More confederacy debate, and now it's right across the lawn - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ShaniFaye · 01-07-2005, 05:47 AM

georgraphy really doesnt matter I dont think...they were ruled by laws they didnt wish to be ruled by and thus commited acts considered illegal to the ruling body. Why does it matter if they are attached by a land mass or not?

the basic principle is the same....broken down for example the colonists didnt want the tarriff's.....the confederacy didnt want tarriffs...both commited the "illegal" act of forming their own government and revolting

Im still confused, and maybe Im missing something

Since the states joined the Union voluntarily, they therefore had the right to leave it, President Buchanan did nothing to prevent the rebel states from breaking away. He said neither he nor Congress had the power to prevent a state from leaving the Union. However, as soon as Lincoln was sworn in as President he declared that no state had the legal right to withdraw from the Union.

so how did we do it the wrong way?

Superbelt · 01-07-2005, 05:56 AM

What I believe you are missing in comparing the two is
American Revolution: no legal means, gave plenty of notice then declared independence
American Civil War: a process agreed upon in the constitution for seccession, the confederacy ignores it and just declares independence.

They had the right to leave, but you can't just say "Bye" There are procedures.

ShaniFaye · 01-07-2005, 06:09 AM

Well there are obvious opinion differences here...considering the president of the US at the time said he had no power to stop them....if they couldnt do it the way they did, dont you think he would have said something THEN?

As you will notice....South Carolina and several other states were already seceded by the time Lincoln was elected, so they'd already given "notice" same as the colonists...King George declared it illegal....Lincoln declared it illegal after his election

ShaniFaye · 01-07-2005, 06:19 AM

just as a matter of interest, in case anyone is interested in knowing how they did it....here is South Carolina's Ordinace of Secession

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."

We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved.

Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.

Source: Official Records, Ser. IV, vol. 1, p. 1.

the other states ordinances of secession can be found here (it will list them all after SC)

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/or...uth%20Carolina

Konichiwaneko · 01-07-2005, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

konichiwaneko: we know that blacks cared. Black kids who applied to the school were pulling out in great numbers when they learned the school had a hall named after something inherently opposed to their inclusion in society. Those are the black people that matter to Vanderbilt and are the ones they wanted to make the change for.

As is said above me by smooth, my acquaintances and experiences show me that NA's do not like to be called Indians. I didn't know other parts of america have pockets who tolerate or think of it favorably.

You're asian? Not assuming that you are japanese, but this is the best example I can think of. Would you like to live in "The Amache Japanese Internment Camp Hall"

Part Japanese and no I wouldn't mind during the time because the available education level and the atmosphere and tension during the war, it would of been safer to do what the government asked.

Hindsight being 20/20 though and realizing that the "Japanese" were the only ones detained I would be offended yes. I do know that war brings out not the only the worst in people fighting, but sometimes the worst in people in general. Who knows how many people actually lived a better life detained and away from a populace that was emotionally charged rather then allowed to be among them.

Imagine this scenario... it's the 30's~40's...a time before civil rights movements. Now imagine how some Muslim's were treated after 9/11.

I still stand by the point that most black people down here just don't care. I think most who are offended is only because of reasons they are half aware of, or because it's the "Cool thing to do".

Really though I think it's just opinion and that's something both you and me would have a hard time argueing against. Yet doesn't it strike you odd that a minority like me, in the heart of where this apparent "Problem" lies, is saying "Whatever"? Oh I also want to point out earlier also Superbelt I did mention that the school can do whatever they way, it's there right, and the only thing that the could do bad is negative press from the removal (which I would agree with) or breaking a contract.

Superbelt · 01-07-2005, 07:20 AM

Shani:
The impending election of Lincoln, (they knew it was inevitable) who got no EC votes from the slave states at all, was a direct affront to their rights to live as they choose... Imagine if the NE and West Coast felt like that today... Previous Presidents maintained a balance between pro and anti slavery states. The election of Lincoln was seen as a contract violation which made the constitution void.

Quote:

"The South at all times demanded nothing but equality in the common territories, equal enjoyment of them with their property, to that extended to Northern citizens and their property -- nothing more. They said, we pay our part in all the blood and treasure expended in their acquisition. Give us equality of enjoyment, equal right to expansion -- it is as necessary to our prosperity as yours."

