Posted on Mar 14, 2019
I have read a host of comments regarding the Confederate flag, and how it represents slavery. Where should the line be drawn?
1.3K
11
56
0
0
0
I have no special affinity to the South, but I do have an affinity to the truth. I'll start with a truth that should be universal at this point. Slavery, of every stripe is an abomination to humanity.
If you wish to draw the line with the Confederate flag based on slavery, that's your prerogative. But I will ask you to consider these facts and ask where you stand on the following flags.
Spanish flag: The Spanish were engaging in slavery in the Americas, with the aboriginal populations, and with Africans as well starting in the late 1400's, to include Puerto Rico.
French Flag: The French transported and enslaved over 1.3 million Africans to the Americas. (over 200,000 died in transit).
Dutch: The Dutch transported over 1 million Africans, and enslaved half that many themselves in the Americas between 1596, and 1829.
Now moving closer to the issue of the Confederate flag.
Let’s not forget the British Flag: The British transported and engaged in slavery in their North American Colonies for 170 years from 1619-1789, when they no longer claimed, or controlled those colonies.
The American flag: Slavery under the US Government existed for 76 years, from 1789, when our Constitution was ratified, until 1865 when the 13th amendment abolished slavery as an institution in the U.S. Though, The Aboriginal ("Native") Choctaw, and Chickasaw nations maintained African slaves until 1866 when, by treaty, they freed their African slaves. (Another important note. When Lincoln "emancipated" the Slaves in America, in 1863, he only did so in the Southern States, leaving the Slaves in the Union, and "Border" States enslaved until 1865.)
Lastly, the Confederate flag: Slavery existed under the Confederacy from Feb 8, 1861 when the Confederacy was formed, until April 9, 1865, when the war ended. That's one day short of 50 months.
If you want to blame the Confederacy for "hate", and for Slavery, again, that's your prerogative. The Truth is, there are many to blame for the atrocity of slavery in what is now this country. Focusing on this one flag is only scratching the surface.
So, the question remains... where does one draw the line?
If you wish to draw the line with the Confederate flag based on slavery, that's your prerogative. But I will ask you to consider these facts and ask where you stand on the following flags.
Spanish flag: The Spanish were engaging in slavery in the Americas, with the aboriginal populations, and with Africans as well starting in the late 1400's, to include Puerto Rico.
French Flag: The French transported and enslaved over 1.3 million Africans to the Americas. (over 200,000 died in transit).
Dutch: The Dutch transported over 1 million Africans, and enslaved half that many themselves in the Americas between 1596, and 1829.
Now moving closer to the issue of the Confederate flag.
Let’s not forget the British Flag: The British transported and engaged in slavery in their North American Colonies for 170 years from 1619-1789, when they no longer claimed, or controlled those colonies.
The American flag: Slavery under the US Government existed for 76 years, from 1789, when our Constitution was ratified, until 1865 when the 13th amendment abolished slavery as an institution in the U.S. Though, The Aboriginal ("Native") Choctaw, and Chickasaw nations maintained African slaves until 1866 when, by treaty, they freed their African slaves. (Another important note. When Lincoln "emancipated" the Slaves in America, in 1863, he only did so in the Southern States, leaving the Slaves in the Union, and "Border" States enslaved until 1865.)
Lastly, the Confederate flag: Slavery existed under the Confederacy from Feb 8, 1861 when the Confederacy was formed, until April 9, 1865, when the war ended. That's one day short of 50 months.
If you want to blame the Confederacy for "hate", and for Slavery, again, that's your prerogative. The Truth is, there are many to blame for the atrocity of slavery in what is now this country. Focusing on this one flag is only scratching the surface.
So, the question remains... where does one draw the line?
Slavery
Confederate Flag
American History
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
1
1
0
That flag represents US citizens that committed treason by taking up arms against the nation. That is plain and simple. I would say the same if the Confederacy was formed to revolt against taxes, or women voting, or any other issue.
We have a Union and that Union must be preserved, then and now.
We have a Union and that Union must be preserved, then and now.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SGT (Join to see) - Just a few points to address in my available time.
First, whether a view is "accepted" is a matter of opinion. Even when the Constitution was written, the Anti-federalists held many contrary views. When you say Madison and other Federalists thought the Bill of rights to be superfluous, it's not because they didn't think we needed those protections. It's that they thought all those protections were ASSUMED in the original document.
