Students Suspended Indefinitely For Confederate Flag

[UpaLoompa]

Once again; self-governance.

Once again, the question was:
"What southern institution was being fought for by the confederacy? The only one even you have offered up is slavery."
Self-governance was being sought for what issues?
You know the answer, why be coy?

 

[ncordless]

That's actually probably not the case. Decades back they talked about how they opposed Wallace and that the following lines actually sung are "boo, boo, boo". As I said they also recognized the racist connotations of the confederate flag.

That's a nice way to try to diffuse that lyric, but then later they go on to praise the Guv'ner as being "true", so it sounds like a post hoc rationalization to me.

 

[UpaLoompa]

That's a nice way to try to diffuse that lyric, but then later they go on to praise the Guv'ner as being "true", so it sounds like a post hoc rationalization to me.

Maybe but looking into it they came out saying that while Wallace was governor.
I was basing it on:
"In 1975, Van Zant said: "The lyrics about the governor of Alabama were misunderstood. The general public didn't notice the words 'Boo! Boo! Boo!' after that particular line, and the media picked up only on the reference to the people loving the governor."[4] "The line 'We all did what we could do' is sort of ambiguous," Al Kooper notes. "'We tried to get Wallace out of there' is how I always thought of it."[4]"
Might well be post hoc rationalization but if so it wasn't particularly post hoc.

 

[nixkid]

Again, a crushing "victory" for the Nazis. While slavery was a disgusting, morally indefensible institution, it cannot, by definition, be compared to attempted genocide.

Comparing the Confederate States to Nazi Germany is like comparing High School Football to the NFL.

Only if you decide to only look at deaths but if you look at impact then its swings in the other direction. Slavery lasted 400 years, was multi-generational and still has a lingering impact on the descendants on slaves today. It certainly impacted more people in negative way than holocaust and for a longer duration.

I think its closer than you're suggesting here.

 

[bowened]

Only if you decide to only look at deaths but if you look at impact then its swings in the other direction. Slavery lasted 400 years, was multi-generational and still has a lingering impact on the descendants on slaves today. It certainly impacted more people in negative way than holocaust and for a longer duration.

I think its closer than you're suggesting here.

Nazi's and slave owners are all cozied up in their special place in Hell, but you make an excellent point.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Only if you decide to only look at deaths but if you look at impact then its swings in the other direction. Slavery lasted 400 years, was multi-generational and still has a lingering impact on the descendants on slaves today. It certainly impacted more people in negative way than holocaust and for a longer duration.

I think its closer than you're suggesting here.

While I think this is all quite inane, given how Scrody is tallying things, every individual abducted into slavery associated with the Atlantic slave trade gets counted. That's 12 million people. Throw in every individual born into resulting slavery and that goes up a lot. Given the population of the world at the time, slavery certainly outstrips that of the holocaust in total body count.

Both were awful and trying to have one "win" diminishes both. The real difference is that one was acute and one was longer-term.

 

[Jukai]

Slavery*, federalism vs confederalism, declining influence on national policy making, resulting unfavourable treatment, cultural differences in general, et cetera. All these schisms resulting in the South losing all faith in the federal government, and deciding that they wanted total self-governance in any and all matters, contemporary and future. I.e, independence.
I've mentioned the southern resistance to growing statism already. I don't like REPEATING myself.

*Not just the issue of whether the black man should be freed or not, but the issue of how the South should survive the transition to a free-labor economy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise

You listed slavery, and then synonymous for state's rights. I will ask AGAIN: what issues outside of slavery did the South want greater state control over? You literally just listed slavery and "cultural differences" which... means nothing.

 

[Calmete]

Key point: The Union did not start a war to protect slavery

Big difference

Union states had slavery just like the south. So they're not racist because they decided to change positions before the south? That's weird.

Commit egregious acts, refute said acts, then no longer a racist. I disagree. Both sides have good/ bad stuff. To me, that's obvious. Not apparently to most.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Nazi's and slave owners are all cozied up in their special place in Hell, but you make an excellent point.

Don't be so mean to those slave owners, didn't you know that:

Not all black slaves were miserable. Many of them stayed on the plantation after they were freed.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You listed slavery, and then synonymous for state's rights. I will ask AGAIN: what issues outside of slavery did the South want greater state control over? You literally just listed slavery and "cultural differences" which... means nothing.

You don't see self-governance as intrinsically good and believe someone needs to justify the desire for it?

 

[Halge]

Once again, the question was:
"What southern institution was being fought for by the confederacy? The only one even you have offered up is slavery."
Self-governance was being sought for what issues?
You know the answer, why be coy?

Post #150.

But you don't seem to get what I'm saying. The South did not want independence from the North simply because they had a differing opinion on the matter of slavery. They wanted independence because they resented the federal government's ability to dictate the South's policies at all.

In other words, the South opposed federalism. Self-governance was sought because it was the only way to ensure continued self-governance. The federal government, as evidenced by slavery among other things, sought increased statism, which the South did not want. I guess you could say one of the "Southern Institutions" the Confederacy fought for, besides slavery, was less federalism.