"The country has expanded to meet this growing want, and Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, have received this increasing tide of African labor; before the end of this century, at precisely the same rate of increase, the Africans among us in a subordinate condition will amount to eleven millions of persons.

"What shall be done with them? We must expand or perish. We are constrained by an inexorable necessity to accept expansion or extermination. Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction ... are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years. ...

"The North understand it better -- they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits -- surround it with a border of free States, and like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will make it sting itself to death."
Robert Toombs, Member of Georgia Legislature and future Confederate Secretary of
State:

Basically said, they were pissed that the North wanted to exclude slavery from the territories and effectively corral the south as the slavery states. This is a problem because the black population was growing. A corral would leave them with no outlet for this growing population. The south was becoming wary of what happened in Haiti, where the slaves rose up and utterly slaughtered the whites of the island.

There’s your reason for secession

ShaniFaye · 01-07-2005, 07:33 AM

Ok, I give up, some people will see the the comparison between the revolutionary war and the civil war...some wont....I guess it has no bearing at all that they'd tried to do it 30+ years earlier when Lincoln wasnt a factor whatsoever. I never said slavery wasnt an issue, I said it wasnt THE issue.

Revolting against tarriff's has been going on long before the slavery issue came into it. Yes the south got mad because the north didnt want them IMPORTING anymore slaves, like I said it was ONE of the issues but it was at the end of the ongoing tarriff battle....the north didnt start out to abolish it, Lincoln had no intention of outlawing it in the states it was already in

Superbelt · 01-07-2005, 07:40 AM

Funny that you mentioned James Buchannan earlier. One of the things I remember about him is that and James Madison have said that since the United States has purchased territory from various Indian tribes, Mexico, Spain, France, and Russia that it had the powers of a national government.

also.
Secession cannot be justified by the revolution. They did not have a precedent from what we did in 1776. In 1776, the rebel states fought for their inalienable human rights. It is self contradictory that anyone would use it to try and justify the Confederates who would invoke their inalienable human rights to own slaves. The American Revolution was no moral or legal precedent for secession.
Owning slaves was the issue.

ShaniFaye · 01-07-2005, 07:46 AM

I mentioned him because he was the president of the united states at the time of the secession and the one that said congress couldnt stop the secession as it was our right.

I never said anything about justification...I was pointing out that in two different time periods people got sick of intrusive government and high taxes and decided they could do better for themselves and broke off to prove it. I dont understand why you wont address any issue other than slavery.

edit* in response to your edit.....I guess someone needs to rewrite the history books and take out all the references to tarriff issues from 1828 to 1860

Superbelt · 01-07-2005, 08:02 AM

Well reading what The Confederate Secretary of State says in the above quote box helps to solidify my mind that there was no issue that even came close to touching slavery.
99% slavery, 1% everything else.

jb2000 · 01-07-2005, 08:21 AM

I must take a second to share in the appreciation of this quality discussion. Thanks to Shani, Super, and everyone else for so many thoughtful and substantive posts!

Shani, thank you very much for bringing up the Ordinances of Secession. As could be expected, there is difference of opinion between folks on whether or not the secession was legally pursued. This is one reason I don't hold the view that the troops of the southern states should be considered traitors. A traitor knows that he is violating his allegiance. I hold this perspective for two of the reasons you mention. One is that the poor farmer boys could not reasonably be expected to believe their actions to be treasonable--quite the opposite. Two is that even amongst the educated in the South, the principles of how to dissolve the Union were not clear, and many felt justified that their proceedings were sufficient for legitimacy.

I don't agree that they were. The Ordinances of Secession were a product of early 1861. Federal property was seized pursuant to them during February, 1861. Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861, and consistent with his duties as President did not yield Federal territory and property. On April 12, 1861, South Carolinians siezed Fort Sumpter by force, thus ending the period of process and beginning the war.

Just a quick perusal of the amount of time given between secession and the start of hostilities leads one to think that there was not enough time to work out a peaceful dissolution of the Union. Of course the north was resistant to the idea, but that doesn't mean that if the South was not resolute that by the mid 1860s, they wouldn't have been successful in forging their secession without war. Maybe it would have failed and they would have had to resort to war at that point, but by then, the justification for war would be solid. As I said before, I don't support violent secession, unless that is all legal and non-violent means are exhausted. Three months is hardly time enough to exhaust all of those (or frankly any of those) avenues.