To be clear, the States created the Federal government with the writing, and ratification of the Constitution. In doing so, they were pretty careful to list the enumerated powers in Article I section 8 of the Constitution, and alluded to a few other "implied powers" elsewhere. The point being, as Madison told us the powers of the Federal government are few, and defined.... while the powers of the States are broad, and having to do with our everyday affairs. (paraphrasing). The Cosntituion therefore is a charter of powers granted to the Federal government by the States, and by the ratification by the people in those States.
The Bill of Rights, on the other hand was pushed largely by the Anti-Federalists, who were concerned about federal over-reach. It turns out the Anti-Federalists, in pushing for the Bill of rights were correct that the Federal government would overstep whenever it could. And so, the Bill of Rights was created, not to grant the Federal government any more power, but rather to memorialize the idea that our rights are inherent, and the Federal government was prohibited in interfering with these inherent, and individual rights of the people, and of the States. So, while the Constitution defines, and lists the powers of the federal government, the Bill of Rights specifically constrains the power of the Federal government over us. The 10th Amendment, is a great catch all.... Basically, if the Constitution is mute on a Federal power, it doesn't exist. There is a remedy to grant the Federal government additional powers, and that's called a Constitutional amendment, of which there are 33.
The point is not whether something is accepted today. We're discussing historical context. Now, regarding your timeline....
"Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861. See the following dates of secession:
South Carolina (December 20, 1860)
Mississippi (January 9, 1861)
Florida (January 10, 1861)
Alabama (January 11, 1861)
Georgia (January 19, 1861)
Louisiana (January 26, 1861)
Texas (February 1, 1861)
Virginia (April 17, 1861)
Arkansas (May 6, 1861)
North Carolina (May 20, 1861)
Tennessee (June 8, 1861)"
Lincoln was elected on November 6th 1860, and as your timeline shows, the southern States began seceding a little over a month later. Are you suggesting this is just coincidence? Up until that point there were still Southern hopes of a Democrat winning, and Pres. Buchanan was no help for either side, opining he didn't think the southern States could secede, but also that the Constitution didn't give the Federal government the power to stop them from doing so. Given Lincoln's earlier statements on the matter... from the Smithsonian.... Lincoln was "already on record as viewing slavery as "a moral, political and social wrong" that "ought to be treated as a wrong...with the fixed idea that it must and will come to the end." These sentiments alone had proven enough to alarm Southerners. Also understanding there was already great disagreement on whether slavery would be permitted in the new Western States and Territories, the timing, actually makes a lot of sense. Thank you for posting the timeline.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/election-day- [login to see] 5/#12ie1dC7YGfUS6FM.99
So, pleas don't take away from this, the impression that I'm in favor of the South's actions, or that I's somehow wish the South had won this conflict. I think it's great that We rid ourselves of Slavery. My argument is related to the ACTUAL language of the Constitution, and the spirit under which it was used to define a federal government of defined, and limited powers.
As stated in a previous post, the North, and South had drifted apart during the half century before the War between the States, and were, in many ways, of disparate means, and ideals. The causes range from fervency due to the "second great awakening" over slavery, Tariffs, and cultural divides.
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/contrarian/american-civil-war-north-south-divide
As always, Respectful regards.
First, whether a view is "accepted" is a matter of opinion. Even when the Constitution was written, the Anti-federalists held many contrary views. When you say Madison and other Federalists thought the Bill of rights to be superfluous, it's not because they didn't think we needed those protections. It's that they thought all those protections were ASSUMED in the original document.
To be clear, the States created the Federal government with the writing, and ratification of the Constitution. In doing so, they were pretty careful to list the enumerated powers in Article I section 8 of the Constitution, and alluded to a few other "implied powers" elsewhere. The point being, as Madison told us the powers of the Federal government are few, and defined.... while the powers of the States are broad, and having to do with our everyday affairs. (paraphrasing). The Cosntituion therefore is a charter of powers granted to the Federal government by the States, and by the ratification by the people in those States.
The Bill of Rights, on the other hand was pushed largely by the Anti-Federalists, who were concerned about federal over-reach. It turns out the Anti-Federalists, in pushing for the Bill of rights were correct that the Federal government would overstep whenever it could. And so, the Bill of Rights was created, not to grant the Federal government any more power, but rather to memorialize the idea that our rights are inherent, and the Federal government was prohibited in interfering with these inherent, and individual rights of the people, and of the States. So, while the Constitution defines, and lists the powers of the federal government, the Bill of Rights specifically constrains the power of the Federal government over us. The 10th Amendment, is a great catch all.... Basically, if the Constitution is mute on a Federal power, it doesn't exist. There is a remedy to grant the Federal government additional powers, and that's called a Constitutional amendment, of which there are 33.
