Some People Want The Confederate Flag To Stay

[padisha emperor]

If that was treason, then so was the American Revolution. When the Confederates seceded, they were no longer part of the United States. What history books are you reading?

???

The US independance War of the XVIIIth c. can't be compared with the Civil War.
The US territory in 1776 was a BRITISH colony. It was a war to fight the dominatyion of a colonialist State. Do you compare the war of Indochina, and the indepednatist movements in Britain ? No...One was independance war, the other are scessionist movements.

It's hard for me to explain exactly what I want in english, but these 2 things are different.

in 1861, The SOuth BELONG to the USA. in 1776, The US 13 colonies were not a sovereign country, but a possession of the british Crown. The status of a colony in not the same than the status of a region. The SOuth was a region, not a colony.

The North occupied it and was asked to move, since the land was no longer subject to the federal government.

??????????

Fort Sumter belong to the federal governement of the USA.
It's n ot becasue the South declared the secession that Fort Sumter became auitomaticly possession of the Confederation.
South had no right on a military federal fort.


For me , the main goal of the North at the beginning of the Civil War was the preservation of the Union. Maybe this preservation was for the money from South, but probably also to save the young nation of America.



But on a constitutionnal point of view, I believe that South had right to proclaim the secession, when the southern States think that their interests are no more protected.
But I think that's a simple declaration of secession is not enough.

 

[theim]

All I'm gonna ask is that if declaring you are no longer part of the USA, then proceeding to attack a US fort is not treason...what the hell is?

 

[padisha emperor]

If the secession is alright, it's not a treason.

if it's not good, it's a sedition and a treason.

 

[Hobbit]

theim, what you fail to understand is how the United States was put together back then. At this time, states' rights have decayed so far that they might as well be called territories. However, prior to the War Between the States, each of the United States was actually a state, and a state is an independant country. It's called the United States because several independant states joined together and formed a federal government to manage the states and protect their joint interests. For quite some time, each state printed its own money until congress decided a common currency would be good for the Union. As it was constructed, a state, as an independant body with its own government, could unsubscribe from the Constitution with a procedure detailed by its own government. At that point, all responsibilities and privileges of being part of the Union would be revoked and the state would exist independantly.

Before the war, New England, as it still does today, decided they knew better than the South. This caused the same kind of partisanship we have now, where slave states and free states would vote straight along party lines on all issues, slave related or not. With a greater population than the South, the North had a vast majority in the House of Representatives, and the only way to maintain the balance was to keep it in the Senate. With the admission of California as a free state without a slave state to balance it, there was no longer a lockup in the Senate, and with a northern elected president, the North could easily roll right over the South, as any legislation they wanted would go right through. Just like many politicians do now (*cough*Democrats*cough), the Northern politicians set their plans to force the South to immediately do a lot of things that take more time than they were willing to give. They demanded the slaves be immediately freed, but didn't offer a solution for what to do with them. They also demanded a lot of infastructure construction the South neither needed nor could afford. Their effort was to basically turn the South into a warmer North, which wasn't about to happen. The South, seeing that they no longer had any say in the federal government, just like the colonies did in the American Revolution, the South broke away in order to protect themselves. You may think this isn't true, but study the period of history known as "Reconstruction." The same things happened that I'm talking about, only it took a war to force it on the people of the South.

Now, as for Fort Sumpter. When we broke away from Britain, did we leave them all of their forts because it would be treason to attack territory of the crown? No, we attacked the forts to keep the British from extending their will into our land. It was a justified attack, and, as I stated before, it killed nobody, unless you count the horse. Oh, and treason requires that you first be a part of the nation you commit treason against, unlike the Confederacy, which was independant.

 

[5stringJeff]

The above remark about the North’s motivation for fighting back in the Civil War (it was the South that started the fighting by attacking the Federal post at Fort Sumter) is false. To suggest that the North went to war for money is disrespectful of the hundreds of thousands who died to preserve the Union and ultimately to end slavery. At the beginning of the war, the North's goal was to preserve the Union. The Southern leaders that promoted the dissolution of the Union committed treason and it was Lincoln's duty to stop it. Did the Union soldiers killed at Shiloh and Gettysburg die for money? Did Lincoln fight to keep the South in the Union for money? Obviously not. The Civil War virtually bankrupted the North. Moreover, to state that the South fought for independence is obfuscation in the extreme. The reason that the South sought independence was to preserve its economic way of life which was based on the institution of slavery.

The question is not whether Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union. The question is why he wanted to preserve it. It's not like the South was going to set up a Communist government. If anything, the Southern Constitution preserved state's rights more than the U.S. did.
Lincoln is on record as demanding that the U.S. military, in 1861, enforce U.S. tariffs in Southern ports, of which Charleston was one of the most important. Thus, why Ft. Sumter became a flashpoint. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union in order to keep cheap raw Southern goods available for Northern factories, which would boost the US economy as a whole. Later, to win the PR battle with Europe, he expanded the war aims to abolish slavery.

 

[5stringJeff]

What history books are you reading? Were they written by Jefferson Davis? Fort Sumter was, and is, Federal property. The Southern leaders who led the States to leave the Union were guilty of treason. As United States citizens, they took up arms against the United States and that is treason.