But all of these matters are above that of the soldier. Wars often are started over misunderstandings and due to mistakes by leaders on one (or usually both) sides of an issue. Soldiers fight for the side they happen to be standing on. That's just the way it works, and its not really reasonable to expect an 18 year old kid to behave differently. His state, country, town, whatever is in a war, and he's going to do his part. There is nothing dishonorable in that--it's the way we've raised our boys from Antiquity (and girls now too). Is every Wehrmacht soldier a war criminal because he fought to sustain Hitler's empire? Should we punish the conscripts of the Soviet forces in Afghanistan or American forces in Vietnam for the failings of their governments' policies? I would hope that we learned the fault in doing that during Vietnam (at least for America).

Thanks again, Shani, for the added information.

smooth · 01-07-2005, 10:56 AM

well, I'm willing to reserve my comments on traitors in reference to the soldiers given the information that is coming up. That is, regardless of what I may think about it personally, I see some valid points from you all that make me at least not want to persue that line of discussion for fear of not really getting anywhere.

Shanifaye, I do get the comparison between the civil war and the revolutionary.

Even if I do privately consider the civil war participants as treasonists or criminals or whatever, my moral and political objection to them is based on the fact that they (and the descendents of that movement who continue to speak of the greatness of it) opposed my government.

The revolutionary war participants were on my side. I don't feel or have any allegiance to the British government. I don't particularly care whether our actions were treasonous or criminal--that's not the distinction I'm drawing (that one was and one movement was not, that is).

So that may be seen as hypocritical. But what I'm saying is not that I see one in a certain way and another in a different way. I'm saying that I agree with one and not the other. I support one and not the other. But I do so because I have an affinity to my government. And I think the ideals and actions of the confederacy was opposed to many of our nation's ideals on a few levels (not all).

This is a bit convoluted but I'll try to sum it up like this:
You don't need to try and convince me that our revolutionary actions were illegal or even treasonous. I actually agree.

Which is why I wouldn't go to England and fly my US flag. And if I did, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Britons took offense to it.

I do enough violence to the language

thank you for the cool disussion...

ShaniFaye · 01-07-2005, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Even if I do privately consider the civil war participants as treasonists or criminals or whatever, my moral and political objection to them is based on the fact that they (and the descendents of that movement who continue to speak of the greatness of it) opposed my government.

The revolutionary war participants were on my side. I don't feel or have any allegiance to the British government. I don't particularly care whether our actions were treasonous or criminal--that's not the distinction I'm drawing (that one was and one movement was not, that is).

and see...THATS my point....there were people at the time that felt the exact same way. The loyalists of the rev war=the north of the civil war and the colonists=the south

those that saw no problem with King George and the "rulership" he stood for fought those that did...those that saw no problem with Lincoln and HIS ideas for the union fought those that did.

My only point in carrying the conversation in this direction is one group is practically canonized and one group is villified for doing the exact same thing

Superbelt · 01-07-2005, 11:13 AM

And I can accept that. The people who fought deserve respect because of the context. But in a historical perspective, the institution they fought for, and all the symbolization around it deserve none. In fact it deserves villification as much as the Nazi regime gets today.
You won't see anyone starting a Daughters of the Third Reich and naming buildings after it.

smooth · 01-07-2005, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

and see...THATS my point....there were people at the time that felt the exact same way. The loyalists of the rev war=the north of the civil war and the colonists=the south

those that saw no problem with King George and the "rulership" he stood for fought those that did...those that saw no problem with Lincoln and HIS ideas for the union fought those that did.

My only point in carrying the conversation in this direction is one group is practically canonized and one group is villified for doing the exact same thing

Yes, I see your point.
Superbelt and I are pointing out, however, that one group started this nation (underpinning the basis for their acceptance by our culture) while another became opposed to it (underpinning the mainstream rejection of that group's aims and actions).

That's the distinction I am drawing, anyway. So I don't feel any remorse when adherents to that movement feel politically persecuted. I would think they should expect it (as I would if I went to England and started to promote the US poltical perspective--although I suspect it isn't so inciteful over there because of the lack of political and social baggage that the slavery issue calls to mind, rightly or wrongly, over here).

