• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?


  • Total voters
    82
Status
Not open for further replies.
Slavery was an issue, not because of the morality of the politicians (ha! anyone really think politicians have such high moral standards), because those northern politicians wanted to contain southern political influence.
The northern politicians didn't want slavery to expand to the new territories, so they could limit their opponents political power, using the federal government.
It was an internal power grab.

You're operating on the presumption that the U.S. government wanted to abolish slavery, which it didn't.
So no it's quite an accurate comparison.
I really feel bad for the abolitionists, they were the only ones who had the right intentions and the northern politicians used that to the fullest.
 
Slavery was an issue, not because of the morality of the politicians (ha! anyone really think politicians have such high moral standards), because those northern politicians wanted to contain southern political influence.
The northern politicians didn't want slavery to expand to the new territories, so they could limit their opponents political power, using the federal government.
It was an internal power grab.

You're operating on the presumption that the U.S. government wanted to abolish slavery, which it didn't.
So no it's quite an accurate comparison.

You are getting into cynical motives that I don't care to get into, unless you can somehow prove them relative. Personally, I do not care what intentions northern politicians had, as that is another topic and only serves as an indictment towards low moral character. But it still doesn't change the issue, and only goes further to show that the issue of slavery, whether a bargaining chip of the north's or not, was still the biggest issues leading to the Civil War. Let me put it another way:

If the northern states were raping children before the war, and the south used the abolition of child raping as a means to further their agenda and keep the north at bay, I would still support the south's decision (albeit as shady as they are). I do not support raping of children, and, quite frankly, the north could quit raping children if they wanted more "fairness".

*Edit: Oh, and I liked your post if only for the cheap shot on politicians. I agree.
 
Last edited:
You are getting into cynical motives that I don't care to get into, unless you can somehow prove them relative. Personally, I do not care what intentions northern politicians had, as that is another topic and only serves as an indictment towards low moral character. But it still doesn't change the issue, and only goes further to show that the issue of slavery, whether a bargaining chip of the north's or not, was still the biggest issues leading to the Civil War. Let me put it another way:

If the northern states were raping children before the war, and the south used the abolition of child raping as a means to further their agenda and keep the north at bay, I would still support the south's decision (albeit as shady as they are). I do not support raping of children, and, quite frankly, the north could quit raping children if they wanted more "fairness".

If the details and motives of the states rights arguments are important, then the motive of the opposite is important.
Your taking an idolized version of what happened and you use it to berate the people who still hold the southern flag, as a symbol of pride and regional nationalism.

The north did not use abolition, some private individuals did that.
Neither the states of the north, nor would the U.S. government, sneak slaves out from the South.
It's not an accurate comparison.

Edit: If the Southern Battle Flag is offensive, then the Coat of Arms on the Massachusetts flag should be equally offensive.
They were after all, the first colony to legalize slavery.
 
Last edited:
If the details and motives of the states rights arguments are important, then the motive of the opposite is important.
Your taking an idolized version of what happened and you use it to berate the people who still hold the southern flag, as a symbol of pride and regional nationalism.

The north did not use abolition, some private individuals did that.
Neither the states of the north, nor would the U.S. government, sneak slaves out from the South.
It's not an accurate comparison.

Edit: If the Southern Battle Flag is offensive, then the Coat of Arms on the Massachusetts flag should be equally offensive.
They were after all, the first colony to legalize slavery.

Well I think if we were discussing some flag that the north created specifically at that time there would be reason to discuss the creation of that flag. I am still not seeing your point. I see that you have said the north's intentions were not exactly pure, and that's fine, I don't know much about it but I'll concede that point to you out of faith that you are correct (since we have had decent debates in the past). But again, I think you are missing the point. For instance, you said:

Harry Guerrilla said:
If the Southern Battle Flag is offensive, then the Coat of Arms on the Massachusetts flag should be equally offensive.
They were after all, the first colony to legalize slavery.

And while that is an interesting piece of history, it isn't relevant. No one is reminded of slavery because the flag existed during slavery, but rather people feel the Confederate flag was created for the sole purpose of keeping slavery. I don't think that can be said about any other flag in this country. Again, unless you can name reasons for secession that have no bearing or ties to slavery, then you'd have to admit that the south did secede due to slavery and that the origins of the Confederate flag are tied to that particular institution.
 
