the slaves just like that would have caused a huge lull in their economy and life, which is why they did what they did. That and the government was trying to take what was rightfully theirs [citation needed], so it spurned them toward war.
Slavery is a bad thing. I'm glad it is no longer a part of the US anymore, but I respect those men who fought for what they thought was best.
Quote from: The Skarzs on July 12, 2015, 02:43:01 AM
Quote from: Wylder Treejumper on July 12, 2015, 02:34:50 AM
Regardless of my views on the flag, the Civil War was definitely a war over slavery. Slavery was the South's economic lifeblood at the time (Thank you, Eli Whitney), and they feared the addition of free states would cause an imbalance against them- thus they utilized an excuse of states' rights to justify secession.
The northern states kind of pressured the southern states into doing what they did, because it was their way of life. What would they do without their workers? Taking away the slaves just like that would have caused a huge lull in their economy and life, which is why they did what they did. That and the government was trying to take what was rightfully theirs [citation needed], so it spurned them toward war.
Slavery is a bad thing. I'm glad it is no longer a part of the US anymore, but I respect those men who fought for what they thought was best.
(please don't make this start a debate, but....)
So they fought for owning humans because they thought that was best?
In all honesty, I see problems with both sides. On one hand, I understand people's want for the removal of something that might be divisive. But on the other hand, many people still fly the Confederate flag. (I'm not one of them) and by removing it, it becomes even more divisive.
I am not siding with anyone here, because I personally think that blaming murder on a flag is... Kind of dumb.
I don't want this to light a powder keg, but I think the situation could have been handled differently.
Quote from: BadgerLordFiredrake on July 12, 2015, 02:27:40 AM
I doubt anyone can say exactly what long-dead people wanted.
Unfortunately for this idea, virtually all of the Founding Fathers wrote volumes of documents and letters clearly expressing their views on things. If people are still ignorant about this, it's because they can't be bothered to read a bunch of 230+ year-old papers for themselves, not because the information isn't there.
Saying that "times have changed" bothers me. It's a two-fold problem, I suppose -- firstly, it supposes that all change is good, and that newer is better. Secondly, it reminds me so much of the idea that the Constitution is a "living document". People interpret this to mean that politicians or courts can re-interpret legal documents at will, without having to amend them by the standard process -- just change what people think of a word in the law, and you can change how a law is carried out. This kind of assault on the psyche of the nation is pure chicanery, and attempts to substitute groupthink for a government ruled by actual laws. Any law that can be creatively and easily re-interpreted to suit the whims of a leader is no law at all.
Technology might change, but people don't. If you're going to change laws based on a clear and present threat imposed by new technologies (like unlicensed automobile drivers), then fine (so long as you actually
follow the law in making those laws), but if the only thing that's changed is how people think about something, then I'm a lot more reluctant to start hacking up the system, if for no other reason than that the Founding Fathers spent
a lot of time thinking about and studying all of this, not to mention all of their practical experience with leadership, and I can't presume to have a better knowledge of how a nation should be run without putting forth the same mental effort they did.
Quote from: BadgerLordFiredrake on July 12, 2015, 02:27:40 AM
Tell me a single thing that the Civil War was about besides slavery (or something stemming from the debates regarding)
For Abraham Lincoln and the Union, it was about preventing states from leaving the Union, simple as that. The previous president, President Buchanan, believed that using military force to prevent secession was illegal. President Lincoln either disagreed with this, or felt that even if it was illegal, that it was more important that the nation be the way he wanted than that the law be followed (this isn't an uncommon view among politicians).
Granted, the only reason those states wanted to leave the Union in the first place is so they could protect slavery, but the point I'm making is that the Union would have fought them whether they kept slaves or not, just because of the secession. Not mentioning that this was the Union's actual motivation oversimplifies the war.
Quote from: Wylder Treejumper on July 12, 2015, 02:34:50 AMIt is a part of our history, and history should be studied, not buried.
Well, we can study history without following in the same practices as our ancestors. By this argument, we could support flying Spanish or Mexican flags over Texas, and the British flag over the original colonies.