Superbelt · 01-07-2005, 11:37 AM

And they are not the exact same thing. Like I said earlier:
In 1776, the rebel states fought for their inalienable human rights.
The Confederates fought for a belief in the inalienable human rights to own slaves.
The two cannot be compared equally.

ShaniFaye · 01-07-2005, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

And I can accept that. The people who fought deserve respect because of the context. But in a historical perspective, the institution they fought for, and all the symbolization around it deserve none. In fact it deserves villification as much as the Nazi regime gets today.
You won't see anyone starting a Daughters of the Third Reich and naming buildings after it.

good.....because THATS what the UDC stands for...respecting the soldiers

Im glad we can finally agree on something

(although I dont quite equate it to Hitler and wanting to completely exterminate an entire race of people) And before you say it...YES each side had camps for the captured...POW's are a part of ANY war, but its not the same thing as rounding up people because the were Jewish and killing them

Superbelt · 01-07-2005, 12:01 PM

Hitler didn't just exterminate an entire race. He enslaved them and had them work till they died in his factories. Hmm, seems similar.

So do you think there should be a daughters of the Third Reich and would you go to a school that had Nazi Hall and live there?
UDC stands for the same thing. We can respect the German soldier and we can respect the Confederate soldier in the same way. That doesn't include glorifying their actions or their organization. That means no monuments to what they did, no buildings named after them, no continuance of the flags and insignias.

ShaniFaye · 01-07-2005, 12:14 PM

well I guess we are back to not agreeing.....

I cant go on with this...I've said all I can say

Superbelt · 01-07-2005, 12:32 PM

No, I really want you to answer this
Do you think it would be ok for there to be a daughters of the Third Reich and do you think anyone who didn't hate jewish people would want to live in a dormitory named Nazi Hall.

I really want you to answer that because it is the same thing to Jews

flstf · 01-07-2005, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

I cant go on with this...I've said all I can say

You have said this several times already in this forum. However you have continued to share your opinions and thoughts on this matter very well so far.

While it is almost impossible to change peoples preconceived ideas of what the CSA battle flag means to them at least perhaps they will see that there are millions of non-racist folks like us that see it differently.

Maybe I'm missing something but I fail to see how the states legislatures voting to secede was not legitimate and or legal. As I understand it up until the war it was assumed that any state reserved that right. I am saddened by people who would call our ancestors traitors and criminals.

Also as I understand it after secession the war started when the north claimed the forts that were built in the south were rightfully theirs and tried to take them back. The south was attacked.

Slavery has already been discussed to a great degree but it is interesting to note that after the Emancipation Proclamation the only place it was still legal to own slaves was in the north. By banning slavery in the south it was a brilliant propaganda coup that won foreign sympathy for the Union cause. It redefined the Civil War as a contest over slavery rather than secession, distracting attention from the basic question of whether a state could declare its independence of the Union.

uncle_el · 01-07-2005, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

We aren't making it an issue. It is an issue because Vanderbilt isn't able to draw a diverse student body because, surprise surprise, black kids don't want to live in Confederate Hall.
So Vanderbilt decides it's about time to change the name so they can both not seriously offend these kids and actually become an attractive place for them to go to school.

So they change the name and it's the whacko Confederacy clingers who make a court case out of it.

So I ask again, why do they care about the confederacy so much? Why do they cling to that name? They aren't the confederacy, they are the South, specifically whatever state they are from. The Confederacy was a group of fuckwads who wanted to keep whipping human beings because they weren't picking cotton fast enough.
(Civil War = War for states rights = war for a states right to decide if it's residents can own humans with a high melanin count)
Confederacy was evil, let it go. Same thing with the Stars and Bars. As a product of the Civil War, it deserves to only be flown in a museum, not a statehouse.

i agree immensely.

