Erasing the Confederacy -How Far Would you Go?

[Adam Griffin]

It is a common misconception that the Confederacy is about slavery. That is simply not the case. It's about state rights and reducing the power of the federal government. I do not support slavery, but I don't support massive bureaucratic federal governments either. A confederate system is far more efficient and allows states to be more tailored to the desires of the people of those states.

LOL - history would like to have a word with you. Plenty of states outright said it was about slavery in their declarations of causes of secession - all within the first few sentences, no less.

[RINO Tom]

4,5, and 6, but definitely would consider implementing the other ones

#6 would be a violation of the 1st amendment. Is the 1st amendment an "antiquated piece of trash" just like you think the 2nd amendment is?

Deleted post

You know who REALLY thought the Constitution was trash?

... the Confederates.

Why did the care so much about the Tenth Amendment then? The Confederates were trying to break away from the tyrannical government in Washington because Washington didn't care about the Constitution including their Tenth Amendment rights.

LOL. Literally nobody argued secession was legal because of the Tenth Amendment in 1861. Most Confederate politicians agreed secession was illegal, they just didn't care, because their right to continue buying and selling human beings was more important to them. You should read the actual secession ordinances published by the Confederate states instead of parroting ahistorical talking points invented decades after the war to justify a failed rebellion.

(Also, LOL at implying Tom is part of the "radical left.")

It is a common misconception that the Confederacy is about slavery. That is simply not the case. It's about state rights and reducing the power of the federal government. I do not support slavery, but I don't support massive bureaucratic federal governments either. A confederate system is far more efficient and allows states to be more tailored to the desires of the people of those states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

Again, the South cried "states' rights" WHEN it could be used to defend slavery and completely ignored the principle when it couldn't.

This second point is uncomfortable for a depressing number of conservatives and even more liberals, too, but the simple fact is that the CSA was borderline communist.  The confiscation of private property, outlaw of political parties and completely centralized government don't exactly jive with Lost Causers' revisionist telling of the story.

How many times do I need to say that I do not support slavery? I don't support "state rights" as in allowing slavery. I support actual state rights and a weaker federal government.

That's good, so do I ... but the Confederates did not.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

@TheRealRight, saying you do not support slavery is immaterial if you defend the CSA.

[Cashew]

4,5, and 6, but definitely would consider implementing the other ones

#6 would be a violation of the 1st amendment. Is the 1st amendment an "antiquated piece of trash" just like you think the 2nd amendment is?

Deleted post

You know who REALLY thought the Constitution was trash?

... the Confederates.

Why did the care so much about the Tenth Amendment then? The Confederates were trying to break away from the tyrannical government in Washington because Washington didn't care about the Constitution including their Tenth Amendment rights.

LOL. Literally nobody argued secession was legal because of the Tenth Amendment in 1861. Most Confederate politicians agreed secession was illegal, they just didn't care, because their right to continue buying and selling human beings was more important to them. You should read the actual secession ordinances published by the Confederate states instead of parroting ahistorical talking points invented decades after the war to justify a failed rebellion.

(Also, LOL at implying Tom is part of the "radical left.")

It is a common misconception that the Confederacy is about slavery. That is simply not the case. It's about state rights and reducing the power of the federal government. I do not support slavery, but I don't support massive bureaucratic federal governments either. A confederate system is far more efficient and allows states to be more tailored to the desires of the people of those states.

Here are some parts of the cornerstone speech you might find interesting:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

It is the first Government ever instituted upon principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many Governments have been founded upon the principles of certain classes; but the classes thus enslaved, were of the same race, and in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. The negro by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, [note: A reference to Genesis, 9:20-27, which was used as a justification for slavery] is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system.

Our Confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief stone of the corner" in our new edifice.

https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1861stephens.asp

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Public service announcement: if your post was deleted by a moderator, you don't write the same thing again.

[OSR stands with Israel]

4,5, and 6, but definitely would consider implementing the other ones

#6 would be a violation of the 1st amendment. Is the 1st amendment an "antiquated piece of trash" just like you think the 2nd amendment is?

Deleted post

You know who REALLY thought the Constitution was trash?

... the Confederates.

Why did the care so much about the Tenth Amendment then? The Confederates were trying to break away from the tyrannical government in Washington because Washington didn't care about the Constitution including their Tenth Amendment rights.

LOL. Literally nobody argued secession was legal because of the Tenth Amendment in 1861. Most Confederate politicians agreed secession was illegal, they just didn't care, because their right to continue buying and selling human beings was more important to them. You should read the actual secession ordinances published by the Confederate states instead of parroting ahistorical talking points invented decades after the war to justify a failed rebellion.

(Also, LOL at implying Tom is part of the "radical left.")

It is a common misconception that the Confederacy is about slavery. That is simply not the case. It's about state rights and reducing the power of the federal government. I do not support slavery, but I don't support massive bureaucratic federal governments either. A confederate system is far more efficient and allows states to be more tailored to the desires of the people of those states.

So you dont support the constitution either , because it replaced the prior articles of confederation

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Public service announcement: if your post was deleted by a moderator, you don't write the same thing again.

