[vmarks]

Actually, the Confederacy proposed, but lost the war before enacting, the practice that any slave who served in the Confederate Army would be emancipated in return for his service.

This proposal was put forth by Judah P. Benjamin, and accepted by Jefferson Davis.

Today's racist evil jerks have little connection with the Confederacy - most of them believe that Jewish folks aren't human, or are worth less than whites. They don't know that Benjamin was Jewish, and that the Confederacy was prepared to emancipate.

But then, today's ill-educated folks can't conceive of a Confederacy that stood for anything other than slavery as a permanent institution, or that the war might have been fought over any other cause.

The war settled the question over whether or not states could secede as Jefferson said they could, and it set forth a course where the 9th and 10th amendments of the Constitution are meaningless in the face of a powerful central government that imposes homogeneity.

[vmarks]

I wonder if so many fans of Firefly and Serenity have overlooked the obvious comparisons to the War Against Northern Aggression.

What is it that the character Mal says?

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

There is no shame in fighting for the liberty that the Constitution and the founders intended, that liberty to secede, that liberty to be free from a strong federalized government.

Was there shame in not providing maximal freedom to all residents in the Confederacy? Yes. Was there shame in not providing maximal freedom to all residents in the North? Also, yes.

[Shaddim]

well said.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The idea that Northern=" anti-slavery, non-racist" and Confederacy="all bad, and only about slavery and racism" and The Civil War= fought primarily to end slavery" is more overly-simplistic crap that's evidence of the dumbed-down education system in this country.

Just the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 alone is staggering evidence that the Northern states and the Federal Government of the time weren't really anti-slavery.

"the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 made any Federal marshal or other official who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave liable to a fine of $1,000. Law-enforcement officials everywhere now had a duty to arrest anyone suspected of being a runaway slave on no more evidence than a claimant's sworn testimony of ownership.

The suspected slave could not ask for a jury trial or testify on his or her own behalf. In addition, any person aiding a runaway slave by providing food or shelter was subject to six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine.

Officers who captured a fugitive slave were entitled to a bonus for their work. Slaveowners only needed to supply an affidavit to a Federal marshall to capture an escaped slave. Since any suspected slave was not eligible for a trial this led to many free blacks being conscripted into slavery as they had no rights in court and could not defend themselves against accusations."

When you read ACTUAL history about gangs of for-profit slave catchers rounding up free blacks (former slaves, or just ANYONE black) in Northern states to sell back to the South, with the FULL blessing of the Federal and state governments, it's a sick joke to believe most Northerners were fighting the Civil War to free slaves. The laws that clearly treated blacks as property and 'fugitives' even in the North, are a reflection of most people's real attitudes toward blacks at the time, North or South.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Freedom from tyranny? I really don't get this. Why can't you just wholly reject what they stood for? I don't see Germans arguing that the Nazi flag is the symbol of people who fought for the great German way of life. You can love the South, or Germany or America or anywhere else - without defending the Confederacy, or Nazis. Can't you? It's not like the confederacy is central to Southern identity - it only lasted a few years during the Civil War. I just don't get why people defend it at all.

The whole question assumes that I don't actually believe what I'm saying. I'm not playing devil's advocate or trying to defend "Southern identity" — I truly believe that both sides of the fight were bad in one way or another. The North was acting tyrannical and had no respect for the rights of sovereign entities, and the South was the main perpetrator of a pretty heinous (albeit common at the time) human rights violation. I don't think either of these is a particularly great thing. But at least the South gave up its misbehavior. America still hasn't gotten back to the model of freedom that the founders intended.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The whole question assumes that I don't actually believe what I'm saying. I'm not playing devil's advocate or trying to defend "Southern identity" — I truly believe that both sides of the fight were bad in one way or another. The North was acting tyrannical and had no respect for the rights of sovereign entities, and the South was the main perpetrator of a pretty heinous (albeit common at the time) human rights violation. I don't think either of these is a particularly great thing. But at least the South gave up its misbehavior. America still hasn't gotten back to the model of freedom that the founders intended.

