Confederate Flag to Fly at City Hill in Belleview, Florida

[NineBerry]

No, there's a difference. The clear difference is that the flag was specifically introduced to represent one side in quarrel over whether to abolish slavery or not. It didn't exist before and it didn't exist after. Plus, it is commonly still associated with this question.

[Forty Two]

No, there's a difference. The clear difference is that the flag was specifically introduced to represent one side in quarrel over whether to abolish slavery or not. It didn't exist before and it didn't exist after. Plus, it is commonly still associated with this question.

That's a basic misunderstanding of the war. The war was not fought to "abolish" slavery.

The Civil War started when slavery was legal, and the American government was not seeking to abolish it.

The war began in April 1861, and the emancipation proclamation occurred in September, 1862, around 16 months into the war. And, the proclamation only freed the slaves in states in open rebellion. The union had slave states fighting on its side too: Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri. West Virginia.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." Paragraph 5 of Abe Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, July 4, 1861. "I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln's first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, one month before the Battle of Fort Sumter.

Lincoln offered the South three months to return to the Union (pay 40 percent sales tax) and keep their slaves. None did. Lincoln affirmed his only reason was: "as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said (tax) rebellion."

Lincoln declared war to collect taxes in his two presidential war proclamations against the Confederate States, on April 15 and 19th, 1861, stating: "Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein."

On Dec. 25, 1860, South Carolina declared unfair taxes to be a cause of secession: "The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths (75%) of them are expended at the North (to subsidize Wall Street industries that elected Lincoln)."

The causes of the war are more complicated...

[NineBerry]

On Dec. 25, 1860, South Carolina declared unfair taxes to be a cause of secession: "The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths (75%) of them are expended at the North (to subsidize Wall Street industries that elected Lincoln)."

Let's look at that, shall we?

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

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.

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 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.

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 slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Nothing about unfair taxes here. But everything about the right to hold slaves... In fact, the only place this declaration speaks about taxes is when it uses taxation on the import of slaves in the past by the federal government as an argument that owning slaves is valid under federal law.

This declaration makes it quite clear that there is a dispute between "slaveholding States" and "non-slaveholding States" and that the quarrel is about the "non-slaveholding States" not respecting "property rights" in slaves and not respecting regulations about [not returning fugitices] and about the government being opposed to slavery.

[laklak]

Don't go bringing fucking history into this, 42! Next thing you'll be saying WW II started because the Nazis invaded Poland, instead of Warmongering U.S. Imperialists trying to force yellow mustard and watery beer on the peaceful National Socialists!

[NineBerry]

Don't go bringing fucking history into this, 42! Next thing you'll be saying WW II started because the Nazis invaded Poland, instead of Warmongering U.S. Imperialists trying to force yellow mustard and watery beer on the peaceful National Socialists!

Fake history. As shown above. the declaration of South Carolina already makes clear there is a conflict based on slavery already in December 1860. Not a conflict on taxation

[Svartalf]

was it not a tax on slaves? or is it impossible that there were two conflicts?

[Forty Two]

Recall the wording of what I responded to -- the assertion was that the war was a war "to abolish slavery..." I.e., that one side was fighting for its abolition, and the other side wasn't. Certainly, the south was fighting for, among other things, preservation of slavery, but the north was not fighting to abolish it. Heck, the five states of Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland and Missouri, and West Virginia, all remained with the union - by state count that is 1 in 5 states on the union side were slave states, and the emancipation proclamation freed zero slaves in those states.

As Lincoln himself wrote: "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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."

I'm not suggesting slavery was not an important issue, and even the most important issue for the south. I took issue with the point that the war was fought by the north "to abolish slavery." That, I think, it was not.

[NineBerry]

Yadda yadda yadda. Recall the wording I used: "Yadda yadda yadda".

[Hermit]

No, there's a difference. The clear difference is that the flag was specifically introduced to represent one side in quarrel over whether to abolish slavery or not. It didn't exist before and it didn't exist after. Plus, it is commonly still associated with this question.

That's a basic misunderstanding of the war. The war was not fought to "abolish" slavery.

Correct. It was fought to secure slavery. You conveniently left out the rather important historical fact that the southern states started the civil war. Also, that the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union mentions tax only once, and that only in the context of the 3/5ths agreement and tariffs not at all, while slaves are mentioned 18 times. You left out the fact that slavery was even more prominent in the other three states that published Declarations of Causes.



In short, the flag in dispute is the battle flag of the states who started a civil war motivated by the desire to perpetuate the right to own slaves. No spin of yours can obscure that fact. Nor can your unending stream of tu quoques. Your defence of having it flown alongside state flags of government buildings is untenable.

[laklak]

None of this addresses the inconvenient fact that slavery was still legal in the North until the 13th Amendment was passed in 1865.

[Forty Two]

No, there's a difference. The clear difference is that the flag was specifically introduced to represent one side in quarrel over whether to abolish slavery or not. It didn't exist before and it didn't exist after. Plus, it is commonly still associated with this question.

That's a basic misunderstanding of the war. The war was not fought to "abolish" slavery.

Correct. It was fought to secure slavery. You conveniently left out the rather important historical fact that the southern states started the civil war.

That point has no relevance to the issue of whether it was "fought to abolish" slavery. The southern states certainly did not fight to abolish it, and as I noted, the north did not do so either.

The first shots of the civil war, were, of course, fired by the South, and are generally reported to be the shots fired at Fort Sumter. However, South Carolina had seceded from the union, and thus from South Carolina's view, the north was not entitled to remain on south carolina soil. Earlier shots were fired in like January of 1861, when the north was trying to supply Fort Sumter.

Also, that the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union mentions tax only once, and that only in the context of the 3/5ths agreement and tariffs not at all, while slaves are mentioned 18 times. You left out the fact that slavery was even more prominent in the other three states that published Declarations of Causes.

The mention of slavery by South Carolina has nothing to do with the assertion that the north fought the war "to abolish slavery." I haven't argued that slavery wasn't an important reason, and even one of the or perhaps "the" most important reason for the civil war actually happening. I even suspect that had slavery been abolished in 1776 or 1787, that the war would never have happened.

In short, the flag in dispute is the battle flag of the states who started a civil war motivated by the desire to perpetuate the right to own slaves. No spin of yours can obscure that fact. Nor can your unending stream of tu quoques. Your defence of having it flown alongside state flags of government buildings is untenable.

Negative. The flag at issue in this thread is not the battle flag, but rather the third flag of the confederacy.

I haven't tried to obscure the fact that the south wanted slavery and fought to preserve it. The history of that first half or so of the 19th century involved a lot of disputes over slavery. The Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, all that stuff - expansion of slavery into new states, and the whole concept of free vs. slave states. It was a major issue, and perhaps the major issue dividing the states.

However, the war was not fought "to abolish slavery." Was it? Do you agree that it was not "fought to ABOLISH slavery."

I haven't at all suggested anything "tu quoque" in terms of a logical argument. If someone says that flag X is beyond the pale and should not be flown because of reason Y, then it is perfectly reasonable to examine other flags and see if the same reason Y would apply to them. And, if those other flags are not among those who are argued as being beyond the pale, it's reasonable to discuss what might be different about them.

[Hermit]

None of this addresses the inconvenient fact that slavery was still legal in the North until the 13th Amendment was passed in 1865.

It is inconvenient for anyone who says that slavery was illegal in the North before the 13th Amendment was passed in 1865. It is also somewhat misleading:



Either way, it's not germane to the discussion. What is germane is the following: The North did not start a civil war to fight for the right to own slaves and the star-spangled banner was not the battle flag to fight for that right. The South did start the civil war, and none of the Confederacy's three national flags were ever the Battle Flag or the Navy Jack.

[L'Emmerdeur]

The flag at issue in this thread is not the battle flag, but rather the third flag of the confederacy.

Ah, so assuming you are correct, the image in your OP is inaccurate.

http://www.ocala.com/news/20170424/bell ... ty-history



They say it's in honor of Confederate History Day and part of the effort to protect and remember this part of the history of the United States.

The flag shown in the image is the Confederate navy jack.



Very similar, though with different proportions is the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, also known as the Confederate battle flag.



The third flag of the Confederacy on the other hand is rather distinctive, and not generally flown anywhere.



Source

[Hermit]

No, there's a difference. The clear difference is that the flag was specifically introduced to represent one side in quarrel over whether to abolish slavery or not. It didn't exist before and it didn't exist after. Plus, it is commonly still associated with this question.

That's a basic misunderstanding of the war. The war was not fought to "abolish" slavery.

Correct. It was fought to secure slavery. You conveniently left out the rather important historical fact that the southern states started the civil war.

That point has no relevance to the issue of whether it was "fought to abolish" slavery.

It is relevant to why the descendants of slaves object to confederate flags flying, but not the stars and stripes. Commemorating Confederate veterans, huh? Soldiers who killed so the plantation owners can keep their slaves, huh? Yeah, why should they object. Snowflakes. I'll let Frauke Petry know it's OK to break out the German national flag as it looked between 1933 and 1935 or the one that was flown between 1935 and 1945 to commemorate the sacrifices made by Germany's war veterans, some of whom where very close relatives of mine. Father (wounded), mother's father (seven years POW in Siberia), father's father (lost everything) and mother's brother (killed). Must honour them for what they did. It'll be really important to them even though they are all dead.

[JimC]

The key point is the motivation of the red-neck cunts who wanted to fly that flag over a government building.

Pretty sure it included the sentiments "fuck you, niggers, Trump is our man..."