The Confederate flag

Lisa0315

Respect Catholics and the Mother Church!
Jul 17, 2005
21,367
1,650
56
At The Feet of Jesus
✟37,577.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Just becuase the South wanted to form their own country doesn't mean that they get to instantly take all the land that belonged to the Federal government. For example this is why we still have a base in Guantanamo Bay even though the government ruling Cuba has changed since it was established.

The South ordered the Union to leave Federal land and then fired on the Federal base starting the War. The Confederates were the aggressors.

There was great sympathy towards the Confederacy in both France and England. In the early stages of the war, the Union very nearly brought England into the war AGAINST them for daring to seize a British ship carrying two Confederates on board. (See The Trent Affair)

Minister Adams warned Seward that the British government might very soon offer to mediate the difficulty between North and South, which would be a polite but effective way of intimating that in the opinion of Great Britain the quarrel had gone on long enough and ought to be ended-by giving the South what it wanted. Adams knew what he was talking about. Earl Russell had given Mason no encouragement whatever, but after news of the Second Battle of Bull Pun reached London, he and Lord Palmerston, the Prime Minister, agreed that along in late September or thereabouts there should be a cabinet meeting at which Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary would ask approval of the mediation proposal. (Implicit in all of this was the idea that if the Northern government should refuse to accept mediation, Britain would go ahead and recognize the Confederacy.) With a saving note of caution, Russell and Palmerston concluded not to bring the plan before the cabinet until they got further word about Lee's invasion of the North. If the Federals were beaten, then the proposal would go through; if Lee failed, then it might be well to wait a little longer before taking any action.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm



Lincoln also recognized and forced recognition under International Law of the Confederacy even though that was not quite his intention. The Confederacy was granted Beligerancy Status which under International Law provided them with many sovereign rights.

The first crisis occurred when England issued a proclamation of neutrality, which rested upon the logic of the Union's declared blockade. According to English reasoning, although Lincoln proclaimed the rebels to be insurrectionists and thus not recognizable under international law as a belligerent power engaged in war, his declared blockade was an act of war, which would have to be conducted against a sovereign state. Thus Lincoln had actually granted belligerency status to the Confederacy and thereby forced foreign powers to do the same. By proclaiming neutrality, England afforded the Confederacy the status of a belligerent power. Other European nations followed England's lead. Belligerency status gave the Confederacy the right, according to international law (signed by European nations after the Crimean War in 1856), to contract loans and to purchase arms from neutral nations. It also allowed England to provide safe harbors for both Union and Confederate warships and merchant vessels, to build blockade runners and warships for the Confederacy, and to formally debate in Parliament the merits of active intervention.

http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/lincoln/essays/biography/print

Britain and France did approach the union to attempt to negotiate a ceasefire but the Union rebuffed them and was told that any other interference would be considered hostile.

Lincoln knew of the sympathy in Europe towards the Confederacy and PURPOSEFULLY promoted the idea of ending slavery as the Union's true cause. The Emancipation Proclamation is the result.

During the late spring and early summer of 1862 Lincoln had come to see that he must broaden the base of the war. Union itself was not enough; the undying vitality and drive of Northern antislavery men must be brought into full, vigorous support of the war effort, and to bring this about the Northern government must officially declare itself against slavery. Lincoln was preparing such a declaration even before McClellan's army left the Virginia Peninsula, but he could not issue it until the North had won a victory. (Seward pointed out that to issue it on the heels of a string of Northern defeats would make it look as if the government were despairingly crying for help rather than making a statement of principle.) Antietam gave Lincoln the victory he had to have, and on September 22 he issued the famous proclamation, the gist of which was that on January 1, 1863, all slaves held in a state or a part of a state which was in rebellion should be "then, thence-forward and forever free."

(See previous citation)

Most of what Lincoln did during office was less than what George W has done during the war in Iraq.


As the most activist President in history, Lincoln transformed the President's role as commander in chief and as chief executive into a powerful new position, making the President supreme over both Congress and the courts. His activism began almost immediately with Fort Sumter when he called out state militias, expanded the army and navy, spent $2 million without congressional appropriation, blockaded southern ports, closed post offices to treasonable correspondences, suspended the writ of habeas corpus in several locations, ordered the arrest and military detention of suspected traitors, and issued the Emancipation Proclamation on New Year's Day 1863.