No, you're perfectly clear. You genuinely believe in their cause, you see it as fighting tyranny. That's crystal clear. And utterly and completely despicable.

It's no different from a German saying the Nazis were fighting for the great German way of life. Sure, the Nazis did bad things, but the Americans had no respect for German sovereignty, and they imprisoned some Japanese-Americans and firebombed Dresden, so they were no better. And at least the Germans gave up the concentration camps.

I have to ask: Is this a common belief in the US? Is this the kind of thing they're teaching in schools? I lived in Atlanta for a while, and I never encountered it, but maybe I just got lucky. Or maybe Atlanta is no longer truly The South.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Not every German was a Nazi, or even had any first hand knowledge of the magnitude of what the Nazi regime was really up to. Many Germans and people from conquered nations fought for Germany without subscribing to Nazi ideology, had no knowledge what-so-ever about concentration camps (the official line was just that Jews were being deported or ghettoized) and indeed thought they were just defending the motherland. Even in that situation, it wasn't all Germans= Baaad. All Americans= Gooood.

Conversely, not every Confederate was a slave owner, or was fighting so some rich guys could keep their slaves. Most of the country at the time was equally racist, so trying to pin the blame for racism on the South (or a flag) either then or since, is just more over-simplification.

The confederate flag has been used since by racists (sure) and also as a completely benign symbol of the south, innocent enough to be a prominent feature of TV shows watched by the entire nation. Clearly, not everyone views the flag as racist in and of itself- just people looking to be offended. Symbols are only what people make them out to be.

It's amazingly ironic how you simplify complex situations to the level of comic book villains, then try and blast others for their lack of education.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I'll just point out, perhaps to add some small measure of perspective to the debate:

Most of the world was in some measure as anti-Semitic/racist as Nazi Germany at the time. My great country of Canada, for example, has a long and ignoble history of Asian/Chinese discrimination, eugenics policies, minority repression, and blatant anti-Semitic beliefs and policies extending to the very top levels of public life and government. Nonetheless, Canada was not willing to raise a public banner and boldly march to war in order to take military action in enforcing these widespread beliefs.

I think that might be the debate in this issue. No one is trying to "pin the blame for racism on the South." Just as the Nazi symbol has different meanings, the question is why, or how, the meaning of "anti-federalism" and "state power" has come to predominate the symbol of the Confederate Flag, rather than "slavery." Why is this any different than the Nazi symbol, which equally (and perhaps most-so) meant "German greatness" but now only means racism and anti-semitism?

greg

[BRussell]

crash, I didn't blast anyone for lack of education. If I'm blasting anyone for anything, it's the lack of willingness to just say what is right and wrong. Everything is complex, but, especially with the benefit of historical hindsight, it's often easy to make a judgment, as in the Civil War or WWII. The Japanese have often (rightly) been criticized for portraying themselves as the victims during WWII. They hadn't fully accounted for their culpability. I don't see the difference between that and Chuckit's and vmarks' attitude toward the American Civil War.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

No, you're perfectly clear. You genuinely believe in their cause, you see it as fighting tyranny. That's crystal clear. And utterly and completely despicable.

Says the guy who defends America, which did the same exact thing the Confederacy did wrong. If you're going to attack my character, please do so with reason and logic rather than empty assertions. In fact, you might consider using reason and logic in all future debates.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

It's no different from a German saying the Nazis were fighting for the great German way of life.

No, it's actually a lot different. For example: The Confederacy did not set out to start a gigantic, bloody war; the Confederacy did not round up and kill millions of innocent people; the Confederacy did not seek any changes at all, whereas Hitler had a vision of great change in Europe. In fact, you haven't pointed out a single way in which they were very similar. You just seem to be doggedly trying to flaunt Godwin's Law as much as humanly possible.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Sure, the Nazis did bad things, but the Americans had no respect for German sovereignty

We didn't start the war against Germany — they attacked first. Even in that respect the situations aren't similar.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I have to ask: Is this a common belief in the US? Is this the kind of thing they're teaching in schools? I lived in Atlanta for a while, and I never encountered it, but maybe I just got lucky. Or maybe Atlanta is no longer truly The South.