Quote:

Wars are often about conscience and following that elusive voice. The young men who fought for the Confederacy had no reason to defend slavery. It did very little to make any of their lives better and most was given very little thought when they went into battle. Defending slavery seems a very stupid reason to fight and die. They fought and died because they had been treated for years like a colony of the federal government. They did not appreciate what they saw as "northern aggression" against their economic and political way of life.

the south's main economic source was agriculture. the main source of their agriculture was slavery. as such, it at the very least gave them what they had, as it was one of the direct sources (if not the only source) for the south's economy to be what it was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konichiwaneko

I still stand by the point that most black people down here just don't care. I think most who are offended is only because of reasons they are half aware of, or because it's the "Cool thing to do".

i think you are sadly mistaken., but i suppose it depends on the black people you know. of course i can't speak for my entire race, nor can i speak of all those of my race who are here in the south, but i can guarantee that plenty of people would be offended.

if i had been considering vanderbilt for medical school, that would be an issue for me, just as there are issues for me here at emory. but i digress.

getting back to the original point of the thread... if there's a contract in place that has no end, and the name has to stay, that's fine by me. just don't expect black students aspiring for a higher education to want to go to vanderbilt and stay in that dorm!

while the civil war is one thing (and i'm one of the school of thought that understands that while the issue of slavery wasn't the sole issue nor the main issue for going to war, it was a part of the complex puzzle), it is an entirely different thing to think about the south at that time (blacks enslaved), and the subsequent times when the confederate flag was flown in the south- the 50s and 60s (blacks disenfranchised on many different levels). to many black people, it doesn't matter what historians choose to say/write, it doesn't matter what descendants of the confederate soldiers choose to say/write.. simply, blacks were enslaved before the civil war and during the secession under the confederate regime/government, and blacks were oppressed/disenfranchised under the confederate flag during the 50s and 60s.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Hitler didn't just exterminate an entire race. He enslaved them and had them work till they died in his factories. Hmm, seems similar.

So do you think there should be a daughters of the Third Reich and would you go to a school that had Nazi Hall and live there?
UDC stands for the same thing. We can respect the German soldier and we can respect the Confederate soldier in the same way. That doesn't include glorifying their actions or their organization. That means no monuments to what they did, no buildings named after them, no continuance of the flags and insignias.

wow, definitely hadn't thought of that! i see it the same way, but then again i'm not a descendant of either...

sob · 01-07-2005, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

JB: great post.

flstf: see JB's great post. They didn't seceed in the correct manner.
The Confederacy never formed a nation. It never had the authority to as it was still a part of the United States. They were simply traitorous states that needed to be brought back in line with the rest of the country.
Our Constitution does provide for the separation of the union, [Edit: WHERE?] but the Confederate states did so in a manner that WAS treason.
...

Shani: You shouldn't be aggravated. I do know all of what happened before the civil war started. I know my american history. I don't appreciate the revisionist history that the south likes to tout though. The Civil War CAN be boiled down to a war over slavery. And the South CLEARLY was doing an illegal seccession. I wouldn't say every member were evil people and deserve villification. The leadership did, the average southern man who died in the war does deserve respect. That doesn't mean that the symbols or ideals of the Confederacy deserves ANY though.

The difference between the confederacy and the sons of liberty is that...
Confederacy was Illegal and does offend other Americans.
American Revolution was done after due process and doesn't offend OTHER AMERICANS.

I dispute your statement that "[You] know [your] american history," and I maintain that you may only know what revisionists have been anxious to teach you. And/or that you've been anxious to learn.

If I'm wrong, you should easily be able to demonstrate that by refuting the following:

Link

Quote:

The Right to Secede

September 30, 1999
How can the federal government be prevented from usurping powers that the Constitution doesn’t grant to it? It’s an alarming fact that few Americans ask this question anymore.

Our ultimate defense against the federal government is the right of secession. Yes, most people assume that the Civil War settled that. But superior force proves nothing. If there was a right of secession before that war, it should be just as valid now. It wasn’t negated because Northern munitions factories were more efficient than Southern ones.

Among the Founding Fathers there was no doubt. The United States had just seceded from the British Empire, exercising the right of the people to “alter or abolish” — by force, if necessary — a despotic government. The Declaration of Independence is the most famous act of secession in our history, though modern rhetoric makes “secession” sound somehow different from, and more sinister than, claiming independence.

The original 13 states formed a “Confederation,” under which each state retained its “sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” The Constitution didn’t change this; each sovereign state was free to reject the Constitution. The new powers of the federal government were “granted” and “delegated” by the states, which implies that the states were prior and superior to the federal government.