The moderators need to stop letting the personal beliefs interfere with the moderation.

Other people voiced beliefs that I disagree with in this very thread and nothing was touched, just as the vast majority of your posts here. Unfortunately I'm not allowed to remove posts based on its stupidity only.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

4,5, and 6, but definitely would consider implementing the other ones

#6 would be a violation of the 1st amendment. Is the 1st amendment an "antiquated piece of trash" just like you think the 2nd amendment is?

Deleted post

You know who REALLY thought the Constitution was trash?

... the Confederates.

Why did the care so much about the Tenth Amendment then? The Confederates were trying to break away from the tyrannical government in Washington because Washington didn't care about the Constitution including their Tenth Amendment rights.

LOL. Literally nobody argued secession was legal because of the Tenth Amendment in 1861. Most Confederate politicians agreed secession was illegal, they just didn't care, because their right to continue buying and selling human beings was more important to them. You should read the actual secession ordinances published by the Confederate states instead of parroting ahistorical talking points invented decades after the war to justify a failed rebellion.

(Also, LOL at implying Tom is part of the "radical left.")

It is a common misconception that the Confederacy is about slavery. That is simply not the case. It's about state rights and reducing the power of the federal government. I do not support slavery, but I don't support massive bureaucratic federal governments either. A confederate system is far more efficient and allows states to be more tailored to the desires of the people of those states.

So you dont support the constitution either , because it replaced the prior articles of confederation

Heh, the U.S. would most likely not have survived if the Articles of Confederation remained intact. It was "efficient" all right, if you wanted to have a bunch of separate countries emerging eventually.

[OSR stands with Israel]

4,5, and 6, but definitely would consider implementing the other ones

#6 would be a violation of the 1st amendment. Is the 1st amendment an "antiquated piece of trash" just like you think the 2nd amendment is?

Deleted post

You know who REALLY thought the Constitution was trash?

... the Confederates.

Why did the care so much about the Tenth Amendment then? The Confederates were trying to break away from the tyrannical government in Washington because Washington didn't care about the Constitution including their Tenth Amendment rights.

LOL. Literally nobody argued secession was legal because of the Tenth Amendment in 1861. Most Confederate politicians agreed secession was illegal, they just didn't care, because their right to continue buying and selling human beings was more important to them. You should read the actual secession ordinances published by the Confederate states instead of parroting ahistorical talking points invented decades after the war to justify a failed rebellion.

(Also, LOL at implying Tom is part of the "radical left.")

It is a common misconception that the Confederacy is about slavery. That is simply not the case. It's about state rights and reducing the power of the federal government. I do not support slavery, but I don't support massive bureaucratic federal governments either. A confederate system is far more efficient and allows states to be more tailored to the desires of the people of those states.

So you dont support the constitution either , because it replaced the prior articles of confederation

Heh, the U.S. would most likely not have survived if the Articles of Confederation remained intact. It was "efficient" all right, if you wanted to have a bunch of separate countries emerging eventually.

At least people like Yellowhammer admitted thats what he would have preferred, but TheRealRight seems to want to have it both ways

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

It is a common misconception that the Confederacy is about slavery. That is simply not the case.

It simply is the case. Documentary sources written by actual Confederates (not Lost Causers inventing justifications for a failed uprising decades after the fact) show definitively that the men who created the Confederate States of America did so to preserve their right to own slaves. This is a matter of historical record.

[John Dule]

Option 1 only. Anyone who chooses Option 6 is a closeted authoritarian.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

4,5, and 6, but definitely would consider implementing the other ones

#6 would be a violation of the 1st amendment. Is the 1st amendment an "antiquated piece of trash" just like you think the 2nd amendment is?

Deleted post

You know who REALLY thought the Constitution was trash?

... the Confederates.

Why did the care so much about the Tenth Amendment then? The Confederates were trying to break away from the tyrannical government in Washington because Washington didn't care about the Constitution including their Tenth Amendment rights.

LOL. Literally nobody argued secession was legal because of the Tenth Amendment in 1861. Most Confederate politicians agreed secession was illegal, they just didn't care, because their right to continue buying and selling human beings was more important to them. You should read the actual secession ordinances published by the Confederate states instead of parroting ahistorical talking points invented decades after the war to justify a failed rebellion.

(Also, LOL at implying Tom is part of the "radical left.")

It is a common misconception that the Confederacy is about slavery. That is simply not the case. It's about state rights and reducing the power of the federal government. I do not support slavery, but I don't support massive bureaucratic federal governments either. A confederate system is far more efficient and allows states to be more tailored to the desires of the people of those states.

So you dont support the constitution either , because it replaced the prior articles of confederation

Heh, the U.S. would most likely not have survived if the Articles of Confederation remained intact. It was "efficient" all right, if you wanted to have a bunch of separate countries emerging eventually.

So what do you think about the EU? Many of those smaller countries are like states. The EU is like the federal government.

