Boooorring!

[packsaddle]

Bad Wolf: "....the flag is BOTH a symbol of heritage AND racism..."

Yes and they are one and the same for many of the people who announce their interest in 'heritage'. And yes, they have admitted this to me on many occasions. They wink with the word, 'heritage' and smile.

and then:

"Let's not re-write history or try to over simplify things."

 

Well, there's Haley Barbour, "Slavery was the primary, central, cause of secession,†in an interview with Politico. “The Civil War was necessary to bring about the abolition of slavery,†he continued. “Abolishing slavery was morally imperative and necessary, and it's regrettable that it took the Civil War to do it. But it did.â€

 

Or we can read it directly from the words of South Carolina at that time:

 

Begin quote:

Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. 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.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Adopted December 24, 1860

 

End quote

 

That's about as 'horse's mouth' as it gets. And a few months later a really, really stupid person in Charleston fired the first shot. No need to wonder how THAT worked out, I'm still living the results.

 

But anyone who reads the above and concludes that it wasn't about slavery, ....I don't know how to respond really.

Edited July 9, 2015 by packsaddle

[packsaddle]

The path of least resistance? Over the past few days I saw a couple of tv interviews with South Carolina Republican legislators who were basically acknowledging that by voting for the removal of the flag, they were probably causing the end of their own political careers. That does not seem like the path of least resistance to me. It was more like they were being forced to make a choice between doing the right thing or continuing to do the wrong thing, with the entire nation (including their own voters) watching, and they were deciding to do the right thing. Those legislators were probably taking the path of MOST resistance.

 

That may be. But you must keep in mind that at the bottom of everything, including the institution of slavery, is(was) greed. And that still works. In this case the choice of taking down 'the flag' was something that I think everyone recognized was inevitable and this event merely provided the best context for completing the process. In my opinion, I seriously doubt that many of those legislators who voted to remove 'the flag' will have much trouble getting re-elected. The Republican Party was urging this action and will provide backroom protection. These days, the actual election is pretty much over with the primaries. NONE of them have anything to worry about from any other political party.

[NJCubScouter]

Kinda makes one wonder what the 14th Amendment was all about considering the need for all the Civil Rights Acts starting in 1957 and continuing through to 1991....

Having spent about half a semester studying the 14th Amendment and its aftermath in law school, and digging back into my memory for what I learned, part of the explanation would be that until the mid-20th century, the federal courts generally treated the 14th Amendment as if it did not exist.

 

Another part of the explanation is that even in the 14th Amendment itself, it was contemplated that the provisions of the amendment weren't necessarily going to enforce themselves, nor did the amendment itself provide all the detail that would be necessary. I believe it is section 5 of the amendment that says that Congress is authorized to pass appropriate legislation to carry out the purposes of the amendment. (Or something like that.)

 

Another part of the explanation is that not all of the civil rights legislation of the second half of the 20th century relates to the 14th Amendment. That amendment deals with actions by governments. Parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act governs actions by non-governmental entities and persons, for example the prohibitions on discrimination in employment and "public" accommodations, which despite their name are usually privately (i.e. non-governmentally) owned and operated. Those prohibitions are based, if memory from several decades ago serves me correctly, on the authority granted in the Commerce Clause.

 

Slavery is an issue of slavery, not race.

In the long span of human history covering every current and former nation on Earth, maybe it is. But in the United States, there was one "race" holding slaves and one "race" being slaves, so in context it really was about race.

[packsaddle]

The war was fought over secession (the south to preserve it, the north to prevent it), but secession was all about preserving slavery. So is it fair to say the war was actually about slavery? And wasn't black slavery inherently based on racism? Therefor the war was fought because of racism?

Yes, yes, and yes.

And at 10am tomorrow morning when 'the flag' is finally taken down, there will remain all the issues of this society that were in place prior to taking it down. The symbol will remain in a museum setting and on any private property that any owner wishes. (See: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/109640682)

The 'heritage' which occupies the minds of the people will remain.

 

BTW, the NAACP just announced it is lifting the boycott. That's good.

[Stosh]

Having spent about half a semester studying the 14th Amendment and its aftermath in law school, and digging back into my memory for what I learned, part of the explanation would be that until the mid-20th century, the federal courts generally treated the 14th Amendment as if it did not exist.

 

Another part of the explanation is that even in the 14th Amendment itself, it was contemplated that the provisions of the amendment weren't necessarily going to enforce themselves, nor did the amendment itself provide all the detail that would be necessary. I believe it is section 5 of the amendment that says that Congress is authorized to pass appropriate legislation to carry out the purposes of the amendment. (Or something like that.)

 

Another part of the explanation is that not all of the civil rights legislation of the second half of the 20th century relates to the 14th Amendment. That amendment deals with actions by governments. Parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act governs actions by non-governmental entities and persons, for example the prohibitions on discrimination in employment and "public" accommodations, which despite their name are usually privately (i.e. non-governmentally) owned and operated. Those prohibitions are based, if memory from several decades ago serves me correctly, on the authority granted in the Commerce Clause.