Even in The Federalist, the brilliant propaganda papers for ratification of the Constitution (largely written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison), the United States are constantly referred to as “the Confederacy” and “a confederate republic,” as opposed to a single “consolidated” or monolithic state. Members of a “confederacy” are by definition free to withdraw from it.

Hamilton and Madison hoped secession would never happen, but they never denied that it was a right and a practical possibility. They envisioned the people taking arms against the federal government if it exceeded its delegated powers or invaded their rights, and they admitted that this would be justified. Secession, including the resort to arms, was the final remedy against tyranny. (This is the real point of the Second Amendment.)

Strictly speaking, the states would not be “rebelling,” since they were sovereign; in the Framers’ view, a tyrannical government would be rebelling against the states and the people, who by defending themselves would merely exercise the paramount political “principle of self-preservation.”

The Constitution itself is silent on the subject, but since secession was an established right, it didn’t have to be reaffirmed. More telling still, even the bitterest opponents of the Constitution never accused it of denying the right of secession. Three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could later secede if they chose; the other ten states accepted this condition as valid.
Early in the nineteenth century, some Northerners favored secession to spare their states the ignominy of union with the slave states. Later, others who wanted to remain in the Union recognized the right of the South to secede; Abraham Lincoln had many of them arrested as “traitors.” According to his ideology, an entire state could be guilty of “treason” and “rebellion.” The Constitution recognizes no such possibility.

Long before he ran for president, Lincoln himself had twice affirmed the right of secession and even armed revolution. His scruples changed when he came to power. Only a few weeks after taking office, he wrote an order for the arrest of Chief Justice Roger Taney, who had attacked his unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus. His most recent biographer has said that during Lincoln’s administration there were “greater infringements on individual liberties than in any other period in American history.”

As a practical matter, the Civil War established the supremacy of the federal government over the formerly sovereign states. The states lost any power of resisting the federal government’s usurpations, and the long decline toward a totally consolidated central government began.

By 1973, the federal government was so powerful that the U.S. Supreme Court could insult the Constitution by striking down the abortion laws of all 50 states; and there was nothing the states, long since robbed of the right to secede, could do about it. That outrage was made possible by Lincoln’s triumphant war against the states, which was really his dark victory over the Constitution he was sworn to preserve.

Joseph Sobran

Then, of course, there's a Libertarian argument voiced by Stephen Kinsella that is hard to ignore:

Quote:

... even if the states had neither a constitutional nor a natural right to secede, this still does not imply that Lincoln’s war was legally or morally justified. In law and in justice, the response to an unlawful action must be proportional to the offense. It is doubtful that causing the deaths of 600,000 people in response to what is, at most, basically a breach of agreement, is consistent with principles of justice and proportionality. Just as executing a bubble gum thief is unjust, so mass murder and invasion is an unwarranted response to one state’s quitting its agreed-upon association with other states.

And some people say DRUG laws are unjust! How about a little more from a fellow Pennsylvanian?

Link

Quote:

Do States Have a Right of Secession?
by Walter Williams (April 19, 2002)

Do states have a right of secession? That question was settled through the costly War of 1861. In his recently published book, "The Real Lincoln," Thomas DiLorenzo marshals abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession.

Let's look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."

Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."

In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."

In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."

The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.

Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."

Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."

The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go." DiLorenzo cites other editorials expressing identical sentiments.

Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, "It is poetry not logic; beauty, not sense." Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination -- government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth."

Mencken says: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."

In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.

DiLorenzo does a yeoman's job in documenting Lincoln's ruthlessness and hypocrisy, and how historians have covered it up. The Framers had a deathly fear of federal government abuse. They saw state sovereignty as a protection. That's why they gave us the Ninth and 10th Amendments. They saw secession as the ultimate protection against Washington tyranny.

Now I'd like to hear what you THINK the "ideals of the Confederacy" were. After all of this discussion, do you still stand by your statement that "The Confederacy was a group of fuckwads who wanted to keep whipping human beings because they weren't picking cotton fast enough?"

jb2000 · 01-07-2005, 03:07 PM

Sob,

I might be wrong, but I didn't notice anyone making an argument that states did not have the right to secede then or now.

So what is it exactly you are trying to contribute to this discussion?