You mean: Is it a common belief that the people who made up the Confederacy were, in fact, human beings rather than cartoon characters? Sadly, I don't think so. Most people don't grasp the idea that somebody may be wrong in one way but right in another. It's too easy to take the intellectually lazy route of demonizing those with whom you disagree.

[BRussell]

OK, Chuckit, you keep on defending the Confederacy as fighting for freedom against tyranny. And I'll "demonize those with whom I disagree." Yeah, I just "disagree with" the Confederacy. Unbelievable. It's moral relativism as bad as I've ever seen it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I think that might be the debate in this issue. No one is trying to "pin the blame for racism on the South." Just as the Nazi symbol has different meanings, the question is why, or how, the meaning of "anti-federalism" and "state power" has come to predominate the symbol of the Confederate Flag, rather than "slavery." Why is this any different than the Nazi symbol, which equally (and perhaps most-so) meant "German greatness" but now only means racism and anti-semitism?

That's a very good question. Here's my theory:
Both of these things were forms of racism, which is not really an uncommon thing. However, Germany took anti-Semitism to a whole new level, committing such a slaughter that everything else the Nazis did paled in comparison. In contrast, the Confederacy basically just wanted to mind its own business and keep the status quo. Basically, the Nazis' genocide was so striking that even their own people were shocked, whereas the most striking part of the secession for Southerners was the drive for freedom from the North.

Does that make sense?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Just as the Nazi symbol has different meanings, the question is why, or how, the meaning of "anti-federalism" and "state power" has come to predominate the symbol of the Confederate Flag, rather than "slavery." Why is this any different than the Nazi symbol, which equally (and perhaps most-so) meant "German greatness" but now only means racism and anti-semitism?

The Nazi symbol as used by the Germans was a specific party symbol.

Notice, you'll find the same iron cross symbol used by the Nazis, used on German military equipment to this very day. Is the iron cross a symbol of racism or fascism?



Same symbol.

Same meaning?


How about this flag:

Does it only stand for this?



No one can ever display it again, without it standing for an Axis power guilty of mass rape, pillage and plunder?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

OK, Chuckit, you keep on defending the Confederacy as fighting for freedom against tyranny. And I'll "demonize those with whom I disagree." Yeah, I just "disagree with" the Confederacy. Unbelievable. It's moral relativism as bad as I've ever seen it.

No, it isn't. Moral relativism would be saying, "Well, their slavery was OK because of such-and-such cultural circumstances." I'm not saying slavery was OK. It was evil. It's a shameful thing in America's past. But I'm saying that just because America had slavery doesn't mean that America is all evil. The ideals of freedom that America stood for are great. I think a country can have both good qualities and bad qualities. Am I despicable for seeing good in America?

To go further, the Union was not fighting for civil rights. It had the effect of ending slavery, but that was more or less a happy accident. I don't count that to the Union's credit. Lincoln actually tried to reassure the South that he would continue to support slavery. He even offered to let the South keep its slaves if the South rejoined the Union. The Union started the war because Lincoln wanted to retain control of the Southern states. That is what the war was about: whether the federal government should have boundless authority. And that is what I respect in the Confederacy — not the evil that they shared with America, but the libertarian zeal that America had started to give up.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, it isn't. Moral relativism would be saying, "Well, their slavery was OK because of such-and-such cultural circumstances." I'm not saying slavery was OK. It was evil. It's a shameful thing in America's past. But I'm saying that just because America had slavery doesn't mean that America is all evil. The ideals of freedom that America stood for are great. I think a country can have both good qualities and bad qualities. Am I despicable for seeing good in America?

America made a decision to give up slavery, that's why it is good despite having had slavery in its past. And it did that by fighting the Civil War against the Confederacy. That's how it redeemed itself, not by people taking the bad with the good.