To do all of these things, Lincoln broke an assortment of laws and ignored one constitutional provision after another. He made war without a declaration of war, and indeed even before summoning Congress into special session. He countered Supreme Court opposition by affirming his own version of judicial review that placed the President as the final interpreter of the Constitution. For Lincoln, it made no sense "to lose the nation and yet preserve the Constitution." Following a strategy of "unilateral action," Lincoln justified his powers as an emergency authority granted to him by the people. He had been elected, he told his critics, to decide when an emergency existed and to take all measures required to deal with it. In doing so, Lincoln maintained that the President was one of three "coordinate" departments of government, not in any way subordinate to Congress or the courts. Moreover, he demonstrated that the President had a special duty that went beyond the duty of Congress and the courts, a duty that required constant executive action in times of crisis. While the other branches of government are required to support the Constitution, Lincoln's actions pointed to the notion that the President alone is sworn to preserve, protect, and defend it. In times of war, this power makes the President literally responsible for the well-being and survival of the nation. (See Previous Citations)
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
My argument was the facts as stated by South Carolina,

Except that South Carolina plainly mistated the facts, as evidenced in those passages which you continue to ignore.

not a convoluted misconstruance of the reality of what was stated.

And you believe the one "fact" South Carolina stated even though it is flatly debunked by their very own subsequent statements. What exactly do you gain by being a Confederate Apologist?
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Sovereignty is when a country has control over itself. The Confederacy had a Constitution, they controlled themselves.

A Constitution without the means to enforce it is nothing but words, a "[expletive deleted] piece of paper!" If you will.

Words alone do not constitute control.
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Is the Confederate flag a symbol of racial hatred or Southern pride and opposition to abuse of government power? Should it be allowed to be displayed?

At one point in history, it was the latter. Now, unfortunately, it has become the former.

I used the swastika before as a parallel -- regardless of whatever significance it had before Adolf hijacked it, is anyone today going to be able to look at it and not think of Nazis? I think not.

Face it -- first you lost the war, then you lost the flag.

Should it be displayed? Ask modern Hindus how eager they are to bring the swastika back.

By the way, Abraham Lincoln was a racist, imperialist and warmonger. He literally trampled on the Constitution, and we are paying for it to this day.

Absolutely no argument here. Too bad it's irrelevent.

History is a set of lies written by winners, written in the blood of the losers. The North won, so their self-serving lies got written into the history books. The South lost, so their self-serving lies did not.

"What is history, but a fable agreed upon?" -- Napoleon.
 
Upvote 0

MacCoyle

Non-Partisan
Sep 21, 2007
886
39
38
Visit site
✟8,737.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Absolutely no argument here. Too bad it's irrelevent.

History is a set of lies written by winners, written in the blood of the losers. The North won, so their self-serving lies got written into the history books. The South lost, so their self-serving lies did not.


Nope not true in the case of the Civil war. Until the last 20 years the Southern lie was in high school textbooks. The South won the battle on who would write the history.

I will argue all day over the case that Lincoln was not a racist or a warmongerer. But that battle is impossible because there is the same amount of evidence both ways.
 
Upvote 0

YamiB

Regular Member
Mar 8, 2006
492
27
✟8,302.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
At one point in history, it was the latter. Now, unfortunately, it has become the former.

I used the swastika before as a parallel -- regardless of whatever significance it had before Adolf hijacked it, is anyone today going to be able to look at it and not think of Nazis? I think not.

Face it -- first you lost the war, then you lost the flag.

Should it be displayed? Ask modern Hindus how eager they are to bring the swastika back.

I still don't think that the Swastika is quite an apt comparison. And I think that it is still used rather frequently in eastern countries and form what I've heard recent immigrants from those countries.
 
Upvote 0

JGL53

Senior Veteran
Dec 25, 2005
5,013
296
Mississippi
✟14,276.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Face it -- first you lost the war, then you lost the flag.

Should it be displayed? Ask modern Hindus how eager they are to bring the swastika back...

Those are the facts. Redundancy is a time-honored form of education, so let me repeat them again, expanded and enumerated:

1. The south lost the war

2. They were the bad guys and deserved to lose the war.

3. God apparently saw to it that they lost the war and Kudos to him.

4. The basis of the war was slavery, regardless of how few whites actually owned slaves.

5. Slavery is an unmitigated evil which no apology will ameliorate.

6. Segregation was an unmitigated evil which no apology will ameliorate.

7. The confederate flag has come to mean hatred and racism to the majority of blacks in the southern U.S., a good portion now of whites in the southern U.S. and the majority of people in general in the entire U.S. There is no way this is ever going to change.

8. Continuing to fight the Civil War is like hitting your own self in the head with a hammer. Best advice? - Stop doing it. No one is listening and you're just embarrassing yourself. Go find some other more rational source for self-pride, if you need such that much.