After the South seceded, they were no longer US citizens. Thus it wasn't treason.

And while the South seceded to keep slavery, which is morally indefensible, they were on firm legal ground. Just ask Thomas Jefferson.

 

[padisha emperor]

Oh, and treason requires that you first be a part of the nation you commit treason against, unlike the Confederacy, which was independant.

no

there is a difference between declaring its independance and beeing independant

The South declared it, but was never independant. And not recognized as sovereign State by North, France and UK (if south would have abolished slavery, both France and UK would probably had recongnize South...)


Look : The 13 colonies DECLARE their independance, July the 4th, 1776. But they became independant only in 1783, when, at the treaty of Versailles, the british Crown admit its defeat and recognized the former 13 colonies as sovereign State.
Butr the Americans had to fight while several years (from 1774 to 1781) against UK, and with the help of France.

It's only when the situation was lost that UK admit the independance, after Yorktown.


For the Civil War : South proclaim its independance. Well, and ? everybody can say "I'm independant". But they're not.
Do you understand ?

So they were not independant, the Confederacy had no existence in right (in law ? don't know the correct expresion in english), then the citizens of the south were still citizen of the Union, and by the way, it was a treason act to attack a federal property, Fort Sumter, and to make war againt the Union's States.

And don't say to me it was not the same nation : both north and South fought UK, Virginia was even the cradle of the US nationalism.


It's too easy to say : I don't consider myself as citizen of XXX country, then I don't commit treason if I attack it.
This statement is fully wrong.

 

[manu1959]

no

there is a difference between declaring its independance and beeing independant

The South declared it, but was never independant. And not recognized as sovereign State by North, France and UK (if south would have abolished slavery, both France and UK would probably had recongnize South...)


Look : The 13 colonies DECLARE their independance, July the 4th, 1776. But they became independant only in 1783, when, at the treaty of Versailles, the british Crown admit its defeat and recognized the former 13 colonies as sovereign State.
Butr the Americans had to fight while several years (from 1774 to 1781) against UK, and with the help of France.

It's only when the situation was lost that UK admit the independance, after Yorktown.


For the Civil War : South proclaim its independance. Well, and ? everybody can say "I'm independant". But they're not.
Do you understand ?

So they were not independant, the Confederacy had no existence in right (in law ? don't know the correct expresion in english), then the citizens of the south were still citizen of the Union, and by the way, it was a treason act to attack a federal property, Fort Sumter, and to make war againt the Union's States.

And don't say to me it was not the same nation : both north and South fought UK, Virginia was even the cradle of the US nationalism.


It's too easy to say : I don't consider myself as citizen of XXX country, then I don't commit treason if I attack it.
This statement is fully wrong.

what crap.....so from you perspective if the rest of the world recognizes the congo as a soverigne nation but france doesn't then it isn't......there really is no end to european arrogance.....

 

[padisha emperor]

what crap.....so from you perspective if the rest of the world recognizes the congo as a soverigne nation but france doesn't then it isn't......there really is no end to european arrogance.....

?????????



I took example of France and UK because AMBASSADORS FROM SOUTH WENT TO PARIS AND LONDON to ask Victoria and Napoleon III the recognation of the COnfederacy.

Know one thing : to be a state, you have to be recognized by the international community.
At this time, the niternational community was : UK France Austria Russia Prussia Spain USA . the other countries were not really important.
So if France and UK recongnized south, probably other countries would have do it. But I never say what you mean, stop to see arrogance when there is nothing. are you drunk ?

Confederacy was recongnized by NOBODY, or not important nation, and not by the main for this war : North. then, it was a treason act. (on the law point of view)

 

[theim]

After the South seceded, they were no longer US citizens. Thus it wasn't treason.

And while the South seceded to keep slavery, which is morally indefensible, they were on firm legal ground. Just ask Thomas Jefferson.

Again with this legally questionable precdent of "If I say I'm independent it must be so". So can I just declare that my house is my own country? Can I now go over to my neighbor's house, kill him, take his new Big Screen TV, flee back to my new Repbulic, and just refuse to let myself be extradited? Say, perhaps I could jockey for a seat on the UNSC while I'm at it...

I posted above what the Consitution says is treason, and I would take the position that assaulting a Union fort constitutes levying war. I'm all for States Rights, but at some level they MUST be subordinate to the Federal government, or you don't have a Republic, just 50 little countries all held in a loose EU-like alliance.

 

[Gem]

I thought that many of the Southern States had it in their state constitutions that they were independent from the Union and were not obligated to stay with the Union if they disagreed with the direction in which the Union was heading? I think I remember reading this.

 

[Trigg]

I thought that many of the Southern States had it in their state constitutions that they were independent from the Union and were not obligated to stay with the Union if they disagreed with the direction in which the Union was heading? I think I remember reading this.

If I'm not mistaken Texas still has this in their constitution. In fact isn't there a group in Texas that wants to leave the United States and form their own country? Similar to the vote in Quebec that was defeted???