The point is not whether something is accepted today. We're discussing historical context. Now, regarding your timeline....
"Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861. See the following dates of secession:
South Carolina (December 20, 1860)
Mississippi (January 9, 1861)
Florida (January 10, 1861)
Alabama (January 11, 1861)
Georgia (January 19, 1861)
Louisiana (January 26, 1861)
Texas (February 1, 1861)
Virginia (April 17, 1861)
Arkansas (May 6, 1861)
North Carolina (May 20, 1861)
Tennessee (June 8, 1861)"
Lincoln was elected on November 6th 1860, and as your timeline shows, the southern States began seceding a little over a month later. Are you suggesting this is just coincidence? Up until that point there were still Southern hopes of a Democrat winning, and Pres. Buchanan was no help for either side, opining he didn't think the southern States could secede, but also that the Constitution didn't give the Federal government the power to stop them from doing so. Given Lincoln's earlier statements on the matter... from the Smithsonian.... Lincoln was "already on record as viewing slavery as "a moral, political and social wrong" that "ought to be treated as a wrong...with the fixed idea that it must and will come to the end." These sentiments alone had proven enough to alarm Southerners. Also understanding there was already great disagreement on whether slavery would be permitted in the new Western States and Territories, the timing, actually makes a lot of sense. Thank you for posting the timeline.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/election-day- [login to see] 5/#12ie1dC7YGfUS6FM.99
So, pleas don't take away from this, the impression that I'm in favor of the South's actions, or that I's somehow wish the South had won this conflict. I think it's great that We rid ourselves of Slavery. My argument is related to the ACTUAL language of the Constitution, and the spirit under which it was used to define a federal government of defined, and limited powers.
As stated in a previous post, the North, and South had drifted apart during the half century before the War between the States, and were, in many ways, of disparate means, and ideals. The causes range from fervency due to the "second great awakening" over slavery, Tariffs, and cultural divides.
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/contrarian/american-civil-war-north-south-divide
As always, Respectful regards.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SSG Gerhard S. - I don’t think you support slavery. We’re good there. I do think you misunderstand the Constitutition a bit, though. Allow me to explain.
First, you write, “Basically, if the Constitution is mute on a Federal power, it doesn't exist.” respectfully, that view demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Constitution and some of the Supreme Court Case law that has helped refine it. Some of the biggest catch-all wording in the Constitutition is in Article 1, Section 8, in the Necessary and Proper Clause. McCulloch v Maryland (1819) was decided, and it is one of the earliest and most significant decisions regarding Federal power.
There are a few big take away from that case. First, it affirmed the idea of implied powers in the Constitution. Publius (Alexander Hamilton) discussed the topic in Federalist 33. Second, “Marshall also noted an important difference between the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation (the United States’ first governing document that had been replaced by the Constitution). The Articles said that the states retained all powers not “expressly” given to the federal government. The Tenth Amendment, Marshall noted, did not include the word “expressly.” This was further evidence, he argued, that the Constitution did not limit Congress to doing only those things specifically listed in Article I.”
This is why when you make blanket statements like, “Basically, if the Constitution is mute on a Federal power, it doesn't exist”, it hurts your overall argument. That simply isn’t true.
Whether an opinion is accepted or not is certainly just an opinion. However, your opinion that secession was justifiable under the 10th amendment has never been largely accepted. Legally, scholarly, academically, etc. The argument is weak now, just as it was weak in the middle of the 19th century.
* (The proof is that if they thought their cause was constitutional, they wouldn’t have had to just leave. They stateted their intentions to leave. The Federal government told them it was unconstitutional. The south said it was. The Feds said it wasn’t. Instead of taking their case to leave the union to the Supreme Court, they simply tried to leave. After they lost the war, and the issue went to the Supreme Court, secession was deemed unconstitutional. In the century and a half since, there has been little to no legitimate, mainstream academic/scholarly push to demonstrate otherwise. And it hasn’t been challenged in the Courts. So with a firm ‘no’, your opinion isn’t and hasn’t been accepted.)
The notion of secession was ambiguous at best. And as previously described, when there’s conflict between the states, or states and the federal government, the Constitution has a mechanism for dealing with ambiguous situations. The Supreme Court. Imagine now, if every time New York and Virginia (or any states) had a dispute....instead of handling it through the Constitutionally mandated Supreme Court, they just said ‘forget this, we’re out’. It would be like 12 yr old kids stomping their feet and running away from home.
