Confederate Battle Flag Feeding Frenzy

[RoyGBiv]

It was that simple...and he understood it so easily. Why is it that nobody does now?

[drjoker]

The issue was addressed and hotly debated when drafting the Constitution.

On enumeration: Apportionment for Representatives and taxation purposes would be determined by the number of free persons and three-fifths "of all other Persons" (Art. I, Sec. 2). The pro-slavery delegates wanted their slaves counted as whole persons, thereby according their states more representation in Congress. It was the anti-slavery delegates who wanted to count slaves as less-not to dehumanize them but to penalize slaveholders. Indeed, it was antislavery delegate James Wilson of Pennsylvania who proposed the three-fifths compromise. Also, this clause did not include blacks generally, as free blacks were understood to be free persons.

On the slave trade: Congress was prohibited until 1808 from blocking the migration and importation "of such Persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit" (Art. I, Sec. 9). Although protection of the slave trade was a major concession demanded by pro-slavery delegates, the final clause was only a temporary exemption from a recognized federal power for the existing states. Moreover, it did not prevent states from restricting or outlawing the slave trade, which many had already done. "If there was no other lovely feature in the Constitution but this one," James Wilson observed, "it would diffuse a beauty over its whole countenance. Yet the lapse of a few years, and Congress will have power to exterminate slavery from within our borders." Congress passed such a national prohibition effective January 1, 1808, and President Jefferson signed it into law.

On fugitive slaves: The Privileges and Immunities Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 2) guaranteed the return upon claim of any "Person held to Service or Labour" in one state who had escaped to another state. At the last minute, the phrase "Person legally held to Service or Labour in one state" was amended to read "Person held to Service or Labour in one state, under the Laws thereof." This revision emphasized that slaves were held according to the laws of individual states and, as the historian Don Fehrenbacher has noted, "made it impossible to infer from the passage that the Constitution itself legally sanctioned slavery." Indeed, none of these clauses recognized slavery as having any legitimacy from the point of view of federal law.

For historical perspective:
So from 1776 to 1861, slavery was legal in the USA. That is 85 yrs of legal ownership of slaves. What did the constitution mention about slavery?
Why the issue was not addressed for so long? Did the northern states have slaves?

[Abraham]

Jim Beaux,

Small Highjack: I've spent mucho time in the Yucatan. 9 trips in all. Almost all spent in Cozumel where the diving and fishing is phenomenal.

I love that part of the world.

The British West Indies is also great as well the ABC Islands.

Plus, Venezuela is great for fishing and diving, but when Hugo Chavez came into power (yeah, he's dead, but his legacy keeps on giving) I quit going there.

[jmra]

Does the Democratic Party say they want to keep Black people impoverished and a financial slave to the state? No, but does that make it less true?
The federal government was heavily taxing the South and through import taxes kept most of the imports coming to Nothern ports. This required the South to buy goods from the North and pay companies from the North to ship the goods. The North was sticking it to the South every which way but loose. When the South lowered or even waived import fees to bring trade to Southern ports is when things got real nasty. The South was a gravy train for the North pure and simple. Money was the one and only reason the North was not going to let the South go.

They were doing that to force the South to end slavery. When the South skirted the restrictions, the North didn't react because they were losing money. They reacted because 1) the South attacked them (Fort Sumter) and because they were dead set on ending slavery. Is there ANY documentation that shows the leadership of the Union (Congressional or Executive) were upset about the loss of revenues from the South?

What you posit is a theory. You need evidence to back up a theory.

This seems to be the best evidence that I've been able to find - https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/01/joh ... the-south/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. At best I would say it's as likely to be incorrect as it is to be correct. First of all, the Hampton Roads Conference was not recorded, so we only have the word of the participants as to what was said. Given that people perceive things differently and that their own biases influence their "record", it's hard to say if what is described is what actually took place. The only real evidence he adduces as proof of the revenue claims is an oped in the Chicago Daily Times, which is hardly evidence of anything except someone's opinion.

I will grant you that the theory has been proposed, but I have yet to see any hard evidence that it was the deciding factor that started the war.

I think this is probably as accurate a portrayal of the causes of the war as I have found - http://millercenter.org/academic/americ ... iography/4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Abraham Lincoln's presidential campaign victory lit the fuse that would explode into the Civil War. Between the time of his election in November and his inauguration in March of 1861, seven states from the lower South seceded from the Union. Delegates from these states met in Montgomery, Alabama, and formed the Confederate States of America. They drafted and passed a constitution that was similar to the U.S. Constitution, except in four areas. The Confederate constitution supported states' sovereignty, guaranteed the perpetual existence of slavery in the states and territories, prohibited Congress from enacting a protective tariff and giving government aid to internal improvements, and limited the presidential term to six-years.

I think it's pretty clear that the Confederate states had four basic disagreements with the North; states' sovereignty, slavery, protective tariffs and the power of the Executive. Whether one or more of those was more important than the others is hard to say, but it cannot be said that slavery and its abolition was not an issue.

While it is true that Lincoln stated he did not want to interfere with slavery in the South, his true intentions were different.

