Students Suspended Indefinitely For Confederate Flag

[UpaLoompa]

Why does this Swede have such a hard on for the Confederacy?

Self-governance to own people.
Freedom.
Murica.

 

[oldshadow]

Self-governance to own people.
Freedom.
Murica.

Slavery was the main issue as a states right and the catalyst for secession but not the only states rights issue. If slavery was the only reason and Lincoln felt like this why could a deal not be made to preserve the union.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

 

[Calmete]

Big difference between just practicing slavery and FIGHTING A WAR AND KILLING PEOPLE TO PRESERVE THAT RIGHT FOR THE NOBILITY.

Rofl. You're crazy, you know that right.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Slavery was the main issue as a states right and the catalyst for secession but not the only states rights issue. If slavery was the only reason and Lincoln felt like this why could a deal not be made to preserve the union.



http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

Because the South was led by fanatics.

Although Lincoln never intended to ban slavery when he was elected, he didnt want it to extend into the West, and the Confederates did, and because of this started a war.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Rofl. You're crazy, you know that right.

Facts are crazy?

Yes revisionism and making zhit up is always better.

 

[nixkid]

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.

Yeah, a quick glance at wikipedia suggests that the 60 million number he's talking about probably includes German, Italian, and Japanese military and civilians casualties which would mean that he's blaming the Nazis for the deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Utterly ridiculous.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Slavery was the main issue as a states right and the catalyst for secession but not the only states rights issue. If slavery was the only reason and Lincoln felt like this why could a deal not be made to preserve the union.



http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

Sure, slavery was indeed the main issue. It is difficult to cast that as an actual states' right issue given that the actual confederacy's constitution eliminated self-governance on the issue. The confederacy wasn't interested in preserving self-governance in regards to slavery, they explicitly prohibited such self-governance.
Not hard therefore to see why the confederate flag is rightly seen as a symbol of racism.

 

[nixkid]

Slavery was the main issue as a states right and the catalyst for secession but not the only states rights issue. If slavery was the only reason and Lincoln felt like this why could a deal not be made to preserve the union.



http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

I think its pretty obvious that the South was sick of compromising on the issue of Slavery. Compromise, in their minds, was just a slow pace erosion of their rights. In the same way that gun fanatics don't want common sense regulations because they fear what comes next. A slippery slope. They basically drew a line in the sand.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

...but no, I don't see self-governance as intrinsically good because that self-governance was continuing to use blacks as fucking property

So if you don't agree with everything a group might do then it means self-governance isn't a good in and of itself? By that thinking the racist could claim that "freedom" for blacks wasn't intrinsically good because they commit far more crimes. I doubt anybody is going to agree with that thinking. Freedom and self-governance are independent of the results these things allow for.

I can't help but notice that slavery (people not being able to self-govern their lives) is what you're using to suggest that self-governing isn't intrinsically good. Slaves don't need to justify wanting to be set free but other people need to justify their desire to keep decision-making as close to home as possible? This seems like the same human desire and principle except the application is a little different.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Yeah, a quick glance at wikipedia suggests that the 60 million number he's talking about probably includes German, Italian, and Japanese military and civilians casualties which would mean that he's blaming the Nazis for the deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Utterly ridiculous.

Well the whole attempt to rank atrocities of this scale is ridiculous.
The pace of the Rwandan Genocide probably tops both if we do want some ridiculous P4P list. I'm sure they'll be as much consensus as there is about Fedor's all time ranking.

 

[Jukai]

So if you don't agree with everything a group might do then it means self-governance isn't a good in and of itself? By that thinking the racist could claim that "freedom" for blacks wasn't intrinsically good because they commit far more crimes. I doubt anybody is going to agree with that thinking. Freedom and self-governance are independent of the results these things allow for.

I can't help but notice that slavery (people not being able to self-govern their lives) is what you're using to suggest that self-governing isn't intrinsically good. Slaves don't need to justify wanting to be set free but other people need to justify their desire to keep decision-making as close to home as possible? This seems like the same human desire and principle except the application is a little different.

You said self-governance was intrinsically good. I said "well, the people who wanted greater self-governance did it to keep black people, so I disagree" and now you are painting me as saying self-governance is intrinsically bad.
It is intrinsically neither. It is both good and bad because people are both good and bad. This is why there is a balance between state and federal government.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Lol @ historic restraint.

With that said there no reason to put confederate flags on display other than to provoke racial tension so totally cool with the suspension.

 

[nixkid]

So if you don't agree with everything a group might do then it means self-governance isn't a good in and of itself? By that thinking the racist could claim that "freedom" for blacks wasn't intrinsically good because they commit far more crimes. I doubt anybody is going to agree with that thinking. Freedom and self-governance are independent of the results these things allow for.

I can't help but notice that slavery (people not being able to self-govern their lives) is what you're using to suggest that self-governing isn't intrinsically good. Slaves don't need to justify wanting to be set free but other people need to justify their desire to keep decision-making as close to home as possible? This seems like the same human desire and principle except the application is a little different.

Self governance is philosophy. You don't fight civil wars over philosophy, you fight civil wars over grievances. The South wanted self governance because of what they believe was a grievance not because of its intrinsic value. If that were the case, and self governance had intrinsic value, then people should fight for the smallest possible government unit possible: cities and counties should be seceding from states to form very small independent nations. If that were the goal then the southern states should have seceded to form many independent nations not just to form another big central government somewhere else. The truth is, they didn't have a problem with big centralized governments as long as it allowed their citizens to own slaves.

