Confederate Flag

[The Skarzs]

  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.

[Rusvul]

   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?

[The Mask]

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.

[BadgerLordFiredrake]

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.

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.

[BadgerLordFiredrake]

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?

[The Skarzs]

  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.

[Jetthebinturong]

Living in slavery would be far worse than death in my opinion.

[Dannflower Reguba]

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?"

[Jetthebinturong]

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?

...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.

[Jukka the Sling]

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.

[Jetthebinturong]

How interesting that the most Christian country in the world would do that while a much more atheistic country (Britain) 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 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.

[James Gryphon]

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.

If 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. As a counterpoint, here's some anti-Federalist papers.

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.

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:

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).

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.

[Lutra]

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.

[Jukka the Sling]

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.)

[Blaggut]

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 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.

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