Moving along, “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality...”.— A. Lincoln.
You provided the above quote. Yet you now write, “Lincoln was "already on record as viewing slavery as "a moral, political and social wrong" that "ought to be treated as a wrong...with the fixed idea that it must and will come to the end." So I’ll ask, was Lincoln going to try and do away with slavery, try and keep slavery, or just maintain the status quo? Your provided quotes appear to be in contrast with each other.
Why would the South believe his second quotes as opposed to his first? You’re welcome for the timeline, and the point of providing it was to demonstrate that yes, they began seceding immediately after his election. They gave President-elect Lincoln absolutely zero chance to save the union. It wasn’t a coincidence. (Additionally, I find it a bit disingenuous that you cherrypick Lincoln’s quotes. In one stream, you quote him when arguing that slavery would have just died out on its own, as though he wasn’t opposed. In another, you choose a quote that demonstrates his stance against slavery. A stance so firm, apparently, that it justified the immediate secession, with no opportunity for Constitutional mandated means of addressing conflict, of the Southern Stares).
Again, I don’t think you support slavery. Additionally, I appreciate the discussion. But please note, there are different depths of understanding. Touching back to necessary and proper clause, in Federalist 33, Publius wrote that it was necessary, “to guard against all cavilling refinements in those who might hereafter feel the disposition to curtail and evade the legitimate authorities of the Union”. ‘Cavilling’ means making petty, unnecessary objections. Basically, what Hamilton was stating was that it was a protection against those who would attempt an overly literal, word for word interpretation of the Constitution (sounds familiar).
While discussing levels of understanding, you write, “There is a remedy to grant the Federal government additional powers, and that's called a Constitutional amendment, of which there are 33.“ Negative. Unless, 6 proposed amendments were ratified since yesterday, there’s still only 27 Constitutional Amendments. Unless you’re talking about the six more proposed Amendmnets that haven’t been ratified. Yet, of those six, two have surpassed their time limits and aren’t even ratifiable. So I’m really not sure what 33 you’re referring to. There are 27 Amendments.
There were a lot of states rights involved in the causes for the Civil War. But as Confederate General James Longstreet said after the war when asked about its cause, “I never heard of any other cause of the quarrel than slavery."
Thanks for the discussion. I’d appreciate your thoughts.
Best of luck.
First, you write, “Basically, if the Constitution is mute on a Federal power, it doesn't exist.” respectfully, that view demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Constitution and some of the Supreme Court Case law that has helped refine it. Some of the biggest catch-all wording in the Constitutition is in Article 1, Section 8, in the Necessary and Proper Clause. McCulloch v Maryland (1819) was decided, and it is one of the earliest and most significant decisions regarding Federal power.
There are a few big take away from that case. First, it affirmed the idea of implied powers in the Constitution. Publius (Alexander Hamilton) discussed the topic in Federalist 33. Second, “Marshall also noted an important difference between the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation (the United States’ first governing document that had been replaced by the Constitution). The Articles said that the states retained all powers not “expressly” given to the federal government. The Tenth Amendment, Marshall noted, did not include the word “expressly.” This was further evidence, he argued, that the Constitution did not limit Congress to doing only those things specifically listed in Article I.”
This is why when you make blanket statements like, “Basically, if the Constitution is mute on a Federal power, it doesn't exist”, it hurts your overall argument. That simply isn’t true.
Whether an opinion is accepted or not is certainly just an opinion. However, your opinion that secession was justifiable under the 10th amendment has never been largely accepted. Legally, scholarly, academically, etc. The argument is weak now, just as it was weak in the middle of the 19th century.
* (The proof is that if they thought their cause was constitutional, they wouldn’t have had to just leave. They stateted their intentions to leave. The Federal government told them it was unconstitutional. The south said it was. The Feds said it wasn’t. Instead of taking their case to leave the union to the Supreme Court, they simply tried to leave. After they lost the war, and the issue went to the Supreme Court, secession was deemed unconstitutional. In the century and a half since, there has been little to no legitimate, mainstream academic/scholarly push to demonstrate otherwise. And it hasn’t been challenged in the Courts. So with a firm ‘no’, your opinion isn’t and hasn’t been accepted.)
The notion of secession was ambiguous at best. And as previously described, when there’s conflict between the states, or states and the federal government, the Constitution has a mechanism for dealing with ambiguous situations. The Supreme Court. Imagine now, if every time New York and Virginia (or any states) had a dispute....instead of handling it through the Constitutionally mandated Supreme Court, they just said ‘forget this, we’re out’. It would be like 12 yr old kids stomping their feet and running away from home.