 

[oldshadow]

Because the South was led by fanatics.

Although Lincoln never intended to ban slavery when he was elected, he didnt want it to extend into the West, and the Confederates did, and because of this started a war.

The south was lead by the same type of fanatics that lead the revolutionary war.

Correct Lincoln's base and support did not want western states to have the choice.

Sure, slavery was indeed the main issue. It is difficult to cast that as an actual states' right issue given that the actual confederacy's constitution eliminated self-governance on the issue. The confederacy wasn't interested in preserving self-governance in regards to slavery, they explicitly prohibited such self-governance.
Not hard therefore to see why the confederate flag is rightly seen as a symbol of racism.

Yes the south wanted self-governance as in the confederate states of america.

I can see why some/many see that flag as a symbol of racism and why other don't see it that way.

I think its pretty obvious that the South was sick of compromising on the issue of Slavery. Compromise, in their minds, was just a slow pace erosion of their rights. In the same way that gun fanatics don't want common sense regulations because they fear what comes next. A slippery slope. They basically drew a line in the sand.

Bad comparison if you're anti 2nd because the south would have been correct under northern rule.

 

[James Keith]

Self governance is philosophy. You don't fight civil wars over philosophy, you fight civil wars over grievances.

Eh? You fight wars for political control. When the north won the presidency they won complete control over the federal govt and the south immediately left.

And technically it was a war for independence not a civil war as the south never wanted to govern the north.

By the way the Iraq war was fought for democracy against the forces that wanted to retain despotic dictatorship. Thoughts?

 

[UpaLoompa]

Yes the south wanted self-governance as in the confederate states of america.

They wanted self-governance only as it pertained to slavery. The confederacy's constitution was identical in most ways. The structure of government was the same. The constitution of the confederacy had the same supremacy clause. Where the confederacy differed was almost exclusively in regards to slavery. The constitution of the confederacy required that all new states or territories entering the confederacy allow slavery (the main issue of the 1860 US election). The constitution of the confederacy also explicitly stated that no state/local law could every ban slavery.

There's a reason why "states rights" is widely recognized as a dog whistle phrase.

 

[nixkid]

Eh? You fight wars for political control. When the north won the presidency they won complete control over the federal govt and the south immediately left.

And technically it was a war for independence not a civil war as the south never wanted to govern the north.

By the way the Iraq war was fought for democracy against the forces that wanted to retain despotic dictatorship. Thoughts?

Still not a reason to fight a civil war because political control changes rapidly in a democracy. They had to believe that a loss of political control would result in a loss of some "right". Otherwise, why wouldn't they just wait it out.

Why don't red states just up and leave when Democrats control the federal government and vice versa.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Yes the south wanted self-governance as in the confederate states of america.

I can see why some/many see that flag as a symbol of racism and why other don't see it that way.

I definitely believe there are alot of southerners who look at the confederate flag as a symbol of southern pride and do not connect it to slavery and racism. But the problem is that the majority of the country, and the world, does. The fact is that it is a symbol of racism and slavery to many, many people. Considering that I think it takes an extreme lack of social etiquette to wave one around.

Its analogous to someone waving a swastika around but claiming they are only representing their Hindu faith. They may be 100% sincere but it is still primarily a symbol of the Nazi's and because of that fact it would be poor social etiquette to wave one around. Southerners can stick to this flag and claim it has a different meaning but they shouldn't be surprised nor offended when others take exception with it.

 

[oldshadow]

They wanted self-governance only as it pertained to slavery. The confederacy's constitution was identical in most ways. The structure of government was the same. The constitution of the confederacy had the same supremacy clause. Where the confederacy differed was almost exclusively in regards to slavery. The constitution of the confederacy required that all new states or territories entering the confederacy allow slavery (the main issue of the 1860 US election). The constitution of the confederacy also explicitly stated that no state/local law could every ban slavery.

There's a reason why "states rights" is widely recognized as a dog whistle phrase.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first sentence. I agree with the rest except the states rights issue as states right has many issue and now days states right has nothing to do with slavery.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I said "well, the people who wanted greater self-governance did it to keep black people, so I disagree" and now you are painting me as saying self-governance is intrinsically bad.

I thought I was painting you as someone who said it wasn't good by definition. Is there anything that is intrinsically good such that you can't come up with a scenario where bad things can still occur?

Self governance is philosophy. You don't fight civil wars over philosophy, you fight civil wars over grievances.

I would consider any religious war to be motivated by philosophy. Isn't it true that grievances can be caused by differences in philosophy? Was America fighting in Viet-Nam out of grievance?

The South wanted self governance because of what they believe was a grievance not because of its intrinsic value. If that were the case, and self governance had intrinsic value, then people should fight for the smallest possible government unit possible: cities and counties should be seceding from states to form very small independent nations. If that were the goal then the southern states should have seceded to form many independent nations not just to form another big central government somewhere else. The truth is, they didn't have a problem with big centralized governments as long as it allowed their citizens to own slaves.

What I'm saying about an intrinsic good is completely independent from anyone's interpretation of the history of slavery, the Civil War or the shared motivations of the people who fought and died.

Again, this all seems humorous when the position is that slavery is intrinsically bad but self-governance isn't intrinsically good. What's the problem with slavery other than it deprives an individual to make their own choices to a greater degree than the average citizen is constrained? Surely I'm not the only one who sees the overlap?