To go further, the Union was not fighting for civil rights. It had the effect of ending slavery, but that was more or less a happy accident. I don't count that to the Union's credit. Lincoln actually tried to reassure the South that he would continue to support slavery. He even offered to let the South keep its slaves if the South rejoined the Union. The Union started the war because Lincoln wanted to retain control of the Southern states. That is what the war was about: whether the federal government should have boundless authority. And that is what I respect in the Confederacy — not the evil that they shared with America, but the libertarian zeal that America had started to give up.

The Confederacy seceded before Lincoln was even inaugurated. Lincoln couldn't have taken away their freedoms, because he wasn't even president yet. But they split the country because they wanted to keep slaves, and they had fears that someone might try to take them away. That was what the Confederacy stood for, and it was unambiguously wrong. If you interpret that as having some good and some bad, you're showing moral relativism.

The South /= The Confederacy.
All the people in the South at the time of the Confederacy /= The Confederacy.
The South /= Evil.
All the people in the South at the time of the Confederacy /= Evil.
The Confederacy = Evil.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

America made a decision to give up slavery, that's why it is good despite having had slavery in its past. And it did that by fighting the Civil War against the Confederacy. That's how it redeemed itself, not by people taking the bad with the good.

In what universe did this occur? In the one where I live, Lincoln supported the Southern states' right to slavery and offered in the Emancipation Proclamation to let the Confederate states keep their slaves if they renounced their rebellion. Given this, how can you say that getting rid of slavery is the reason the Union fought the Civil War? Look at the reasons given for the war — it was pretty much never slavery, it was about a house divided against itself. He was willing to let them keep their slaves. It was secession he wouldn't tolerate.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

In what universe did this occur? In the one where I live, Lincoln supported the Southern states' right to slavery and offered in the Emancipation Proclamation to let the Confederate states keep their slaves if they renounced their rebellion. Given this, how can you say that getting rid of slavery is the reason the Union fought the Civil War? Look at the reasons given for the war — it was pretty much never slavery, it was about a house divided against itself. He was willing to let them keep their slaves. It was secession he wouldn't tolerate.

The South seceded because the Republicans took power, the Republicans wanted to end slavery, and the South didn't want slavery to end. The North was willing to fight a war to make sure they couldn't do it. However you characterize it, the Civil War was fought because of slavery. If you prefer to frame it as: the Civil War was fought because of the secession, and the secession occurred because of slavery, fine. In the end, the country fought a war that brought about the end of slavery, and that redeems the country. What I'm disagreeing with is the idea that we just forgive slavery because we're generous. No, we forgive it because they ended it.

And besides that, how can you say that fighting the bloodiest war in our history was an admirable way to do this? So many countries had slaves and as far as I know we were pretty much the only one that felt it necessary to slaughter hundreds of thousands of our own people — most of whom didn't even own slaves — in order to stop slavery.

Perhaps that's because, in those other countries that ended slavery without war, one region didn't try to split off for the sole purpose of keeping their slaves?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Perhaps that's because, in those other countries that ended slavery without war, one region didn't try to split off for the sole purpose of keeping their slaves?

Even the notion of other countries 'ending slavery' is so much bunk, compared to reality. Other nations merely discontinued the practice of IMPORTING slavery to their mainlands. What they didn't do, was discontinue the practice of enslaving people in their home countries and bolstering themselves with the resulting plunder.


Out of sight= out of mind.

The Confederacy also could never have maintained its slave society without the support of the rest of the world, including that which helped to supply the slaves and buy the products produced with slave labor.

Single out the Confederacy all you want, but the entire world was responsible for slavery and the conquest and destruction of Africa, Asia, the Middle East, South America, etc, and the racism behind it.

[Jawbone54]

What the Confederacy stood for in regards to states' rights and a weaker federal government was something that I could be in total agreement with. There are a lot of misunderstandings concerning that time, and I'm not sure those perceptions can ever be changed.

But today, most people who display the Confederate flag aren't making a statement about limiting the federal government.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

What the Confederacy stood for in regards to states' rights and a weaker federal government was something that I could be in total agreement with. There are a lot of misunderstandings concerning that time, and I'm not sure those perceptions can ever be changed.