 

[Hobbit]

If I'm not mistaken Texas still has this in their constitution. In fact isn't there a group in Texas that wants to leave the United States and form their own country? Similar to the vote in Quebec that was defeted???

Actually, that's an urban legend. After the War Between the States, Texas, along with every other state that had a secession clause in their constitution, had their right to secede revoked, bringing about the beginning of the end of states' rights.

Oh, and as far as being recognized, many nations did recognize the South as a nation in order to get cotton from us. Britain was close to supporting the South before Lincoln claimed to make the war about slavery and France would have followed Britain. Not everyone has to recognize a nation to make it independant, and while winning a war may be the difference between a short-lived revolution and a lasting country, that period of time during the war, that nation is free, whether it is later subjugated or not. Taiwan is not recognized by China, the country it broke away from, but is independant. Israel is not recognized by many industrialized nations, but is still independant. Independance is not defined by what other people think of you. Between the secession and the peace treaty, the South existed as its own nation, with no support or guidance from the North. Existance without dependance is, by definition, independance.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

?????????



I took example of France and UK because AMBASSADORS FROM SOUTH WENT TO PARIS AND LONDON to ask Victoria and Napoleon III the recognation of the COnfederacy.

Know one thing : to be a state, you have to be recognized by the international community.
At this time, the niternational community was : UK France Austria Russia Prussia Spain USA . the other countries were not really important.
So if France and UK recongnized south, probably other countries would have do it. But I never say what you mean, stop to see arrogance when there is nothing. are you drunk ?

Confederacy was recongnized by NOBODY, or not important nation, and not by the main for this war : North. then, it was a treason act. (on the law point of view)

Being recognized by other countries is not the point. You brought up the American independence as an example. I'll say the same thing here I said in another thread: What day do Americans celebrate as Independence Day? The fourth of July, because it's the anniversary of the singing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. We don't celebrate anything from 1783. Americans, then and now, recognize the year 1776 as the year of independence for the Unites States. If France and Great Britain recognized the South as independent or not means nothing. They declared their independence, had their own government, their own president, their own currency, etc.

 

[nakedemperor]

The South did not fight for slavery or oppression. You don't lay down your life for values like that. The South fought for states' rights and the right to run their own lives rather than having the "enlightened" people of the North do it for them.

The South fought for states' rights, indeed. But you don't just fight for states' rights as an abstract concept; they were fighting for their states' right to enslave other people. Hence, yes, they were fighting [for their right] to hold slaves.

The Northerners weren't an 'enlightened' people, they were a people with common sense. The South fought to keep slaves (laying down their lives) because their lives and their economy was supportedly entirely by the institution of slavery. They weren't evil, they just weren't willing to make the sacrifice (picking their own damn cotton) to do the right thing (not enslave people).

 

[5stringJeff]

I thought that many of the Southern States had it in their state constitutions that they were independent from the Union and were not obligated to stay with the Union if they disagreed with the direction in which the Union was heading? I think I remember reading this.

Many states did have this. In fact, the legal justification for secession was (and still is) that the Constitution was a pact entered into voluntarily, based on conventions in the individual states, and that those states could voluntarily leave that pact in like manner. Legally, the South was on solid ground.

 

[5stringJeff]

The Northerners weren't an 'enlightened' people, they were a people with common sense.

While the South was morally wrong to defend slavery, there are two huge holes in your argument.

1. Not all slave states seceded. Specifically, I mean Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri.

2. The North did not fight to end slavery. The North fought to preserve the Union, in order to keep cheap raw materials "in house" and to keep tariff money coming into the Treasury. Don't believe me? Ask Abe Lincoln.

 

[William Joyce]

Independence, states' rights, blah blah. There is one reason, and one reason alone, why the Confederate flag is "controversial": it is in fact a symbol of white supremacy.

Now, to me, slavery was a bad thing, because it was arrogance by whites.

But I also don't see why white folks don't have a right to exist on their own. Currently, America says this is not allowed: we must have "integration" that nobody wants, affirmative action, etc.

So when a white flies the Confederate flag to express white resistance to "the system," I salute!

 

[5stringJeff]

Independence, states' rights, blah blah. There is one reason, and one reason alone, why the Confederate flag is "controversial": it is in fact a symbol of white supremacy.

Now, to me, slavery was a bad thing, because it was arrogance by whites.

But I also don't see why white folks don't have a right to exist on their own. Currently, America says this is not allowed: we must have "integration" that nobody wants, affirmative action, etc.

So when a white flies the Confederate flag to express white resistance to "the system," I salute!

I would say that it's nice to hear the Klan's view of the flag.

But it's not. So shove the white supremacist crap.

The fact is that the Confederate Battle flag was stolen as a piece of propaganda by the KKK and other such groups. Now, the people who want to fly it to honor the South are trapped by the stigma that the neo-Nazi we-hate-Darkey crowd has brought upon it.

 

[William Joyce]

You're spitting in a stiff wind, my friend. Flap the stars 'n bars in Harlem and see how far your explanation about how "the Klan" stole it from righteous non-racists like you gets you.

What, exactly, is your problem with the right of whites to exist?