The big problem with the Dixie argument is two groups of idiots, the southern racists who misrepresent the flag by flying it to decree rasist intent(KKK, etc.)

Well, unfortunately it is much broader than the KKK and whatnot. For example, there are many cities in the south that still to this day take out the confederate flag and fly it on city buildings specifically on Martin Luther King day and not other days. I think Virginia just stopped doing that on the state capitol maybe 5 years ago or so and a number of cities still do it. The only way that makes a lick of sense is if they are flying it as a symbol of their feelings towards black people, right?

then there is the group of non-southerners who have decided that their opinion on our culture is the only one that counts.

That seems like quite a leap to assume that they are judging your culture. It isn't the flag of the modern southern states, it's the flag from the confederacy. A person can, and in fact most people do, like the south, but consider the confederacy to have been evil. Genocide was committed against the native americans in many northern states. That is undeniably evil, and somebody who was flying a symbol of that slaughter in a supportive way would get some serious flak, but that doesn't mean that the people giving them flak must hate northern culture. They don't hate southern culture, they hate slavery and they hate losing 620,000 American lives. That's more than we've lost in any other war in our history. Celebrating that is pretty troubling to most people even if they love the south.

IMO having symbols that represent both something positive and wholesome, and at the same time represent white supremacy, is a really bad idea. It's a way for white supremacists to be able to openly express their support for white supremacy while pretending it is just innocent and it legitimates white supremacy by lumping it in with something positive. And it reinforces the perception of the south as racist. A perception I think is at least wildly exaggerated, but you guys aren't doing yourselves any favors on that score by clinging on to symbols that remind everybody that your states fought a war and killed hundreds of thousands of Americans partly for the purpose of continuing a holocaust against black people.
 
Well I think if we were discussing some flag that the north created specifically at that time there would be reason to discuss the creation of that flag. I am still not seeing your point. I see that you have said the north's intentions were not exactly pure, and that's fine, I don't know much about it but I'll concede that point to you out of faith that you are correct (since we have had decent debates in the past). But again, I think you are missing the point. For instance, you said:



And while that is an interesting piece of history, it isn't relevant. No one is reminded of slavery because the flag existed during slavery, but rather people feel the Confederate flag was created for the sole purpose of keeping slavery. I don't think that can be said about any other flag in this country. Again, unless you can name reasons for secession that have no bearing or ties to slavery, then you'd have to admit that the south did secede due to slavery and that the origins of the Confederate flag are tied to that particular institution.

Yes, part of the reason for secession was slavery, but the sole intent was not entirely for slavery.
The South was completely and entirely wrong for supporting slavery.

With that said, for the common man, it was a noble experience in context.
A bunch of poor, regular joes, volunteered to fight to defend their home, some having no weapons at all and they did so successfully for a few years.
Even when their opponent was better armed and better fed.

If you notice, most of the people that take the Confederate Battle Flag to heart, are still regular joes.
They see something entirely different, than what those offended see.

It is a cultural divide, that can't be solved by banning it's use.

Edit: It holds powerful iconography of the old, pulling oneself up by the bootstraps, no matter the adversity one faces.
 
Last edited:
No. It's a symbol of exactly what it was- an attempted succession from the country due to disputes including but not limited to slavery.
 
No. It's a symbol of exactly what it was- an attempted succession from the country due to disputes including but not limited to slavery.

Such as what, specifically?

Yes, part of the reason for secession was slavery, but the sole intent was not entirely for slavery.
The South was completely and entirely wrong for supporting slavery.

With that said, for the common man, it was a noble experience in context.
A bunch of poor, regular joes, volunteered to fight to defend their home, some having no weapons at all and they did so successfully for a few years.
Even when their opponent was better armed and better fed.

What was the primary intent then? You act as if the South did not deserve what they had coming to them.
 
Last edited:
Bottom line: symbols are used for various meanings. Those meanings can change over time, and vary due to the individual's perspective.

There are millions of people for whom the Stars and Bars are a positive symbol. Disagree with them if you wish, that's your right as an American.

Is there anyone here, though, who is advocating that the Confederate flag be banned by law? That flying it or displaying it be made a criminal offense?