However, Lincoln drew the line at supporting a package of compromises sponsored by Senator John J. Crittenden of Kentucky, known as the Crittenden Compromise. This proposal included a series of constitutional amendments to guarantee slavery in the states. Furthermore, the compromise sought to prohibit Congress from abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia and deny Congress the power to interfere with the interstate slave trade. Crittenden's legislation also empowered Congress to compensate slaveholders who lost runaway slaves to the North and protected slavery south of latitude 36'30' in all territories "now held or hereafter acquired." Lincoln understood that to accept the amendments would be to overturn the Republican platform, and he instructed party leaders to make no concessions whatsoever on the slavery expansion issue.

So he was unwilling to allow slavery where it did not already exist, unwilling to cease interference with interstate slave trade and unwilling to stop the harboring of fugitive slaves.

His "support" for slavery in the South seems to have been a practical one - he felt abolishing it would be too disruptive, and it would die of natural causes anyway. IOW, he wanted to avoid war, not continue slavery.

I doubt you'll find it in any history books because the truth didn't serve the political agenda at the time nor does it now. The conflict between North and South was pure economics. The north had the established ports and had forced the south to do their trade through the North. The only way the south could conduct import/export trade without the north as a middleman was to undermine the tariffs established by the north. The north stepping in to stop the trade the south had established in its ports is what led to the south splitting off.
This became a major economic problem for the north because they were not only losing taxes but also were no longer able to charge to south marked up prices for foreign imports, not to mention the lost revenue of exporting goods from the south. If the south was allowed to continue this trade, industrial development of the south would ensue making much of the north economically irrelevant. You see, the north needed the south much more than the south needed the North. This is why had the south agreed to return to the union under the economic thumb of the north slavery would have been allowed to continue indefinitely. Of course with the influx of cheap Asian labor (actually cheaper than slave upkeep), slavery would have become a thing of the past eventually anyway.
So, why didn't either side cite economics as a reason for war? Because the general public wasn't willing to go to war with their brother over money. Both sides needed an ideal in order to garner support for their positions. For the north the rally call was the end of slavery, for the south it was states rights. But ultimately, it was all about the mighty dollar.

[chuck j]

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[VoiceofReason]

A number of years ago, I had a team of folks working for me in Hampton Roads, VA. We all flew in from across the US each week, and my team consisted of folks from Texas, Virginia, Illinois, and Connecticut, among other places.

Given our travel schedule (fly in on Monday morning, fly home on Friday afternoon, four nights in a hotel, four days of a car rental), we had a bit of flexibility. Once, one of my guys said to me, "instead of flying home to Connecticut this weekend, I'll stay here. WIll you cover the hotel bill for the extra three days? A quick bit of math allowed me to see that he would be saving me $$ by not going home for the weekend, so of course, the answer was, "Yes".

Monday morning, the team gathered together, and I asked how the weekends went. My Connecticut guy was excited. He'd driven all around the area, visited Kitty Hawk, and visited other historical places. His most interesting comment was that he thought it was odd how many Confederate flags he saw around. "I thought those were illegal?!?" he stated. (no, he was not a kid...he was in his 40's).

"No, they're not illegal. Why would they be?" I asked.

"Because of slavery".

I smiled and explained. "No, but I understand your confusion. You've probably been told all your life that the Confederate Battle flag was a symbol of slavery and hatred of black people. However, for those of us that grew up down here...it just means we hate Yankees!" I went on to explain that, "where he grew up, there are a lot of references to the Revolutionary War, but down here, we still remember the War of Northern Aggression. That flag is a symbol of Southern pride, not of hatred - well, except hatred of yankees, of course!" (I said with a smile on my face)

It was that simple...and he understood it so easily. Why is it that nobody does now?

Nah, don't answer that question. I know the answer already. I just needed to rant.

[ Image ]

For the record, I fly the US flag on my front porch 364 days a year. The only day that I don't is on the 9th of April each year. I don't fly any flag on that day - and it has NOTHING at all to do with race.

Moderators, was my post removed from this thread or did I just forget to hit the submit button?

If it was removed, please tell me why and what I should or should not have done to make it acceptable.

[ShootDontTalk]

I came a bit late to this thread . The Confederate flag is part of my and many others history , it is history . I had relatives on both sides and there is no denying what 'is' . J W Westbrook was my great great grandfather , the article below was taken from a book written by Frank W. White Johnson. It is lengthy but interesting , I refuse to erase my family history and it certainly is not all bad . it is reality . I find no harm in the 'rebel' flag at this point in time , you would think that we would have moved beyond that by now .


http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~txmdh ... tbrook.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good read. Thanks. The irony is that we had moved beyond all that, until the current occupant of the White House decided the change he wanted was for the country to be racially more divided than any time since the Civil War.

My family fought (and some died) in the Civil War (Confederate side), and in the Revolutionary War. My family has sent sons and daughters to fight in every American war since 1776.