Not that I'm actually against that, mind you. If, say, Virginia wanted to fly the Union Jack, and their legislature agreed to it, that's their decision. I don't really see the point of it, but I don't see that it harms anything either. The question, then, is
why they wanted to do this, whether that is based off of malicious intentions, and whether the flag itself is of ill repute. Here's an article (http://www.scpronet.com/point/9909/p04.html) discussing the raising of the flag in South Carolina; draw what conclusions from it you will.
The difference between the Confederate flag and, say, the Nazi flag (which it has been compared to), is that Neo-Nazis tend to either agree with the Nazis' views and/or gloss over what happened as "not being that bad" (in spite of the vast evidence to the contrary), whereas southerners, at large, acknowledge that slavery was bad, but just don't think about it. They've rebuilt the Confederacy in their minds to include everything they like about Southern culture, including the revolution from the Union (which, being composed mostly of Northern states, represents Northern culture, which has a history of clashing with Southern culture), while omitting the slavery. That perhaps shouldn't come as a big surprise, as the Southern states have gradually been rebuilt in exactly that manner, over the course of the past 150 years.
Well, the point I was trying to make is that one way or another, the slavery issue had to be decided. The reason the Civil War was about slavery is that without the resolution of the slavery issue, the U.S. simply could not exist the way it had before and the way it has since. Either all must be under common law of one principle or another, or the Union must needs be split. Such an important principle on whether a slave is a person or property, so near to the founding principles of the nation, could not simply exist undecided in the united nation. Without slavery, the Civil War would not have happened. Therefore, the Civil War was fought over slavery.
And all resistance against the Gryphon is crushed by his eloquence! ;D ;D
Quote from: James Gryphon on July 12, 2015, 03:41:17 AM
If, say, Virginia wanted to fly the Union Jack...
Union Flag. It's only the Union Jack when flown at sea.
Quote from: Jetthebinturong on July 12, 2015, 03:59:30 AM
Union Flag. It's only the Union Jack when flown at sea.
Quote from: Wikipedia, the source of all truth ;)The claim that the term Union Jack properly refers only to naval usage has been disputed, following historical investigations by the Flag Institute in 2013.
Quote from: BadgerLordFiredrake on July 12, 2015, 02:44:57 AM
So they fought for owning humans because they thought that was best?
The "[citation needed]" was rather important, sir. I imagine it would be the same effect as if the government tried to take our guns. Would we not fight for that which is ours, just as they did theirs? Regardless of the morality of owning slaves, the did own them at the time, so they were their masters' possessions.
Is "citation needed" the filter?
I think really that the flag was to stand for a new nation that was separate from the United States at the time. Yes, they were "The South", but they wanted to be new country. The flag stands for that. Since they are part of the U S of A, there is no need for a flag for that nation. It is history, and is a symbol of what could have been if Lincoln and his generals hadn't won he war. Still, flying it means that they used to be separate, but not anymore, so flying it could go either way, saying "We are a southern state who used to be separate", or "We still feel Independent." Hope that made sense.
One other thing: Like James said about "Times have Changed", people are still acting the same way, getting into fights, being self centered, and more human nature. People aren't getting past that, so saying "Times have Changed" is true, we are not in the 1920's any more, but we are still acting the same way we did then.
Quote from: Delthion on July 12, 2015, 04:22:25 AM
Is "citation needed" the filter?
No, I meant that the slaves were owned, but that doesn't mean it was right to do so.
We shouldn't have religion in government buildings or schools. The majority of founding fathers were diests. (The belief that nature itself is god.) Which is technically a form of atheism/non-thiesm.
Quote from: Blaggut on July 12, 2015, 05:25:20 AM
We shouldn't have religion in government buildings or schools. The majority of founding fathers were diests. (The belief that nature itself is god.) Which is technically a form of atheism/non-thiesm.
Actually, Deism (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#/search) is belief in a God, but not in the full beliefs of organized religion. This thread isn't about religion, though: it's about the Confederate flag.
Quote from: The Skarzs on July 12, 2015, 04:20:49 AM
Quote from: BadgerLordFiredrake on July 12, 2015, 02:44:57 AM
So they fought for owning humans because they thought that was best?
The "[citation needed]" was rather important, sir. I imagine it would be the same effect as if the government tried to take our guns. Would we not fight for that which is ours, just as they did theirs? Regardless of the morality of owning slaves, the did own them at the time, so they were their masters' possessions.
There's a difference, though: guns aren't human beings. Slaves weren't just "possessions"; they were actual people. People with basic freedoms and rights, just like everyone else. I don't think the slave-owners ever had any right to own slaves, and therefore, had no right to protest or fight against the loss of slaves.
I'm not going to start an argument about the morality of slavery, then or now; that's not what I was talking about. What did they think of slaves? As tools for their economy, in part. That is my point; it was like taking away machines in a factory.
I feel like I want to comment and add my viewpoint, but I have only a vague idea of the actual event being discussed. Could someone enlighten me, or send me a link which will do so?
This is such a complex topic! There is no right and wrong in it. Personally I think that it's pretty much fine to have the confederate flag in Private places. Their decision. But the parliament house? Unless the government open supports the Confederate ideals, don't have that flag up there. But I don't think that the flag should suddenly be seen as a symbol of evil. It isn't;people can be 'evil' not flags :) I think that people should be educated about it. I've seen several people mistake the Union Jack/flag for the Confederate flag -_-
Hi, by the way.
Quote from: James Gryphon on July 12, 2015, 03:41:17 AM
Quote from: BadgerLordFiredrake on July 12, 2015, 02:27:40 AM
I doubt anyone can say exactly what long-dead people wanted.
Unfortunately for this idea, virtually all of the Founding Fathers wrote volumes of documents and letters clearly expressing their views on things. If people are still ignorant about this, it's because they can't be bothered to read a bunch of 230+ year-old papers for themselves, not because the information isn't there.
Saying that "times have changed" bothers me. It's a two-fold problem, I suppose -- firstly, it supposes that all change is good, and that newer is better. Secondly, it reminds me so much of the idea that the Constitution is a "living document". People interpret this to mean that politicians or courts can re-interpret legal documents at will, without having to amend them by the standard process -- just change what people think of a word in the law, and you can change how a law is carried out. This kind of assault on the psyche of the nation is pure chicanery, and attempts to substitute groupthink for a government ruled by actual laws. Any law that can be creatively and easily re-interpreted to suit the whims of a leader is no law at all.
Technology might change, but people don't. If you're going to change laws based on a clear and present threat imposed by new technologies (like unlicensed automobile drivers), then fine (so long as you actually follow the law in making those laws), but if the only thing that's changed is how people think about something, then I'm a lot more reluctant to start hacking up the system, if for no other reason than that the Founding Fathers spent a lot of time thinking about and studying all of this, not to mention all of their practical experience with leadership, and I can't presume to have a better knowledge of how a nation should be run without putting forth the same mental effort they did.
Have you read that bunch of 230+ year-old papers? If they're online, I'd love to check them out.
Those dead people from a few hundred years ago were not infallible. Simple enough. George Washington owned slaves - definitely not a mindset I'd ever like to follow.
It's true that people don't change much, which is why so much of the Bill of Rights still is pertinent. Slavery is not an issue of technology, though. It's of people owning other people. Pretty sure the FFs supported that, given that GW owned slaves. Sure, I respect them for their leadership, but it doesn't mean they were perfect and their initial views on the law should be kept.
Why did only land-owning white males get to vote? Certainly not a good thing, as it's another thing that's changed for the better.
Quote
Quote from: BadgerLordFiredrake on July 12, 2015, 02:27:40 AM
Tell me a single thing that the Civil War was about besides slavery (or something stemming from the debates regarding)
For Abraham Lincoln and the Union, it was about preventing states from leaving the Union, simple as that. The previous president, President Buchanan, believed that using military force to prevent secession was illegal. President Lincoln either disagreed with this, or felt that even if it was illegal, that it was more important that the nation be the way he wanted than that the law be followed (this isn't an uncommon view among politicians).
Granted, the only reason those states wanted to leave the Union in the first place is so they could protect slavery, but the point I'm making is that the Union would have fought them whether they kept slaves or not, just because of the secession. Not mentioning that this was the Union's actual motivation oversimplifies the war.
But those Southern states tried to leave the Union due to the laws passed to slow down and gradually reverse the spread of slaves.
Saying "states' rights" is merely a more vague term for the same.
Quote from: The Skarzs on July 12, 2015, 04:20:49 AM
Quote from: BadgerLordFiredrake on July 12, 2015, 02:44:57 AM
So they fought for owning humans because they thought that was best?
The "[citation needed]" was rather important, sir. I imagine it would be the same effect as if the government tried to take our guns. Would we not fight for that which is ours, just as they did theirs? Regardless of the morality of owning slaves, the did own them at the time, so they were their masters' possessions.
You might attempt to fight against tanks and such with rifles and pistols, I guess. In any case, humans are very different from inanimate objects (as said before by Izeroth)
So your answer is yes, they thought owning slaves was best, and they fought for their rights to take away another human's rights. Correct?
You're putting words in my mouth. I don't know everything they thought of; many of the men who fought for the south didn't own slaves themselves, they were fighting for their land, so the mindset of one Confederate soldier was likely different from another.
And in many slave-owners' eyes their slaves didn't have any rights, so why would they fight to take away another human's rights when they didn't think they had any in the first place? Slavery has been around for literally thousands of years. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that the ancient practice might have been enough to convince many slave-owners that it was alright.
People nowadays think that killing babies in abortion is alright, but it's murder, and far worse than owning a slave. My conclusion? Just because people think it's right doesn't mean it is, but they do it anyway, some with the conviction that it is perfectly fine.
Living in slavery would be far worse than death in my opinion.
Quote from: Jetthebinturong on July 12, 2015, 04:05:28 PM
Living in slavery would be far worse than death in my opinion.
Depends on the master, also, you're comparing the same side of two different coins. I'd rather answer for being a slavemaster than for being a serial baby killer. I'm personally sick of everyone being so worried about offending someone else. I saw a picture on facebook of a white flag, the pic said "This is the new America, we stand for nothing, we don't want to offend anyone." (this is sadly, horribly true) Honestly, if NOBODY is offended, you're doing it wrong. People are going to step on other people's toes, grow up, that's life (if you're not ready to dance, get off the floor). I'm not saying that because I think we should try to be offensive, but because it's going to happen, and it's annoying to see people over-reacting when someone IS offended (like taking down the flag). The Confederate flag has different meanings to different people, and it always will.
James, I was just wondering where the topic's at in reference to the proverbial "line?"
Quote from: danflorreguba on July 12, 2015, 05:44:13 PM
Quote from: Jetthebinturong on July 12, 2015, 04:05:28 PM
Living in slavery would be far worse than death in my opinion.
Depends on the master...
I suppose that could be true but I'm reminded of a quote from Dan Howell (danisnotonfire) about his self-aware hamster. "It doesn't matter if a prison has a revolving restaurant or a nightclub, it's still a prison." We can equate this to slavery by saying "It doesn't matter if a slave-owner lets a slave do whatever they want, they are still a slave. Their life still belongs to another person." See what I mean?
Quote from: danflorreguba on July 12, 2015, 05:44:13 PM
...also, you're comparing the same side of two different coins.
Eh, I was just replying to Skarzs who equated the two in the first place.
Quote from: BadgerLordFiredrake on July 12, 2015, 02:27:40 AM
Quote from: Jukka the Sling on July 11, 2015, 09:32:13 PM
Quote from: BadgerLordFiredrake on July 11, 2015, 08:24:08 PM
What do you mean by athiests' freedoms of expression?
What did the Confederate flag (and the CSA) stand for besides being allowed to own another human being?
I mean, basically, that they're purging government buildings and all that of even the slightest vestiges of Christianity, all in the name of "separation of church and state" (which was NOT how the Founding Fathers intended that to be interpreted). Of course, it's the atheist groups who are supporting that. I'm sick of political correctness. The Confederate flag is just one more thing they've decided to crack down on, even though it has nothing to do with Christianity.