That's a very different thing, see. I disagree with a lot of things... doesn't always mean I want them outlawed.
 
Bottom line: symbols are used for various meanings. Those meanings can change over time, and vary due to the individual's perspective.

There are millions of people for whom the Stars and Bars are a positive symbol. Disagree with them if you wish, that's your right as an American.

Is there anyone here, though, who is advocating that the Confederate flag be banned by law? That flying it or displaying it be made a criminal offense?


That's a very different thing, see. I disagree with a lot of things... doesn't always mean I want them outlawed.

Nope, I just find it to be distasteful and ignorant.
 
Is there anyone here, though, who is advocating that the Confederate flag be banned by law? That flying it or displaying it be made a criminal offense?

No, I certainly don't think anybody is proposing that. I would strong oppose that.

However, in my opinion, the government should not ever fly the confederate flag either. Flying it on MLK day is especially offensive, but flying it any time on a state or local government building, given that two of the meanings it sometimes symbolizes are treason and slavery, is inappropriate.
 
What was the primary intent then? You act as if the South did not deserve what they had coming to them.

To form their own form of political governance, representative of their own cultural values.
That was the primary intent.
Some were definitely wrong, like slavery.

How did many of those people "deserve" it?
A great many, didn't even own slaves.
 
To form their own form of political governance, representative of their own cultural values.
That was the primary intent.
Some were definitely wrong, like slavery.

How did many of those people "deserve" it?
A great many, didn't even own slaves.

What cultural values? Why did the south choose to secede and go to war with the Union?
 
To form their own government.
I just answered this.

The cultural divide was in many areas, from religion to society, they were ever present.

Actually those divides remain, to a large degree, to this day. The South is one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented regions in the country. In a time when most stereotypes are viewed with great disfavor, it remains acceptible to stereotype Southerners as ignorant racist hicks.

There remain many huge cultural divides between the South and the Northeast, as well as much of the West Coast. Customs and religion, traditions and social practices, family and work... the South is a culture unto itself still in many ways.
 
Actually those divides remain, to a large degree, to this day. The South is one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented regions in the country. In a time when most stereotypes are viewed with great disfavor, it remains acceptible to stereotype Southerners as ignorant racist hicks.

There remain many huge cultural divides between the South and the Northeast, as well as much of the West Coast. Customs and religion, traditions and social practices, family and work... the South is a culture unto itself still in many ways.

It's largely why I think that the South should be it's own nation.
We've escaped a lot of the wrongs of the old south, the paternalistic relationship and slavery of the plantation owners.

We're different and we're fine with it, but everyone else needs to get a grip.
 
No, I certainly don't think anybody is proposing that. I would strong oppose that.

However, in my opinion, the government should not ever fly the confederate flag either. Flying it on MLK day is especially offensive, but flying it any time on a state or local government building, given that two of the meanings it sometimes symbolizes are treason and slavery, is inappropriate.
Totally agree. It's fine for private citizens, but should not be allowed on public property or on anything issued by the state.
 
It means different things to different people.
 
To form their own government.
I just answered this.

The cultural divide was in many areas, from religion to society, they were ever present.

Ohh, damn, I was taught the wrong stuff all along. These guys were just like, "hey man, were different so let's form a new country". Oh, I didn't realize that. That's weird timing though, eh? Well, I don't buy it.

Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

Georgia's Secession
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. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. 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. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

Anything bolded was directly discussing slavery. That's almost half of the introduction to their reasons for secession. That does not mean that the other parts aren't related to slavery either, they just aren't directly referring to it. I won't put all of it on here, but I will highlight some key parts:

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. 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. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.

The entire third paragraph (the second paragraph was about two lines total so you didn't miss much).

The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party from its free enjoyment; therefore our right was good under the Constitution. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the Government from the beginning. Slavery was forbidden in the country northwest of the Ohio River by what is called the ordinance of 1787. That ordinance was adopted under the old confederation and by the assent of Virginia, who owned and ceded the country, and therefore this case must stand on its own special circumstances. The Government of the United States claimed territory by virtue of the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, acquired territory by cession from Georgia and North Carolina, by treaty from France, and by treaty from Spain. These acquisitions largely exceeded the original limits of the Republic. In all of these acquisitions the policy of the Government was uniform. It opened them to the settlement of all the citizens of all the States of the Union. They emigrated thither with their property of every kind (including slaves). All were equally protected by public authority in their persons and property until the inhabitants became sufficiently numerous and otherwise capable of bearing the burdens and performing the duties of self-government, when they were admitted into the Union upon equal terms with the other States, with whatever republican constitution they might adopt for themselves.

