Confederate Flag

[Cornflower MM]

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.

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?

[Jetthebinturong]

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.

[Cornflower MM]

*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.

[Dannflower Reguba]

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.

       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.

[James Gryphon]

Those quotes are all from the declarations of secession issued by the states.

If the members of the Confederate secession conventions didn't know why they were seceding, I don't know who did.

[Dannflower Reguba]

       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.

[Wylder Treejumper]

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. 

[Cornflower MM]

. . . . . Oh, boy.