It's like opposition towards the EU in many member countries today. It isn't just the policies the EU decrees that people resent, but the fact that the EU even has the ability to make policy. Here in Sweden there was massive resentment when the EU decided to outlaw powder tobacco. But not only because we happen do like powder tobacco and export it to other EU nations, and thus disagreed with the decision. It was also, and probably more importantly, because the decision was made by an alien institution. And we prefer to have our policied created closer to home.

 

[Jukai]

While I think this is all quite inane, given how Scrody is tallying things, every individual abducted into slavery associated with the Atlantic slave trade gets counted. That's 12 million people. Throw in every individual born into resulting slavery and that goes up a lot. Given the population of the world at the time, slavery certainly outstrips that of the holocaust in total body count.

Both were awful and trying to have one "win" diminishes both. The real difference is that one was acute and one was longer-term.

It's a silly argument. Slavery wins in a fight but if we look at P4P it's the Holocaust.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Post #150.

But you don't seem to get what I'm saying. The South did not want independence from the North simply because they had a differing opinion on the matter of slavery. They wanted independence because they resented the federal government's ability to dictate the South's policies at all.

Which policies? Even with your apologetics you also keep coming back to slavery.
Also, as evidenced by their actual position, the Confederacy didn't actually care about self-governance per se because they actually and actively forbade member states to oppose slavery.

 

[Halge]

You don't see self-governance as intrinsically good and believe someone needs to justify the desire for it?

Forget it. If he and Dochter doesn't get it by now, they never will.

 

[James Keith]

Well, what percentage of casualties in WWII were the direct result of Nazi military action?

roughly half?

If we expand Nazi culpability to all those who died in any way in WWII, why is it a stretch to place culpability for all deaths caused by Atlantic Slave trade to slavers?

Which slavers? I was asking about the confederacy, which existed for a period of roughly 5 years, unlike the slave trade which preceded it by hundreds of years. Would be more akin to blaming the Nazis for all wars in European history.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Slavery*, federalism vs confederalism, declining influence on national policy making, resulting unfavourable treatment, cultural differences in general, et cetera. All these schisms resulting in the South losing all faith in the federal government, and deciding that they wanted total self-governance in any and all matters, contemporary and future. I.e, independence.
I've mentioned the southern resistance to growing statism already. I don't like REPEATING myself.

*Not just the issue of whether the black man should be freed or not, but the issue of how the South should survive the transition to a free-labor economy.

And where the confederacy stood on that issue is that they would never transition to a "free-labor economy" (what a joke of a phrase, by the way).
From the Confederacy's constitution:

The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.

The confederate constitution was more "statist" on the issue of slavery than the US as a whole at the time of secession and they were completely wrong.

Pretending that this was about self-governance is wrong. It was about slavery and, to a lesser extent, economics (economics tied to slavery).

 

[UpaLoompa]

Which slavers? I was asking about the confederacy, which existed for a period of roughly 5 years, unlike the slave trade which preceded it by hundreds of years. Would be more akin to blaming the Nazis for all wars in European history.

Well the inane comparison was really about slavery in the US and then fighting on behalf of protecting that slavery.

 

[Halge]

Which policies? Even with your apologetics you also keep coming back to slavery.
Also, as evidenced by their actual position, the Confederacy didn't actually care about self-governance per se because they actually and actively forbade member states to oppose slavery.

First of all: Source?

Second, every nation needs a constitution. Opposing statism does not mean you want complete anarchy. If the seceding states consented to the mandated slavery, and slavery was one of the main reasons for the the states to seek independence in the first place, in what way would mandated slavery indicate a lack of self-governance?

 

[UpaLoompa]

First of all: Source?

The fucking Confederate constitution.
You might find it useful to look at that constitution vis-a-vis your argument about self-determination and slavery. Basically the constitution of the Confederacy thinks you're wrong.

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

I quoted the part about joining states having to adopt slavery too.

Second, every nation needs a constitution. If the seceeding states consented to the mandated slavery, and slavery was one of the main reasons for the the states to seek independence in the first place, in what way would mandated slavery indicate a lack of self-governance?

You readily state this and then readily argue against it. Weird.

If the seceding states consented to the mandated slavery, and slavery was one of the main reasons for the the states to seek independence in the first place, in what way would mandated slavery indicate a lack of self-governance?

Because states couldn't change their positions without constitutional amendments. That gives the federal government more power on the issue than existed in the US at the time.

 

[ncordless]

Maybe but looking into it they came out saying that while Wallace was governor.
I was basing it on:
"In 1975, Van Zant said: "The lyrics about the governor of Alabama were misunderstood. The general public didn't notice the words 'Boo! Boo! Boo!' after that particular line, and the media picked up only on the reference to the people loving the governor."[4] "The line 'We all did what we could do' is sort of ambiguous," Al Kooper notes. "'We tried to get Wallace out of there' is how I always thought of it."[4]"
Might well be post hoc rationalization but if so it wasn't particularly post hoc.

Even if that explains the lyric "In Birmingham they love the Guv'ner", it does not explain why he describes later speaks approvingly of the governor.

Sweet home Alabama
Oh sweet home baby
Where the skies are so blue
And the guv'nor's true ]

If they really are booing Governor Wallace, why do they later speak approvingly of him?