Josh

Strange Famous · 01-07-2005, 03:11 PM

they should remember that the state of America was based on slavery, in the north and in the south,,, they should stop getting upset by symbols and seek a true understanding of history.

jb2000 · 01-07-2005, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

they should remember that the state of America was based on slavery, in the north and in the south,,, they should stop getting upset by symbols and seek a true understanding of history.

Strange, the middle finger may not mean much to me, but if I put it up in your face, you may well be offended by it. I may be forgiven if I don't know that, but if I know it offends you and I still put it up there, then it is perfectly fair for you to take offense.

Tarl Cabot · 01-07-2005, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jb2000

Sob,

I might be wrong, but I didn't notice anyone making an argument that states did not have the right to secede then or now.

So what is it exactly you are trying to contribute to this discussion?

Josh

Let's just say that some people might disagree when their ancestors are referred to as "traitors" and "fuckwads."

jb2000 · 01-07-2005, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarl Cabot

Let's just say that some people might disagree when their ancestors are referred to as "traitors" and "fuckwads."

Actually, I wanted to know what Sob was trying to get across (he's the one using the word 'fuckwad'. As for traitor, I think that's a reasonable thing to discuss. Whether I agree or not is one thing, but I'm not going to get all huffy about it.

The first is a pointless word that does nothing to add to discussion, but traitor is an important category, and whether people think of others as traitors is substantive to the discussion.

(Edit for clarification: The original use of "fuckwad" in this thread appears to be by Superbelt in post #10. My apologies for lack of clarity.)

Josh

flstf · 01-07-2005, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

That is, I fully support and wish California would break from the union right now..

Well, prior to the Civil War you could if your state legislature voted to. Just like the Southern states.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Do I think we should do it with arms? well, if we did, I would certainly be a traitor to the US.

If you had to protect yourself from attack, I think the other side would be more like the traitors for violating your right to secede. Just like the Southern states.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

But I might be proud of that label. of course, if we lost I shouldn't be surprised if everyone else in the nation took exception to me being proud about it. Likewise if I went on vacation in New York (assuming we were successful in breaking away) and bragged about my honorable actions for my new nation. I think common sense for myself anyway would lead me to realize such a boast would not be polite or prudent.

I write this half in jest, but I bet many New Yorkers would admire your courage and many would use your example to plan on seceding from the red states.

RangerDick · 01-07-2005, 06:30 PM

Spaeaking as a New Yorker, I wouldn't admire him, I'd slap him upside the head.

(half in jest)

sob · 01-08-2005, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jb2000

Actually, I wanted to know what Sob was trying to get across (he's the one using the word 'fuckwad'. As for traitor, I think that's a reasonable thing to discuss. Whether I agree or not is one thing, but I'm not going to get all huffy about it.

The first is a pointless word that does nothing to add to discussion, but traitor is an important category, and whether people think of others as traitors is substantive to the discussion.

Josh

Hmmm. Isn't this entire thread discussing people who get "huffy" about the name of a dorm?

By the way, when I use the word "fuckwad," I'm quoting:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

So I ask again, why do they care about the confederacy so much? Why do they cling to that name? They aren't the confederacy, they are the South, specifically whatever state they are from. The Confederacy was a group of fuckwads who wanted to keep whipping human beings because they weren't picking cotton fast enough.
(Civil War = War for states rights = war for a states right to decide if it's residents can own humans with a high melanin count)

A little more:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smooth

Are you seriously arguing that secessionists are honorable soldiers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

I'll call the Confederacy traitors, not just criminals like Smooth. They betrayed their country in as clear a way as possible.

Actually, as has clearly been shown, it was Lincoln who betrayed the Constitution, and the agreements that some states stipulated before they would agree to the document. The inappropriateness of the words "treason" and "traitor" have already been clearly established as well.

There's not much to add to what's already been said, other than if others reserve the right to be offended by the word "Confederacy," I have the right to be offended by the grossly inaccurate name-calling above.

MoonDog · 01-08-2005, 08:21 PM

All discussions about secession rights, slavery, and the Confederacy aside, I have to wonder about being able to set aside the wishes of a donor.

I worked for 6 years as the PR person for a $40 million foundation. One of the things I learned early in that job was that donor intent was tantamount in any donation to a charitable institution. Educational institutions, while not strictly a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit, are widely considered as such. Also to be remembered is that a gift is made in perpetuity, unless otherwise spelled out in the donor agreement.