The Civil War wasn't all about slavery. People had different reasons for joining the war. Now, I don't know that much about the history of the Confederacy, so I'd have to look into it before saying any more.
I could very well be wrong about the flag, but I see it as yet another example of extreme political correctness when there are far, far more important issues at stake than banning a flag.
Give me examples of the "purging", please? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" in any case. I doubt anyone can say exactly what long-dead people wanted. Times have changed, too - there's no way they could have predicted a lot of what is going on right now.
Tell me a single thing that the Civil War was about besides slavery (or something stemming from the debates regarding)
I found a news article about a cross at a veterans' war memorial: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Judge-Orders-Removal-of-Mt-Soledad-Cross-235662901.html Now, it was a Jewish group that first protested it, and it wasn't a government building, but I can't find another article at the moment since I'm on an iPod and it'll be a hassle. But anyway, the people against it were represented by the ACLU, which has protested religious symbols like that on more than one occasion. The court's saying the cross violated the First Amendment by endorsing one religion over another is complete nonsense. The First Amendment's bit about "an establishment of religion" means that Congress can't make a law forcing everyone to follow a certain religion, which many countries were doing at the time of its writing. It never said that government buildings couldn't have the Ten Commandments or whatever on the wall (as an example - not sure if that actually happened).
I can't tell you any more about the Civil War because I'm not that familiar with its causes. I'm sure someone else would be happy to debate you, though. ;) One thing I do know is that there were quite a few blacks who fought for the Confederacy, so maybe you should consider that.
How interesting that the most Christian country in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country) would do that while a much more atheistic country (Britain (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=britain+cross+war+memorial&rlz=1C1KMZB_enGB543GB548&es_sm=122&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=g7yiVbvQBYSqswHo7brADA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAg&biw=1280&bih=643)) has cross war memorials abound in it and no one cares. It baffles me to be honest. I'm sure it would be fascinating to study. Maybe because the non-Christians feel more isolated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_privilege) and therefore want to speak out more?
I want to study this. Any more examples you (people in general, not just Jukka) might be able to provide would be very helpful.
Quote from: BadgerLordFiredrake on July 12, 2015, 02:36:28 PM
Have you read that bunch of 230+ year-old papers?
I've read people's writings about them, but the documents themselves? Nope. Can't be bothered. ;)
Quote from: BadgerLordFiredrake on July 12, 2015, 02:36:28 PMIf they're online, I'd love to check them out.
I didn't think about this, but apparently it's been long enough that many of these documents are in the public domain. Here's a good starting point, relating to the Constitution: the Federalist Papers (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html). As a counterpoint, here's some (http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/anti-federalist-papers)
anti-Federalist papers.
Quote from: BadgerLordFiredrake on July 12, 2015, 02:36:28 PM
Those dead people from a few hundred years ago were not infallible. Simple enough. ...
Sure, I respect them for their leadership, but it doesn't mean they were perfect and their initial views on the law should be kept.
Well, remember that the point being discussed here is what was meant by "separation of church and state", not slavery.
The changes to the voting system and slave laws were made after much consideration and deliberation. The point, though, is that they were
changed, via amendment. Jukka's objection here is not that some laws has been changed, but that people nowadays allegedly are interpreting the old law ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.") differently -- claiming that it means something other than what the Founding Fathers had in mind at the time.
Quote from: BadgerLordFiredrake on July 12, 2015, 02:27:40 AM
But those Southern states tried to leave the Union due to the laws passed to slow down and gradually reverse the spread of slaves.
Saying "states' rights" is merely a more vague term for the same.
We're talking past each other. I already commented on this earlier:
Quote from: James Gryphon on July 11, 2015, 07:14:13 PM
I used to feel more sympathetic to the Confederacy, but as I've grown older (and actually read their Constitution), I have a much more nuanced view of the war than I used to. The trouble with claiming the flag as a part of Southern heritage is that the only right the states wanted to protect was their 'right' to own slaves. The very phrase "states' rights" has been misused as a euphemism for institutional racism for over a century.