9. Good Lord, this is getting B-O-R-I-N-G.
 
Upvote 0

SpyridonOCA

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2007
2,509
105
✟3,415.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
"You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other 2 races. Even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. you are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoys. It is better for us both to be separated."-Abraham Lincoln, during a meeting with free Negro leaders, at the White House, August, 1862
 
Upvote 0

TheNewWorldMan

phased plasma rifle in 40-watt range
Jan 2, 2007
9,362
849
✟28,775.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
"You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other 2 races. Even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. you are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoys. It is better for us both to be separated."-Abraham Lincoln, during a meeting with free Negro leaders, at the White House, August, 1862

So Lincoln was wrong on the issue of race. Doesn't make the South any less wrong for fighting to keep slaves. Two wrongs don't cancel each other out. They remain...wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Nope not true in the case of the Civil war. Until the last 20 years the Southern lie was in high school textbooks. The South won the battle on who would write the history.

I will argue all day over the case that Lincoln was not a racist or a warmongerer. But that battle is impossible because there is the same amount of evidence both ways.

Nor was Lincoln a saint or a savior. History tells us that Lincoln fought hard to free the slaves, when the truth is, he didn't really care either way. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union -- period. Freing slaves was simply a means to that end.

Lincoln was probably racist by modern standards, but no more so than the average northerner. Was he a warmonger? Well, he didn't start the Civil War, but some of the tactics he used to quell it were Constitutionally questionable -- he did suspend Habeas Corpus and try to muzzle dissent, and SCOTUS did eventually have to put a stop to him. History tends to excuse his actions due to extreme circumstances -- that doesn't mean we all must as well.

I'm all for portraying the honest truth on both sides of every conflict -- warts and all -- but when it comes to history, people usually want heroes more than they want truth.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
I still don't think that the Swastika is quite an apt comparison.

I will agree that the swastika is a more extreme case than the Confederate flag, in that there's still a chance (albeit a slight one) that the original meaning of the flag can be restored. But if that is ever going to happen, it's going to require education and explanation, and not simply flying it over every rooftop south of the Mason-Dixon. Even then, I suspect, the negative connotations of the flag might be too much to overcome.

The swastika, OTOH, is a lost cause -- I don't see any way to divorce it from the Nazis. Perhaps in another 200-300 years...
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
"You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other 2 races. Even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. you are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoys. It is better for us both to be separated."-Abraham Lincoln, during a meeting with free Negro leaders, at the White House, August, 1862

Relevence?
 
Upvote 0

MacCoyle

Non-Partisan
Sep 21, 2007
886
39
38
Visit site
✟8,737.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Nor was Lincoln a saint or a savior. History tells us that Lincoln fought hard to free the slaves, when the truth is, he didn't really care either way. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union -- period. Freing slaves was simply a means to that end.


False false false false. That was an official party platform position. Him personally, while a racist by modern standards, cared greatly about the slaves. Lincoln had a capacity to change. He became more and more an abolitionist throughout the war. Just read his personal letters.

Fredrick Douglas once said that Lincoln was the only white man he ever had a long conversation with that didn't remind him that he was a negro.

I can't find it (maybe someone else can), but a friend once said to him "Why do you care so much about the negro?" He replied with something that it is our moral duty to abolish slavery.

Though today he would be racist, he was personally against slavery and politically indifferent.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gawron

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2008
3,152
473
✟5,109.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I haven't read over this entire debate but enough of it see the overall thrust of the commentary.

To return to the OP, I see this issue as an attempt by some to impose twentieth and twenty-first century values on a nineteenth century emblem. As I am sure others have pointed out the flag under discussion was not the flag of the Confederacy, but simply the banner, the battle-flag, of the Confederate soldier. As such is should not share in the condemnation which their cause, as it related to slavery, recieved, or suffer from its downfall. Those who study history today, and any willing to, should be able to unite in a chorus of praise to the gallantry of the men who followed where this banner led, just as we do to those who marched under the flag of the Union. However savage these men may have been, and were, to each other, is moot to this point.

It was said by a vetern of the Confederate army that, "on the last fatal field of the Civil War, the battle flag ceased to have place or meaning in the world. Except to those who saw in it the unstained banner of a brave and generous people, whose deeds have outlived their country, and whose final defeat but added lustre to their grandest victories."

However you may feel about his comment, this much I think is true. When it comes to the Confederate battle-flag, we should seek to preserve the history connected with its orgin, and seperate it from all the political significance which attaches to the Confederate flag.

Besides, the vast majority of those men and women sold into slavery during the 19th century were done so under the banner of the stars and stripes, not the stars and bars.
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/11/jim-webb-explains-his-rem_n_106500.html

Unlike other Democrats, Jim Webb doesn't let political correctness fog the truth.

The truth being that no matter how much one would like to rewrite history, the Civil Was was at least as much about slavery as it was about State's rights -- for some statrs, even more so, as I illustrated back in posts #44 and #129

So what is Webb attempting to do, if not forge his own "political correctness" out of historical incorrectness?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0