But today, most people who display the Confederate flag aren't making a statement about limiting the federal government.

I don't know. Most of the ones I've known have been very much just Southern pride folks who seem to view it as kind of a middle-finger to the government. But like I said before, I imagine it's very much a personal and regional thing.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't know. Most of the ones I've known have been very much just Southern pride folks who seem to view it as kind of a middle-finger to the government. But like I said before, I imagine it's very much a personal and regional thing.

There's a lot of truth to that. I have a guy in my youth group who's best friend is black, but he wears a shirt that has a Confederate flag on the back and there's no awkwardness between the two. His friend knows it's not a race thing at all; his actions have proven that over the past several years. He just loves being identified as a Southerner.

There are also a few families in my neighborhood who have Confederate flags hanging in their garages, but this is a nice, friendly neighborhood that seems to have little prejudice. This is not a "white" or "black" area. There's a pretty good mixture here.

On the other hand, I've seen a ton of people in this region that display the flag simply for the purpose of showing how rough, tough, and racist they are. I've seen guys drive down the road with a full-size flag rigged up to fly in the bed of their truck. One group of guys in particular rolled down their window while driving past the Taco Bell I was at and screamed, "Go home, n***ers!!!" as they were driving by. Their intentions couldn't be mistaken.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

The real question to be asked is: why were you at Taco Bell?? Have you no pride?!

[Jawbone54]

Of course not.

And yes...it's disgusting, but it's cheap.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

(Their Fries Supreme is, IMIO, is also the best of the major fast-food restaurants. )

greg

[midwinter]

I'd just like to point out that this is the confederate flag:



And I'm from farther south than Chuckit, so I totally have more cred than him.

[Chuckit]

"Y'all" = Southern
"Oh my heck" ≠ Southern

Just for the record.

Though that is in fact the Confederate flag.

[nonhuman]

So the stars and bars was what? A battle standard?

As far as I'm concerned, this is the true American flag:


Edit: Apparently the flag posted by midwinter is the Stars and Bars, and was the first official flag of the CSA. The flag we all consider the Confederate flag was actually the 2nd confederate naval ensign...

However the above flag was only the first of three flags of the CSA. The second and third were:

[Chuckit]

The flag midwinter posted is the Stars and Bars, though I think people often use the name for the other one as well (since it also involves, you know, stars and bars).

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Google it and you find flasks, car paint jobs, shirts, and even a prom dress. I don't get it. Isn't it deeply offensive to blacks? I mean, just glance over the Wiki article on the CSA and you'll find,

And so on. If the CSA were basically slave-mongers, why isn't the Confederate flag to postbellum America what the swastika is to postwar Germany?

The Confederate battle flag wasn't really controversial until some state legislatures, during the Civil Rights Movement, decided to officially recognize the flag in some way, either by making it part of the state's flag or by flying it prominently. The other reason it's suspect is because the KKK and other groups use it, just as the swastika was suspect b/c of Nazi use.

The battle flag has become a lightning rod for race-baiters such as Rev. Jesse and Rev. Al. Otherwise, it wouldn't attract attention at all.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

"Y'all" = Southern
"Oh my heck" ≠ Southern

Just for the record.

Somebody knows a little about Utah dialect weirdness! "Oh my heck" is just fetchin' bizarre.

It cracks me up to see people with the battle flag around here. Of course, as a transplanted Southerner in Utah, I sometimes get treated a little like a creature from another planet.

[midwinter]

Here's a question that was posed to me a while back. After Katrina, my university flew the state flags of all the affected states as part of a fundraiser.

Here is my home state's flag:



Some folks were offended.

[D. S. Troyer]

I stand and sing "I Wish I Was In Dixie" (or Jane or Sue) whenever I see that ole Southern Cross.

[D. S. Troyer]

Originally Posted by midwinter 

The Dutch have gone and joined the Confederacy!