That's rather simplified view. EU authorities, no matter what conspiracy theories junkies or various demagogues like to claim, hardly have the same powers as the U.S. federal government. Certainly much stronger than a barely existent central "government" under the Articles of Confederation, but still. The U.S. is one country, while the EU is still an organization made up of sovereign states, which, as Brexit shows, can elect to leave.

And to answer your question, I'm what they call a "European federalist", who would like to see the EU actually becoming more like the U.S. (the "United States of Europe" is a frequently used term), moving from an organization to a federation with fully democratically elected central government.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Option 1 only. Anyone who chooses Option 6 is a closeted authoritarian.

“Closeted” is such a restrictive term.

[Senator Incitatus]

Option 1 only. Anyone who chooses Option 6 is a closeted authoritarian.

I am very much out of that particular closet.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

All except option 6 (which would almost certainly be unconstitutional).

The Confederacy was a treasonous alliance and established for the ultimate sole purpose of protecting the institution of slavery; every reason for the Civil War can be easily brought back to the issue of slavery. Local and state governments should not be glorifying the Confederacy and its morally reprehensible figureheads in any way. That doesn't mean we are "forgetting history." No one wants the Confederacy out of our museums of history books. But it doesn't belong anywhere else.

[brucejoel99]

All except option 6 (which would almost certainly be unconstitutional).

The Confederacy was a treasonous alliance and established for the ultimate sole purpose of protecting the institution of slavery; every reason for the Civil War can be easily brought back to the issue of slavery. Local and state governments should not be glorifying the Confederacy and its morally reprehensible figureheads in any way. That doesn't mean we are "forgetting history." No one wants the Confederacy out of our museums of history books. But it doesn't belong anywhere else.

Pretty much this.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

To say that "the civil war was about slavery" is just reductionist thinking. I am not saying it wasn't an issue, it certainly was an issue but when you consider that;
a) Lincoln himself said said in his inaugural address that he didn't have the lawful right to interfere with slavery.
b) Lincoln's emancipation proclamation was in 1863. The war started in 1861. So slavery isn't made an issue by the North until the second year of the war. Also frees zero slaves.
c)The fugitive slave acts, where escaped slaves would be returned to their owners would no longer be enforceable for slave states that secede.
It becomes clear (at least to me) that things aren't so clear cut with regards to slavery in the war between the states.

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

...the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
  I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration.

...slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free... [States] in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

Doesn't free a single slave he actually has jurisdiction over.

The confederate flag is racist?




symbol of the south and southern pride?



If the flag is racist does this mean that the US flag is racist?

For the record I don't think either flag is inherently racist. What makes the "confederate flag" so much worse?

Is slavery wrong? well duh.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Look at the founding documents of the confederacy if you don’t believe secession was about slavery. This ahistorical nonsense has to stop.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

To say that "the civil war was about slavery" is just reductionist thinking. I am not saying it wasn't an issue, it certainly was an issue but when you consider that;
a) Lincoln himself said said in his inaugural address that he didn't have the lawful right to interfere with slavery.
b) Lincoln's emancipation proclamation was in 1863. The war started in 1861. So slavery isn't made an issue by the North until the second year of the war. Also frees zero slaves.
c)The fugitive slave acts, where escaped slaves would be returned to their owners would no longer be enforceable for slave states that secede.
It becomes clear (at least to me) that things aren't so clear cut with regards to slavery in the war between the states.

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

...the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
  I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration.

...slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free... [States] in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

Doesn't free a single slave he actually has jurisdiction over.

The confederate flag is racist?




symbol of the south and southern pride?



If the flag is racist does this mean that the US flag is racist?

For the record I don't think either flag is inherently racist. What makes the "confederate flag" so much worse?

Is slavery wrong? well duh.

Yes, the Union, including Lincoln, had lots of other reasons to fight the war. But just because ending slavery wasn’t the North’s top priority didn’t mean that preserving it wasn’t the South’s.

[RINO Tom]

To say that "the civil war was about slavery" is just reductionist thinking. I am not saying it wasn't an issue, it certainly was an issue but when you consider that;
a) Lincoln himself said said in his inaugural address that he didn't have the lawful right to interfere with slavery.
b) Lincoln's emancipation proclamation was in 1863. The war started in 1861. So slavery isn't made an issue by the North until the second year of the war. Also frees zero slaves.
c)The fugitive slave acts, where escaped slaves would be returned to their owners would no longer be enforceable for slave states that secede.
It becomes clear (at least to me) that things aren't so clear cut with regards to slavery in the war between the states.

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

...the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
  I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration.

...slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free... [States] in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

Doesn't free a single slave he actually has jurisdiction over.

The confederate flag is racist?




symbol of the south and southern pride?



If the flag is racist does this mean that the US flag is racist?

For the record I don't think either flag is inherently racist. What makes the "confederate flag" so much worse?

Is slavery wrong? well duh.

But nobody is saying the Union went to war to stop slavery ... the Union didn't GO to war at all.  The Union responded to an unlawful secession and by extension rebellion against our government, and that secession by the Confederacy was QUITE obviously based on the protection of slavery - an institution they proactively looked to protect against a Republican President - and there is plenty of historical evidence for this, mostly including primary sources by the rebels themselves.