Moving along, “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality...”.— A. Lincoln.
You provided the above quote. Yet you now write, “Lincoln was "already on record as viewing slavery as "a moral, political and social wrong" that "ought to be treated as a wrong...with the fixed idea that it must and will come to the end." So I’ll ask, was Lincoln going to try and do away with slavery, try and keep slavery, or just maintain the status quo? Your provided quotes appear to be in contrast with each other.
Why would the South believe his second quotes as opposed to his first? You’re welcome for the timeline, and the point of providing it was to demonstrate that yes, they began seceding immediately after his election. They gave President-elect Lincoln absolutely zero chance to save the union. It wasn’t a coincidence. (Additionally, I find it a bit disingenuous that you cherrypick Lincoln’s quotes. In one stream, you quote him when arguing that slavery would have just died out on its own, as though he wasn’t opposed. In another, you choose a quote that demonstrates his stance against slavery. A stance so firm, apparently, that it justified the immediate secession, with no opportunity for Constitutional mandated means of addressing conflict, of the Southern Stares).
Again, I don’t think you support slavery. Additionally, I appreciate the discussion. But please note, there are different depths of understanding. Touching back to necessary and proper clause, in Federalist 33, Publius wrote that it was necessary, “to guard against all cavilling refinements in those who might hereafter feel the disposition to curtail and evade the legitimate authorities of the Union”. ‘Cavilling’ means making petty, unnecessary objections. Basically, what Hamilton was stating was that it was a protection against those who would attempt an overly literal, word for word interpretation of the Constitution (sounds familiar).
While discussing levels of understanding, you write, “There is a remedy to grant the Federal government additional powers, and that's called a Constitutional amendment, of which there are 33.“ Negative. Unless, 6 proposed amendments were ratified since yesterday, there’s still only 27 Constitutional Amendments. Unless you’re talking about the six more proposed Amendmnets that haven’t been ratified. Yet, of those six, two have surpassed their time limits and aren’t even ratifiable. So I’m really not sure what 33 you’re referring to. There are 27 Amendments.
There were a lot of states rights involved in the causes for the Civil War. But as Confederate General James Longstreet said after the war when asked about its cause, “I never heard of any other cause of the quarrel than slavery."
Thanks for the discussion. I’d appreciate your thoughts.
Best of luck.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SSG Gerhard S. - You write, “Please don't take my period of silence as an act of non-response.”. Fair enough, I get it. Applies to all of us. However, per my response, I don’t think it was unwarranted. See attached snapshot.
In a similar thread, about a month ago, on a nearly identical topic, when I presented you with the similar facts, you simply stopped responding. On that thread, though, you have since responded to other folks with nearly the exact post, verbatim, that you began this entire thread with. Casting a wide net, dispersing some iffy-history, but when presented with information that’s hard to dispute...simply stop stop responding (and restart elsewhere later). Respectfully, it’s happened previously. Can’t blame me for thinking it was happening again.
Anyway, best of luck.
In a similar thread, about a month ago, on a nearly identical topic, when I presented you with the similar facts, you simply stopped responding. On that thread, though, you have since responded to other folks with nearly the exact post, verbatim, that you began this entire thread with. Casting a wide net, dispersing some iffy-history, but when presented with information that’s hard to dispute...simply stop stop responding (and restart elsewhere later). Respectfully, it’s happened previously. Can’t blame me for thinking it was happening again.
Anyway, best of luck.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
The Mason-Dixie Line was drawn prior to the Civil War. We do not need another line. I the LGBTQ (queers) can fly their Rainbow flag, which offends every decent person in America, then other people should be able to fly their Confederate flag with just as much freedom. Period. End of discussion. Non-debatable.
(1)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
I know many, many "decent" people. None of them are "offended" by the LGBTQ flag.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Additionally, I don’t know of any LGBTQ movement to secede any state from the Union...ever.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Regardless of what this flag did or does represent, it is one thing a treasonist traitors flag, period. What other government allows such a flag to be flown in such prominence. Dont try the Scottish a Welsh flag BS apples a oranges.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Respectfully, you've managed to totally NOT address the issue at hand in this question. There are other questions in this forum that debate the validity if secession, or the simplistic position you've stated here. Though I appreciate your effort in, at least reading the headline if this post, I would respectfully suggest you failed to address the question at hand.
Regards.
Regards.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google