[vmarks]

Won'tcha come with me to Alabammy,
Back to the arms of my dear ol' Mammy,
Her cookin's lousy and her hands are clammy,
But what the hell, it's home.
Yes, for paradise the Southland is my nominee.
Jes' give me a ham hock and a grit of hominy.

I wanna go back to Dixie
I wanna be a dixie pixie
And eat cornpone 'til it's comin' outta my ears

The land of the boll weevil,
Where the laws are medieval,
Is callin' me to come and nevermore roam.
I wanna go back to the Southland,
That "y'all" and "shet-ma-mouth" land,
Be it ever so decadent,
There's no place like home.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Look at what people are doing with the apostrophe.

[Macrobat]

Not to mention, the flag everyone keeps calling "The Confederate Flag" is NOT the Confederate flag, it's the Confederate Battle Flag. THIS is the Confederate Flag:


Also it was NORTHERN ship captains who were engaged in the slave trade in the first place, the South had VERY little shipping of its own - see, in the real world we call this "hypocrisy."

And no, lpmckenna, the Civil War's central issue was states' rights, ONE of which was slavery. The North didn't even go to war intending to end slavery. Didn't become part of their lexicon until the Gettysburg Address - when Lincoln needed more support for the war at home - that was 3 years into the 4-year war.

As a matter of fact, the TRUE cause of the war was Northern interests in the Federal government who were increasing taxes exponentially on cotton and tobacco (Southern staple economic crops) because the South was making more money selling these goods to the BRITISH than they would selling them to Northern manufacturing interests and the Northerners attempted to FORCE the South to sell them their products at prices THEY dictated to the South. You may just want to actually READ some history before spouting pendantic crap.

Interestingly enough, less than 5 years after the war, inventors came up with machines that made slavery no longer viable, as the machines were cheaper to operate. In other words, slavery would have ended ANYWAY, without the need to have a war and the accompanying bloodshed.

Another bit of history for you. The "oh-so-wonderful, anti-slavery" North AFTER the war, established the country of Liberia in Africa and attempted to "repatriate" all slaves back there. So don't even TRY to claim that all the racism was on the side of the South.

Bottom line, The "Civil War" was an "illegal" war, an ACTUAL illegal war - as in Unconstitutional. The states ratify the Constitution and join the Union VOLUNTARILY and ALWAYS had the right to leave.

Lincoln used the flimsy justification for war that the Southerners had attacked Federal property in Fort Sumter, SC.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

No, you're perfectly clear. You genuinely believe in their cause, you see it as fighting tyranny. That's crystal clear. And utterly and completely despicable.

It's no different from a German saying the Nazis were fighting for the great German way of life. Sure, the Nazis did bad things, but the Americans had no respect for German sovereignty, and they imprisoned some Japanese-Americans and firebombed Dresden, so they were no better. And at least the Germans gave up the concentration camps.

I have to ask: Is this a common belief in the US? Is this the kind of thing they're teaching in schools? I lived in Atlanta for a while, and I never encountered it, but maybe I just got lucky. Or maybe Atlanta is no longer truly The South.

HUGE difference, BRussell. The Confederacy did NOT invade its neighbors in order to dominate them and force their way of life upon them, the Germans did. Actually, the side of the "Civil War" who did what you are condemning the Confederacy for would have been the Union, which invaded the South in order to FORCE them to remain in the Union, when they clearly had the Constitutional right to leave it.

Your analogy is flawed at its core and its intellectually dishonest of you to even attempt the comparison.

You may find some of the practices in the Confederacy (notably slavery) distasteful - as do I - but you really should pay attention to your history when pointing fingers.

The North made ALL the money from importing the slaves, then tried to force the South to sell them their goods at a dictated price, when the South refused, the Northern interests in Congress forced through a HUGE tariff on Southern agricultural goods, attempting to dictate Southern behavior - THIS is the straw that broke the camel's back and caused the "Civil War" - NOT slavery.

And if we are comparing "Southern-ness" here - I would win - Florida not being a state at the time of the "Civil War," Georgia was as Deep South as was available atthe time - and I was born and raised in Southern Georgia - the "South of the South." I win, I win!!!