 

 

In the long span of human history covering every current and former nation on Earth, maybe it is. But in the United States, there was one "race" holding slaves and one "race" being slaves, so in context it really was about race.

 

Yet the abolitionists of 1860 never identified the issue as racial, they identified it in a moral sense that one human should not be owning another.  That was the crux of their argument.  A soldier of the 8th Wisconsin commented in his journal that it was unnerving to see a blond haired, blue eyed boy as a slave.  He could not tell that person from anyone back home in Wisconsin.  I do believe he was having difficulty making out the racial issue in the processes in place.

 

Long before the Civil War the lucrative slave trade was promoted by the desire for rum.  No one was complaining about it at that point.  It almost went out of existence on it's own until Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin and made it profitable once again.  And even after the South ceded from the union, there were still northern states that allowed slavery.  So there was plenty of hypocrisy to go around.  At least the southern states didn't make any excuses for the practice.

 

The only reason the Indians never were enslaved (Yes, it was attempted a few times) was because they escaped too easily.  They however practice slavery of their own, enslaving members of opposing tribes.  To them slavery was slavery, and had nothing to do with race.  They didn't care if the person was black, white or Indian, they were slaves.

 

Of course due process and the American Dream never applied to them.  They were systematically rounded up and put in concentration camps and told if they leave they will be killed.  After all the only good Indian is a dead Indian.  These people weren't forced to work for the whites, so they weren't slaves, just incarcerated for doing nothing wrong except honoring treaties the whites ignored.

 

Shall I go on explaining how racist the US Stars and Stripes stand for?  Like I said, the Confederate flag is just smoke and mirrors to cover up the "heritage" of the Stars and Stripes. 

[desertrat77]

The path of least resistance? Over the past few days I saw a couple of tv interviews with South Carolina Republican legislators who were basically acknowledging that by voting for the removal of the flag, they were probably causing the end of their own political careers. That does not seem like the path of least resistance to me. It was more like they were being forced to make a choice between doing the right thing or continuing to do the wrong thing, with the entire nation (including their own voters) watching, and they were deciding to do the right thing. Those legislators were probably taking the path of MOST resistance.

Actually, I think their position still proves my statement, substantially.   The "entire nation" watching = national media glare and polarizing opinions, ie, personal opinions of people that do not live nor vote in their state.  It was easier for them to vote that way than be chastised by the "entire nation" (the path of least resistance).   Now they'll figure out how smooth over voters in their own state once the rest of the US returns to what the Kardashians are doing. 

 

Edited to add:  I'd concur with your position if the SC Rep legislators took their position before the national hysteria.   But it only came after a great deal of handwringing and scrutiny from people and organizations outside their state.   Politicians don't like to look bad, and a good many always have their eye on the next level.   Can't run for higher office if the "entire nation" thinks you're a racist.

 

I'd have a lot more respect for the SC politicians if they said "We hear the nation, but we are the state of SC, and we'll make a thoughtful, measured decision after we've consulted with our constituents."    

 

However, as someone with no ties to SC, my opinion is worth less than 2 cents.  But the things that stick in my craw:  when did the emotions and opinions of the nation overshadow the day to day decisions of a state?     Are we at a point in our nation's history where the opinions of outsiders carry more weight than the voters of a state?  

Edited July 9, 2015 by desertrat77

[packsaddle]

I confess. For a while I actually thought people were referring to the 'bad guys' in Deep Space Nine (the Cardassians), one of whom had the first name Kim.

Edited July 9, 2015 by packsaddle

[desertrat77]

I confess. For a while I actually thought people were referring to the 'bad guys' in Deep Space Nine (the Cardassians), one of whom had the first name Kim.

If they all (both C's and K's) would go on a long space journey, the news media might actually start reporting news again....

[NJCubScouter]

I confess. For a while I actually thought people were referring to the 'bad guys' in Deep Space Nine (the Cardassians), one of whom had the first name Kim.

I'm trying to come up with a joke about that, but it's a futile Enterprise.

[Gone]

Stunned at the mental gymnastics people will go through to justify their positions.

 

@@packsaddle, you need to read a bit more history...and not just from the sources that you agree with.

[packsaddle]

OK, what is your better source than the actual "Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" itself?

[packsaddle]

Or might it be Mississippi's declaration in which that state included these words, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world,†and then

“Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.â€

Jan. 9, 1861

Is this better?

[packsaddle]

Of course there's always Texas: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp

 

and Georgia: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp

 

These are not history books or someone's interpretation of what was written. These are what WERE written and they are remarkably consistent and clear about the central issue. Slavery.

Edited July 10, 2015 by packsaddle

[Gone]

@@packsaddle, these sources are only the ones that address slavery. There are just as many sources addressing the states' rights issue. No one is saying slavery wasn't an issue, but it wasn't the only issue.

[packsaddle]

They are THE definitive statements by the states that seceded...as to why they seceded. If you can find more authoritative sources than these please list them.

 

Oops, almost missed this: "No one is saying slavery wasn't an issue..."

You might want to take a gander at the next post.

Edited July 10, 2015 by packsaddle