The reasoning of the Southern states is not in question. All I'm saying is that
the North did not enter the war with the express purpose of "freeing the slaves" (if they had, I might have considered them nobler for it, because their legal objection to secession was apparently flimsy).
Quote from: danflorreguba on July 12, 2015, 05:44:13 PM
James, I was just wondering where the topic's at in reference to the proverbial "line?"
Not over yet. I can see a few potential points for a flare-up, but if we're careful we can avoid them.
I think this topic should stay up.
My take on the Confederate flag is that its a relic of a past time, and it should be in the history books. The Confederacy is long gone, and that flag has no purpose flying at a United States government building. The Confederacy is dead, and its policies of economics and protection of slavery have no purpose in this country as long as we still call ourselves "the land of the free".
Do I really care if you fly it at a private residence? No. Do I care if its in your car? No. Do I care if its on your clothes? Not really. Personal choice is fine. Its at your house, I really don't give two hoots about your house or what you do there.
It should be noted that what we call the Confederate Flag was never an official flag of the Confederacy. It was used as the battle flag of the Army of North Virginia under Robert E. Lee. (See here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America#The_.22Confederate_flag.22).)
Quote from: Izeroth on July 12, 2015, 06:08:33 AM
Quote from: Blaggut on July 12, 2015, 05:25:20 AM
We shouldn't have religion in government buildings or schools. The majority of founding fathers were diests. (The belief that nature itself is god.) Which is technically a form of atheism/non-thiesm.
Actually, Deism (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#/search) is belief in a God, but not in the full beliefs of organized religion. This thread isn't about religion, though: it's about the Confederate flag.
Quote from: The Skarzs on July 12, 2015, 04:20:49 AM
Quote from: BadgerLordFiredrake on July 12, 2015, 02:44:57 AM
So they fought for owning humans because they thought that was best?
The "[citation needed]" was rather important, sir. I imagine it would be the same effect as if the government tried to take our guns. Would we not fight for that which is ours, just as they did theirs? Regardless of the morality of owning slaves, the did own them at the time, so they were their masters' possessions.
There's a difference, though: guns aren't human beings. Slaves weren't just "possessions"; they were actual people. People with basic freedoms and rights, just like everyone else. I don't think the slave-owners ever had any right to own slaves, and therefore, had no right to protest or fight against the loss of slaves.
Thanks for the correction :)
A) The war wasn't fought about the slaves - It was about the taxes. Do a little internet digging, and you'll find it. B) Go read
Gone With the Wind. C) I'm proud of my heritage. We Southerners stood up against something we didn't like. D) The war was fought a long, long time ago. Why bother about it now? This whole thing is just so
stupid.Quote from: Lutra on July 13, 2015, 05:14:41 PM
I think this topic should stay up.
My take on the Confederate flag is that its a relic of a past time, and it should be in the history books. The Confederacy is long gone, and that flag has no purpose flying at a United States government building. The Confederacy is dead, and its policies of economics and protection of slavery have no purpose in this country as long as we still call ourselves "the land of the free".
Do I really care if you fly it at a private residence? No. Do I care if its in your car? No. Do I care if its on your clothes? Not really. Personal choice is fine. Its at your house, I really don't give two hoots about your house or what you do there.
Excellent points, Lutra! :) But, don't you think that it's okay for states to proud of their heritage just as much as you think it okay for more private things?
Corn, the reason you have to do a little digging is because it isn't true. It's revisionist history. Seriously all the quotes from the leaders and the states of the confederacy say they were fighting for the right to keep slaves.
"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety."
~South Carolina
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin..."
~Mississippi
"As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery."
~Louisiana
There's a whole host more (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/).
*Throws hands in the air* Never mind, never mind, I do NOT want a screaming cat fight right now. That would burst my happy little bubble.
Quote from: Jetthebinturong on July 14, 2015, 02:38:48 AM
Corn, the reason you have to do a little digging is because it isn't true. It's revisionist history. Seriously all the quotes from the leaders and the states of the confederacy say they were fighting for the right to keep slaves.
"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety."