Entirely about slavery. Maybe I will quote the whole thing.

Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

Need anything else? "Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union".

Next comes Mississippi!
 
Actually those divides remain, to a large degree, to this day. The South is one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented regions in the country. In a time when most stereotypes are viewed with great disfavor, it remains acceptible to stereotype Southerners as ignorant racist hicks.
.
And the East Coast is viewed as elitist and the Midwest is viewed as boring/simple and the West Coast is viewed as shallow. The South doesn't have the monopoly on that although it seems like the south might take it more personally than the rest of us do.
 
Let's go to Mississippi!
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

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. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Are we really going to have this argument, Harry?

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

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 tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

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 enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

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.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

That was the entire document and it was entirely about slavery (albeit Mississippi was far less eloquent than Georgia - not much has changed eh?).

South Carolina
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.

In the first line. Wow, Harry, they didn't **** about religion. They didn't **** about culture. They said that their rights to hold slaves was infringed upon and so they were leaving. That's exactly what that paragraph says, nothing more, nothing less.

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."

Here they say we are supposed to be free and independent and able to levy war, but they haven't gotten to why (well besides the first paragraph). Then for a bit it talks about the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. Until, finally, they get to their grievances:

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."

Oh look, it's about slavery! Who would have guessed? Oh my!

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.

Entirely about slaves, escaped slaves, and transportation of slaves.

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.

Entirely grievances about slaves.

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* [emphasis in the original] 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.

Did anyone see anything in there not related to slavery?
 
Last one, Texas:

The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then *a free, sovereign and independent nation* [emphasis in the original], the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

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?

So, I take away from this that they signed into the Constitution (and the reasons why) but they are dissolving from the Union. Why? Oh, slavery. Again: "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". Yes, that's what they consider to be "blessings". Slavery. Don't be confused when they say positive words referring to the country - they are referring to slavery every time.

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

Texas is pissed because they can't own slaves in any new western territories.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

Holy ****! I found a grievance that is not related to slaves - but it is related to killing "savages", but whatever. Still, look at that! I did it! Apparently Texas was also pissed because the US did not protect them adequately from the "savages" on their border.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.

When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

Ah ****, back to slavery.

Ok, there is more but I am done reading it. Can we call this debate over whether the Civil War was fought over slavery or not over? Thanks.
 
Well, unfortunately it is much broader than the KKK and whatnot. For example, there are many cities in the south that still to this day take out the confederate flag and fly it on city buildings specifically on Martin Luther King day and not other days. I think Virginia just stopped doing that on the state capitol maybe 5 years ago or so and a number of cities still do it. The only way that makes a lick of sense is if they are flying it as a symbol of their feelings towards black people, right?
I've never heard of the practice and I live as deep south as it gets. Some cities do have a homogenous culture, but again, if they are misusing Dixie that isn't an indictment of what it means to most southerners.



That seems like quite a leap to assume that they are judging your culture.
No it isn't. When I have some jackass telling me what a southern symbol means and it doesn't line up to the actual meaning it is a cultural judgement. Telling me Dixie equals racism would be like me telling someone of a different culture that my interpretation of their symbols or whatever is right.
It isn't the flag of the modern southern states, it's the flag from the confederacy. A person can, and in fact most people do, like the south, but consider the confederacy to have been evil.
And many people in the US do not want a federalized, centralized government Genocide was committed against the native americans in many northern states, a good number consider that evil. Glad to see that now what we "consider" has more meaning now than the truth.
 
I read that they celebrate another person on MLK day and that is why they fly the flag on that particular day. Still, an odd choice, in my opinion.

Hope to Fly Flag
Lexington, Virginia is causing a storm of controversy over the way it is celebrating Lee-Jackson Day. The local Sons of Confederate Veterans chapter, asked the city to put up Confederate flags on Monday prior to Lee-Jackson Day and leave them up until next Monday -- Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Ah, so it is not the same day but the week before or something of that nature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom