South Carolina Threatened to Secede From the Union if Confederate Flag is Removed from Capitol
93 replies, posted
sorry coke> pepsi brother.
pepsi is just eternally syrupy to me.
[QUOTE=DemonElite;48069298]sorry coke> pepsi brother.
pepsi is just eternally syrupy to me.[/QUOTE]
whatever. if you were a REAL southerner you would drink RC COLA you POSEUR
[QUOTE=farmer joe;48067806]1.The civil war was not started over slavery.
[/QUOTE]
I'm going to just copy-paste some of what I said in another thread (and I admit that this is a retread of what some guy posted on /r/badhistory):
There were certainly more aspects to the Civil War than simply slavery (the economic implications of abolition are the most obvious), but the war was ultimately about slavery, as it was precipitated by the Union preventing the expansion of slavery into its new territories and the election of Lincoln.
[url=http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html]But don't take my word for it, let's ask the states themselves. Take a look at The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States:[/url]
[b]Georgia[/b]
[quote]The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery[/quote]
[quote]. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. [/quote]
[quote]We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. [/quote]
[b]Mississippi[/b]
[quote]Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.[/quote]
[quote]It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
...
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
...
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better. [/quote]
[b]South Carolina[/b]
[quote]The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. [/quote]
[b]Texas[/b]
[quote]Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them? [/quote]
[quote]In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. [/quote]
[b]Virginia[/b]
(this one isn't as bad, it's just a declaration of seperation from the union, but note that even this mentions slavery)
[quote] The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States. [/quote]
Hell, just ctrl-f that page. "Slave" gets 83 mentions. "North"? 38. "Union"? 29. "Rights"? 16.
It was very much about slavery.
Now, many of the people fighting in it might have been fighting for their homeland, but that has no bearing on the causes of the war. If anything, it should be a solemn reminder that "My country, right or wrong" is a bad attitude to have when your country is, in fact, wrong.
[QUOTE=farmer joe;48067806]1.The civil war was not started over slavery.
However, roughly half way through the war, the north began focussing the cause of the war more on slavery. And even, mind you, when slavery was abolished, the north wasn't exactly all about mixing black and white either.
2. Many families in the south have lived there for generations. Just like anywhere else. The flying of the flag for them is remembering their family.
Also, a fun fact, General Lee didn't even like the idea of slavery, and fought on the side of the south because of his family.[/QUOTE]
Alright, I'm big on the whole Confederacy thing but I won't lie that the war wasn't started over slavery. The abolition of slavery's expansion to the territories was the straw that broke the camel's back and caused secession. However, the immediate end of slavery was not a large issue until 1863 with the Emancipation Proclamation. Before that, the main topic was whether or not secession was actually legal.
[editline]28th June 2015[/editline]
That being said, slavery did have a lot to do with the war.
[editline]28th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=DemonElite;48069063]as someone from north carolina leave us out of it.
also sorry to say but the [B]confederate flag[/B] represents racism and [B]treason[/B].[/QUOTE]
You some kinda Yankee?
[QUOTE=bdd458;48068682]Lincoln wasn't actually an Abolitionist, although he was attacked as one in the 1850's. The south didn't like him because he was a Republican, and at the time most Republicans ran on an Abolitionist platform. Lincoln did not until 1864. Though, he was against Slavery he didn't truly know what to do about it. An Abolitionist wanted the slaves to be freed immediately.
However, yes, Slavery was still one of the main issues.[/QUOTE]
Lincoln considered himself a moderate above all else. He personally believed in the abolition of slavery in the United States (and actually was a big proponent of the movement to repatriate slaves to Liberia), and ran on the ticket of an abolitionist party, but was willing to hold off on it for as long as he believed its continued legality could potentially lead to peaceful preservation of the Union. As soon as he realized it wasn't he decided to go for broke and issued the emancipation proclamation.
As far as the secessionists themselves were concerned: the Civil War was always about slavery, Lincoln hoped that if he made it not be they'd be more willing to negotiate (and to appease the few slave states who remained loyal).
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;48069516]Lincoln considered himself a moderate above all else. He personally believed in the abolition of slavery in the United States (and actually was a big proponent of the movement to repatriate slaves to Liberia), and ran on the ticket of an abolitionist party, but was willing to hold off on it for as long as he believed its continued legality could potentially lead to peaceful preservation of the Union. As soon as he realized it wasn't he decided to go for broke and issued the emancipation proclamation.
As far as the secessionists themselves were concerned: the Civil War was always about slavery, Lincoln hoped that if he made it not be they'd be more willing to negotiate (and to appease the few slave states who remained loyal).[/QUOTE]
That's not true. The Republican Party was founded on the basis of not abolishing slavery, but preventing its expansion as territories became states.
[QUOTE=DemonElite;48069063]as someone from north carolina leave us out of it.
also sorry to say but the confederate flag represents racism and treason.[/QUOTE]
Do everyone from the south a favor and throw yourself off a bridge you ignorant hick
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Triage;48069807]Do everyone from the south a favor and throw yourself off a bridge you ignorant hick[/QUOTE]
someone should say the same about you
[QUOTE=Triage;48069807]Do everyone from the south a favor and throw yourself off a bridge you ignorant hick[/QUOTE]
did you even read the fucking post?
[QUOTE=OvB;48066310]That's a myth. We can however, divide the state of Texas into five different states at any given moment.[/QUOTE]
TBH I don't really see how a state that wants to secede cares about what the larger entity they want to secede from thinks they are or aren't allowed to do :v:
[QUOTE=J!NX;48066106]is that even possible?
to be that dumb I mean[/QUOTE]
Everything about this, as with most recent events in America, are all fucking stupid.
You have folks going off the deep end declaring it's the end of American freedom and how they're tottaly gonna fuck over anyone who slightly leans left because they're getting upset over a flag.
And then you have folks pissing all over history and wanting to outright censor the Confederate flag because "mah triggers". And already trying to pull anything relating to the Confederate flag.
This whole thing is fucking bullshit, and I'd go deeper into the reasons, but they're reasons that would make probably everyone in this thread angry at me for saying them, and it wouldn't be worth it.
Was it harming anyone before?
Because people are being harmed now.
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;48070527]Was it harming anyone before?
Because people are being harmed now.[/QUOTE]
I think it was quietly tolerated.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;48067139]I don't get why you would ever fly this flag.
Let's say the flag really doesn't represent racism/slavery (even though it does). Let's pretend it stands for states rights and southern pride.
You're still flying a flag that represents treason. The exact opposite of patriotism. Its a flag that represents a movement that [i]fought a bloody war[/i] against the United States. It's completely un-American. You are [i]rebel scum[/i].[/QUOTE]
You realize flying the AMERICAN flag is treason.... "The exact opposite of patriotism. Its a flag that represents a movement that [i]fought a bloody war[/i] against" Great Britian. "You are [i]rebel scum[/i]."
[QUOTE=ms939;48125782]You realize flying the AMERICAN flag is treason.... "The exact opposite of patriotism. Its a flag that represents a movement that [i]fought a bloody war[/i] against" Great Britian. "You are [i]rebel scum[/i]."[/QUOTE]If you flew it in Britain yes but not in America.
[QUOTE=Murkrow;48066204]Imagine a state threatening to secede for some big reason, like forcing the government to rebuild the corrections system or not forcing mandatory health insurace country-wide or something like that
But no, a flag[/QUOTE]
They're saying it's about the flag but I think we all know the [i]real[/i] reason.
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1473914[/url]
I swear if we ever secede I'm joining a rebellion to overthrow the South Carolina government. A civil war within a civil war.
[QUOTE=Moustacheman;48067688]We could've won if we didn't kill Jackson by accident.[/QUOTE]
also that sherman guy didn't have anything to do with the south's defeat
[editline]5th July 2015[/editline]
for anyone who debates that the confederacy didn't represent slavery....
[quote]Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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.
-Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861.
[/quote]
pretty straight forward that the confederacy was built on slavery
[editline]5th July 2015[/editline]
states rights and personal liberties are arguments that were constructed to propagate and justify the expansion of slavery, and rationalize the fight against the abolitionists, just the same as reproduction, biblical passage, and "tradition" were arguments constructed to justify fighting against gay marriage
[QUOTE]I will say, then, that 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. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
- Abraham Lincoln, Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
[/QUOTE]
The difference is, the Southern economy was built on slavery, and was moving around to being phased out anyway. No one can effectively argue that the north wasn't insanely racist as well.
Saying the issue of slavery is not central to the Civil War or southern history is absolute bullshit wishful thinking, and this is coming from a Texan mind you. The slavery debate was fucking [I]riddled[/I] throughout the United States' history up to that point and slavery and racism has still been a huge issue since, and it always will be. People need to get comfortable with that, because it's reality. And for the record, nobody is free from that stain. The north was still racist as well.
Nobody is inheriting guilt, for the record. I'm a southerner and I didn't have jack nor shit to do with the Civil War or slavery, completely not my fault, nor is it anyone elses because everyone who's fault it actually was is long fuckin' dead. But I don't pretend it isn't central to the US' history or the South's, nor that it has long lasting impacts that are still going on. It [I]is.[/I] That's not your choice. Get over it.
[editline]e[/editline]
also for the whole "It's my heritage!!" shit, why in God's name would you pick the South's absolute worst moment to represent the south?
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;48128029]The difference is, the Southern economy was built on slavery, and was moving around to being phased out anyway. No one can effectively argue that the north wasn't insanely racist as well.[/QUOTE]
I keep hearing that it was "gonna be phased out" but absolutely nobody can back up this claim.
The constitution of the confederate states literally says that any new colonies/states [I]must[/I] recognize the institution of slavery. If it was going to be phased out, why would that be codified into the constitution of the country? Half the reason the Confederate states got so upset was that the North decided that all new states would not have legal slavery. It was part of the "states rights" cornerstone that caused the civil war in the first place - they codified that they could continue to expand slavery, not that they were going to shrink it.
Again, find me the specific law that says "we're gonna get rid of it honest!!!" and I'll concede, but [I]every time this comes up[/I] nobody ever cites a single source - they just spout that the Confederacy was "working on phasing it out." I call bullshit on that - the constitution very clearly states that the institution of slavery must be recognized. The only thing that could be seen as "anti-slavery" in the Confederate constitution is that slaves could not be traded internationally, which the US had banned 50 years before the confederacy ever existed.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48130146]I keep hearing that it was "gonna be phased out" but absolutely nobody can back up this claim.
The constitution of the confederate states literally says that any new colonies/states [I]must[/I] recognize the institution of slavery. If it was going to be phased out, why would that be codified into the constitution of the country? Half the reason the Confederate states got so upset was that the North decided that all new states would not have legal slavery. It was part of the "states rights" cornerstone that caused the civil war in the first place - they codified that they could continue to expand slavery, not that they were going to shrink it.
Again, find me the specific law that says "we're gonna get rid of it honest!!!" and I'll concede, but [I]every time this comes up[/I] nobody ever cites a single source - they just spout that the Confederacy was "working on phasing it out." I call bullshit on that - the constitution very clearly states that the institution of slavery must be recognized. The only thing that could be seen as "anti-slavery" in the Confederate constitution is that slaves could not be traded internationally, which the US had banned 50 years before the confederacy ever existed.[/QUOTE]
Also the ever vague 'state's rights' claim
to which I have never seen an answer as to a state's right to what
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48130234]Also the ever vague 'state's rights' claim
to which I have never seen an answer as to a state's right to what[/QUOTE]
to continue to own slaves, and to have the right to chase slaves across state boundaries, and to have the right to continue owning slaves in new states and territories
most of the "states rights" people talk about boil down to issues about slavery. yes, it was a states' rights issue, but it was also a slavery issue.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48130234]Also the ever vague 'state's rights' claim
to which I have never seen an answer as to a state's right to what[/QUOTE]
IIRC from an american government class two years ago, (outside of the context of the Civil War) the state's rights thing kinda stems from the federalist/anti-federalist debate during the drafting of the constitution where federalists wanted a stronger centralized government (federal government/federation of states) where anti-federalists feared that a centralized government would eventually become too powerful (which they were trying to avoid because British Parliament) giving lower levels of government less power. Anti federalists were in favor of decentralized government that focused more on giving more power to the states than to any centralized body (a confederacy).
So, by state's rights, they mean that state's can be largely self governing and determine their own laws rather than be dictated to by a distant, larger body.
So, although no history class I ever took covered the Civil War in much detail aside from noting a few battles, I gather that the state's rights argument was that when the federal government said that no further states may have slavery, it was infringing on the state's rights to self govern, in this instance to legalize slavery.
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;48128029]The difference is, the Southern economy was built on slavery, and was moving around to being phased out anyway. No one can effectively argue that the north wasn't insanely racist as well.[/QUOTE]
in the 1830s yes, but once cotton came on the scene it suddenly created a need for massive amounts of unskilled pickers, now that the seperation processes allowed for a massive boost in production, ya the north wasn't immune to racism either, but the difference is that abolition doesn't mean that white privilege is dead, its a weird dichotomy, much like how many of the founding fathers had slaves but opposed the institution
[QUOTE=J!NX;48066106]is that even possible?
to be that dumb I mean[/QUOTE]
It's not going to happen.
It's possible. In the sense that if the people and local government wake up one morning and decide they're not part of the United States anymore, they're not part of the United States anymore.
Legitimacy is enforced mostly by power, however. And they could not legitimately secede and enforce their claim of sovereignty because they're not powerful enough to do so; the federal government would kick their asses using military force if necessary.
Basically, what happened with the Civil War: one side says one thing, the other side says the opposite thing; they then fight it out between each other, and the victor determines how things will be in the end. Might makes right, always. Physical force is the ultimate tool of action and decider of how things will be.
States' rights have always been ridiculous in this country. From the time of the Articles of Confederation, we allowed them to operate as practically individual countries. And that's a legacy which hasn't died unfortunately; the states even today talk too tough about themselves too often and their pro-secession inhabitants overestimate their self-sufficiency. This mentality of "we're a special state, and we belong to ourselves" needs to die. The United States is supposed to be united, linked on the principle of one for all and all for one.
Nothing's going to happen, but this big talk annoys the hell out of me anyway. It was there during the Civil Rights Era (i.e. Arkansas during the Little Rock Nine days), gay marriage ("we won't comply with federal laws"), etc. You're not seceding, you couldn't survive on your own even if you did, and the federal government and most of the country would curbstomp you back into submission where you belong if you tried. Idiots.
[QUOTE=OvB;48066310]That's a myth. We can however, divide the state of Texas into five different states at any given moment.[/QUOTE]
Texas-Zord, begin secession!
[sp]I've never watched Power Rangers[/sp]
[QUOTE=Sableye;48127471]also that sherman guy didn't have anything to do with the south's defeat
[/QUOTE]
Sherman had a lot to do with the loss, as did Burnside. It basically could've come down to how quickly Lee could break apart the Army of the Potomac and force a surrender from D.C.
As we know from Gettysburg, that never happened. We have Bragg to blame for the loss in the West as he tried to hard to occupy liberated cities throughout Tennessee and Kentucky.
Yo the South Carolina Senate just voted to take down the flag
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33420598[/url]
I always love when people threaten to secede and challenge the US. :v:
This isn't the Civil War era of cannons and gunpowder-load rifles and bayonets. Any state instigating a war of secession would get shut down in about a day at most. I mean, what would they fight with? A few nutters with guns aren't going to hold a candle to even a fraction of the strength of the US military. And I highly doubt the National Guard would take the side of an illegal secession attempt.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.