~South Carolina
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin..."
~Mississippi
"As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery."
~Louisiana
There's a whole host more (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/).
You obtained these quotes from where exactly? You can't go telling someone they're wrong just because you read something different. It's been awhile since I've studied Civil War history, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't about explicitly slavery. Albeit, most of the reasons revolved around the trade in one form or another whether direct or not, but that doesn't change the fact that a war on that scale generally doesn't start off of a single disagreement. Am I wrong? Possibly, I'm human like everybody else, I forget things, confuse them, break them. It happens, so if we're going to talk about something controversial, let's use some grace.
Those quotes are all from the declarations of secession issued by the states. (http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html#Texas)
If the members of the Confederate secession conventions didn't know why they were seceding, I don't know who did.
The point I'm making is that all information comes from a source, and it's not fair to count another's out because yours says otherwise. Also, I might point out that they may not have covered everything in said quotes, and may be missing the reasoning that others were using to justify secession. For instance, they mention in your quotes, that they were concerned with, "a blow at commerce and civilization." Again, yes, that's related to the slave trade, but their fear in that statement was an after effect of losing the slave trade, not losing the slave trade. I also might point out (if memory serves), that the government was putting more restrictions on the trade, now I'm not sure if a certain tax was one of them, but Corn's statement has legitimacy. Maybe not directly with taxes, but legitimacy all the same.
Quote from: BadgerLordFiredrake on July 12, 2015, 02:36:28 PM
Quote from: James Gryphon on July 12, 2015, 03:41:17 AM
Quote from: BadgerLordFiredrake on July 12, 2015, 02:27:40 AM
I doubt anyone can say exactly what long-dead people wanted.
Unfortunately for this idea, virtually all of the Founding Fathers wrote volumes of documents and letters clearly expressing their views on things. If people are still ignorant about this, it's because they can't be bothered to read a bunch of 230+ year-old papers for themselves, not because the information isn't there.
Saying that "times have changed" bothers me. It's a two-fold problem, I suppose -- firstly, it supposes that all change is good, and that newer is better. Secondly, it reminds me so much of the idea that the Constitution is a "living document". People interpret this to mean that politicians or courts can re-interpret legal documents at will, without having to amend them by the standard process -- just change what people think of a word in the law, and you can change how a law is carried out. This kind of assault on the psyche of the nation is pure chicanery, and attempts to substitute groupthink for a government ruled by actual laws. Any law that can be creatively and easily re-interpreted to suit the whims of a leader is no law at all.
Technology might change, but people don't. If you're going to change laws based on a clear and present threat imposed by new technologies (like unlicensed automobile drivers), then fine (so long as you actually follow the law in making those laws), but if the only thing that's changed is how people think about something, then I'm a lot more reluctant to start hacking up the system, if for no other reason than that the Founding Fathers spent a lot of time thinking about and studying all of this, not to mention all of their practical experience with leadership, and I can't presume to have a better knowledge of how a nation should be run without putting forth the same mental effort they did.
Have you read that bunch of 230+ year-old papers? If they're online, I'd love to check them out.
Those dead people from a few hundred years ago were not infallible. Simple enough. George Washington owned slaves - definitely not a mindset I'd ever like to follow.
It's true that people don't change much, which is why so much of the Bill of Rights still is pertinent. Slavery is not an issue of technology, though. It's of people owning other people. Pretty sure the FFs supported that, given that GW owned slaves. Sure, I respect them for their leadership, but it doesn't mean they were perfect and their initial views on the law should be kept.
Why did only land-owning white males get to vote? Certainly not a good thing, as it's another thing that's changed for the better.
Sorry to bring this up, but it's been bothering me for a while...
Try googling The Federalist Papers. Or, if you prefer, read The Original Argument, by Glen Beck, which is the same Federalist Papers translated into modern English. They should give you a pretty good idea of what the Founding Fathers intended.
Also, this isn't about the personal character of the Founding Fathers. That's a whole other can of worms (which I'd be glad to open, but won't do so here). This is about the Constitution and the Founding Fathers defining of Government.
. . . . . Oh, boy.