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

HUGE difference, BRussell. The Confederacy did NOT invade its neighbors in order to dominate them and force their way of life upon them, the Germans did. Actually, the side of the "Civil War" who did what you are condemning the Confederacy for would have been the Union, which invaded the South in order to FORCE them to remain in the Union, when they clearly had the Constitutional right to leave it.

Your analogy is flawed at its core and its intellectually dishonest of you to even attempt the comparison.

Of course there are differences, as there are in the specifics of any analogy. But it's just as wrong for Americans to defend the Confederacy as it would be wrong for a German to defend the Nazis. When part of the country seceded and went to war just because they were afraid that the North might possibly try to free their slaves someday, it was one of the darkest times in the history of the country, and Lincoln is almost universally recognized as the greatest president in American history for stopping it. To the extent that you defend the Confederacy, you've lost any sense of right and wrong. (And to claim that the Confederacy wasn't "dominating" or "forcing their way of life" on anyone is the height of doublespeak.)

But I have to comment on a couple of your specifics. First, as you point out in an earlier post, the South actually started the war by attacking first at Fort Sumter.

Second, it is absolutely false that states can legally unilaterally secede. No such right exists in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has ruled on it definitively.

Third, the idea that the CSA didn't secede because of slavery is easily refutable. Just read any of the documents of secession by the states themselves, like the first one by South Carolina. They state very clearly that it's about slavery.

Originally Posted by South Carolina

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

It goes on and on and on like that, talking about slavery and how "the non-slaveholding states" are being mean to them for holding slaves, and so they're going to secede. There's no talk of any other examples of "states' rights," it's all about slavery.

Or, in the words of the CSA Vice-President cited earlier in this thread:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone 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 normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

There's no question about the cornerstone of the Confederacy - it was slavery.

[nonhuman]

And there's no doubt that the cornerstone of the KKK is the inferiority of blacks as well, but that doesn't stop us from allowing them to exist and supporting their right to do so.

Just because we don't agree with what people choose to do with their rights doesn't mean we can't believe in the validity of those rights.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

And there's no doubt that the cornerstone of the KKK is the inferiority of blacks as well, but that doesn't stop us from allowing them to exist and supporting their right to do so.

Just because we don't agree with what people choose to do with their rights doesn't mean we can't believe in the validity of those rights.

I don't get your point. You're saying we should allow the South to hold slaves? Because we should believe in the validity of the right to hold slaves even though we disagree with them? I don't see how allowing the KKK to practice free speech translates into this discussion about the CSA having slaves.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I don't get your point. You're saying we should allow the South to hold slaves? Because we should believe in the validity of the right to hold slaves even though we disagree with them? I don't see how allowing the KKK to practice free speech translates into this discussion about the CSA having slaves.

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that we can support the South's right to secede even while we condemn their motivations for doing so. Lincoln set, in my mind and in the minds of many others, a very dangerous precedent by engaging in war with the South. Yes, he hasted the end of slavery, and that is a good thing. But at the same time he changed fundamentally the nature of our nation. Prior to the Lincoln administration the United States was a collection of sovereign and equal entities working together for the mutual benefit of all involved. After the Lincoln administration the United States became something more resembling the modern United Kingdom. We're no longer a free association of sovereign entities, we're now a collection of vassal states subordinated to a single sovereign government. Some of us think this is a bad thing.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Florida not being a state at the time of the "Civil War," Georgia was as Deep South as was available atthe time - and I was born and raised in Southern Georgia - the "South of the South." I win, I win!!!

A lot of what you said is true, but Florida was a state at the time of the Civil War and did secede.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Second, it is absolutely false that states can legally unilaterally secede. No such right exists in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has ruled on it definitively.

Where on Earth did you sit in History class?

9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Translation: If it's a right mentioned in the Constitution, that doesn't mean it's the only right we have. Any power not granted to Congress in the Constitution is reserved for the States or citizenry.