[ShootDontTalk]

I doubt you'll find it in any history books because the truth didn't serve the political agenda at the time nor does it now. The conflict between North and South was pure economics. The north had the established ports and had forced the south to do their trade through the North. The only way the south could conduct import/export trade without the north as a middleman was to undermine the tariffs established by the north. The north stepping in to stop the trade the south had established in its ports is what led to the south splitting off.
This became a major economic problem for the north because they were not only losing taxes but also were no longer able to charge to south marked up prices for foreign imports, not to mention the lost revenue of exporting goods from the south. If the south was allowed to continue this trade, industrial development of the south would ensue making much of the north economically irrelevant. You see, the north needed the south much more than the south needed the North. This is why had the south agreed to return to the union under the economic thumb of the north slavery would have been allowed to continue indefinitely. Of course with the influx of cheap Asian labor (actually cheaper than slave upkeep), slavery would have become a thing of the past eventually anyway.
So, why didn't either side cite economics as a reason for war? Because the general public wasn't willing to go to war with their brother over money. Both sides needed an ideal in order to garner support for their positions. For the north the rally call was the end of slavery, for the south it was states rights. But ultimately, it was all about the mighty dollar.

The fundamental reason you will never know the real truth is that only one side won. The winning side "adjusts" history to cover all the warts and blemishes. Here is a perfect example: read about the Confederate prisoner of war camp at Andersonville, then go read about Camp Douglas. The Union prisoners who died at Andersonville, those who weren't moved to Arlington, now rest in a National Cemetery on site. The Confederate prisoners who died at Camp Douglas, aside from those in Oak Woods Cemetary in Chicago, rest in an unmarked mass grave, perhaps under a condominium.

[VMI77]

Glockster, I pray you are not advocating what you posted.

Just what do you see are the advantages of staying in the US? The federal gov is bankrupt & crumbling - it's bringing Texas down with it.

Though Texas cannot legally secede, it's still a reasonable consideration. The US relies on Texas more than Texas relies on the US. The biggest burden that weighs Texas down is due to federal programs and policies. Texas' economic world ranking was in the top 10 until the obama fiasco gutted it.

Recently the lib media has been gloating over the fact that Texas now receives more fed funds then it pays in taxes. The facts are it's the flood of illegal border jumpers who are receiving these fed funds, ie welfare, medicare, education & policing. Also, "dear leader" has hobbled Texas energy industries and completely shut down drilling in the GOM for most of his term - thus causing many Texans to seek unemployment benefits.

As a sovereign country (2014), Texas would be the 12th largest economy in the world by GDP (ahead of South Korea and Australia). Texas has a gross state product of $1.648 trillion (2014) the second highest in the U.S. Texas's household income was $48,259 in 2010 ranking 25th in the nation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Texas


I haven't looked at the numbers but I suspect it also has to do with Federal spending on military bases and other Federal government institutions like the IRS. It's a liberal fantasy that's spewed at virtually every mention of Texas that arouses a liberal response.
It's a very reasonable assumption that the Texas standard of living & economy would improve if it left the US.

[ShootDontTalk]

I sacrificed 6 years of my life in service to this country defending it against all enemies both foreign and domestic and consider my oath to still be in effect. Since our country is currently under attack from within I consider it appropriate to fly the flag upside down, especially since your quote says that the flag represents the government and all its policies. You might agree with that but I do not.

Thanks for your input, but I am not dishonoring the flag or my country by doing so. The evil that is permeating this country through the actions of those who want to destroy it from the top down are dishonoring it.

Have a good day.

I agree. Flying the flag upside down seems to aggravate the wrong people. I also took the oath and have stood by our great nation in some times when it wasn't terribly popular to do so. The homecoming given to returning Vietnam vets caused a great many to question why they came back at all, but the flag (our country) was not to blame.

Today it appears the enemy is not misguided idiots who curse and spit on returning vets, but the government itself. "We the people" are the flag. "We the politicians" and "we the bureaucrats" seem to have stolen the country - along with "we the entitled", the "we the offended at everything", "we the good into bad and bad into good", and "we the politically correct" - have assumed control.

What is most disheartening is that we voted for Republicans who promised to turn the country around, gave them a clear majority in both Houses, and these worthies then promptly surrendered and put Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi back in charge. As for me, I won't make the same mistake twice. Republicans...can you hear?

My greatest fear is that my grand kids and great grand kids are going to have to make hard choices one day. I hadn't planned on the American Dream vanishing quite so soon.

People want to pull down all Confederate flags and monuments. Meanwhile, another sterling holiday weekend in Chicago: 80 SHOOTINGS and 15 DEAD.

Oh but they'll FEEL so good when all those flags are gone!

[drjoker]

ultimately, it was all about the mighty dollar.

Yup, ALL wars are about wealthy old men tricking foolish young men to die for an economic dispute.

Yesterday, it was about Northern ports and taxes. Today, it is about oil. Tomorrow it will be about the dollar itself. Not 2 months after Gaddafi tried to orchestrate all of Africa selling oil for gold, a violent revolution took place and Gaddafi got killed. Saddam Hussein announced that he would sell all oil for Euros. Less than 3 months later, the US attacked Iraq in the 2nd Gulf War. Why is the detente with Russia ending and a 2nd Cold War starting up again? Putin announced that Russia would start selling oil for Rubles and Yuan instead of the dollar.