That is, just because secession isn't mentioned in the Constitution does not mean it isn't a right - it is. Because it isn't reserved for Congress to exercise, the right of secession belongs to the states or citizens, and cannot be taken away by the Federal Government, at least as long as the Federal Government wishes to uphold its oath to protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution.

In his 1801 First Inaugural Address one of the first things Thomas Jefferson did was to support the right of secession. "If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form," the author of the Declaration of Independence said, "let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

And Jefferson was an anti-Federalist. The Federalists that lost the election began plotting secession, and Jefferson didn't oppose them - the idea is that secession may be unwise, but it's a right, and people have the right to do unwise things.

Just because you claim the Supreme Court has ruled does not mean the Supreme Court has ruled correctly. They've been wrong before. Repeatedly. They'll be wrong again in the future. Fortunately, the number of rulings that rely on interpreting 'penumbras' will likely go down.

[peeb]

On what grounds would the US oppose a state that democratically decided to petition for secession?

[nonhuman]

American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President. In his inaugural address, he argued that the Constitution was a more perfect union than the earlier Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, that it was a binding contract, and called any secession "legally void".[52] He stated he had no intent to invade Southern states, nor did he intend to end slavery where it existed, but that he would use force to maintain possession of federal property. His speech closed with a plea for restoration of the bonds of union.[53]

The South sent delegations to Washington and offered to pay for the federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with Confederate agents on the grounds that the Confederacy was not a legitimate government, and that making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government.[54] However, Secretary of State William Seward engaged in unauthorized and indirect negotiations that failed.[54]

So the grounds were basically that 'we say so'.

[BRussell]

vmarks, macrobat claimed there was a constitutional right to secession, but there is no "power of states to secede" article in the constitution, there's no evidence that it was considered an implied power, and the Supreme Court agrees with me and not you on that. Simply asserting that the Supreme Court is wrong and you're right doesn't do it for me.

And Jefferson's quote hardly says that states can legally secede. If that's the best quote you can find, it must point to the lack of support for the idea.

I also want to note how, at the end of your post, you denigrated the idea of "penumbras" (referring to the decision on the right to privacy). How can you, in the first part of your post, claim that unenumerated rights exist, but mock broad interpretation of the constitution in the second part? Which is it, strict or broad? If there was ever a constitutional provision that exists in a penumbra, it's secession.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by peeb 

On what grounds would the US oppose a state that democratically decided to petition for secession?

I'm sure there could be a legal agreement, like a constitutional amendment, to allow a state to secede. But the confederacy didn't "petition for secession," they just declared it unilaterally and then started shooting.

[peeb]

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I'm sure there could be a legal agreement, like a constitutional amendment, to allow a state to secede. But the confederacy didn't "petition for secession," they just declared it unilaterally and then started shooting.

There is a Constitutional amendment that allows states to secede — the 10th, as vmarks stated above. The federal government had no Constitutional right to control whether or not a state seceded, so I don't see why there would be need for a petition.

Also, it's not exactly correct to say they seceded and then started shooting. Some states seceded, the Union tried to use its military to keep control of those states, the Confederate states tried to get the Union forces out of their territory, the Union sent in more troops, and then more Southern states were obliged to secede and join in the fight.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I'm sure there could be a legal agreement, like a constitutional amendment, to allow a state to secede. But the confederacy didn't "petition for secession," they just declared it unilaterally and then started shooting.

Of course they just declared it unilaterally. Why would they need to ask permission to leave a voluntary association?

Also they didn't just start shooting. The impetus for the conflict was that they seized federal property when they seceded. They attempted to negotiate with Lincoln to pay for those properties so that they wouldn't have just stolen them. Lincoln refused to negotiate with them.

It seems to me that they acted in good faith under the reasonable assumption that having voluntarily entered the union they could then voluntarily leave it. Lincoln refused to accept that, and his stubbornness is absolutely the cause of the Civil War. The war was entirely about the right of states to secede, and not at all about slavery. The Confederate states may have seceded over slavery, but Lincoln was perfectly happy to allow slavery to continue, he just didn't want to give up control over those states.