So, when a conflict arises concerning a donor's contribution to the organization, one must consult the gift language and attempt to adhere as closely as possible to it. Obviously, if it involved breaking a law, or was something that the organization couldn't do, then there was another path to take.

That was variance power. Our foundation board reserved the right to redirect the use of a donation, if at some time in the future, the donor's intent proved unattainable or was no longer able to be maintained. As you can see from this example, using the variance power is dicey, because you can often anger the donor, or their family/organization.

The extreme route here in New York state, if variance power isn't the right way to go, is to petition the Surrogate's Court for the permission to alter the donor's agreement concerning their contribution. But, even in that case, the NYS Attorney General will attempt to adhere as closely to the original gift language as possible.

So, if the procedures surrounding giving to a foundation can be applied to this situation, the courts would have to decide the following:

1) Does the gift language spell out how the gift is to be used? Does it clearly show the donor's intent?
2) Will the adherence to the donor's original intent result in a violation of the law?
3) If the court's agree that the donor's intent must be changed, what is the minimu that will satisfy?

I know nothing about the law...does naming a building Confederate Memorial Hall violate a civil rights law? If not, I'm not sure they should be able to change it. After reading the article, it sounds to me like the Daughters of the Confederacy made their intent quite clear regarding the building's name. That being said, Vanderbuilt ought to be able to change the name to something that stands a lesser chance of insulting a segment of their student population while still honoring those soldiers.

Southern Soldiers Memorial Hall?
Soldiers Memorial Hall?
CSA Memorial Hall?
CSA Veterans Memorial Hall?

Hell, all of those probably still piss someone off. I'm glad I'm not the judge in this one!

jb2000 · 01-09-2005, 12:21 AM

Well, indeed, to get back to the original issue, which is not all of the Civil War history and states rights issues, but what does an organization do when the donation becomes less of a boon and more of a burden?

One should assume that the Daughters had the best interests of the school in mind in addition to their desire to honor memory. If not, then it would amount to paid advertising. But we should assume it as a gift.

So what does one do when what was a gift becomes a bit more of an albatros? If we assume that the Daughters would not want the school to suffer harm, and that the school would like to continue to respect the Daughters, wouldn't it be reasonable to find a balance between these two?

If the Daughters are unwilling to waver, then it puts their good will in question, and the naming rights of the dorm become no different than a stadium or such: they are services rendered. On the basis of the contract, if the school refuses to retain the desired name, they may owe the Daughters some return on their donation, but that would be the end of it.

However, it is an interesting situation.

jb2000 · 01-09-2005, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

Hmmm. Isn't this entire thread discussing people who get "huffy" about the name of a dorm?

By the way, when I use the word "fuckwad," I'm quoting:

Well, I suppose that doesn't change the fact that the word is not a constructive addition to the discussion. That Superbelt (Edited to fix a misaken identity in my first post) used it doesn't change that assessment, that it had nothing to add. By the way, I was asking more in response to Tarl's post not yours (sorry for the confusion...pay it no mind).

I refer you, however, to my response to you in which I asked what all the quotes were about the right to sovereignty, when it appears that most folks here don't disagree with the concept of the right to secession.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

Actually, as has clearly been shown, it was Lincoln who betrayed the Constitution, and the agreements that some states stipulated before they would agree to the document. The inappropriateness of the words "treason" and "traitor" have already been clearly established as well.

Why is that, because you say so? I think we've been having an interesting debate over just that, but noone from any perspective has brought up anything that does what you claim. Are you one of those who says 'my side has some evidence so we must be 100% right without question!' ? I would hope not.

I think Shani has brought up some wonderful items, which shed some real light on the matter and I think all can learn something from. Now if your eager to find a clincher, I'm sure you could take them as such, but in light of the evidence and thoughts brought up around the table it clearly isn't.

To consider Lincoln to have betrayed the Constitution is not without merit, as it is also not without merit to consider those who led, backed, and fought for the Confederacy to be traitors. Either may well be true, and a lot depends on your concepts of what constitutes betrayal and treason, not to mention what your grasp of the facts are. I happen to disagree with both concepts, but am willing to hear out the arguments for and against both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

There's not much to add to what's already been said, other than if others reserve the right to be offended by the word "Confederacy," I have the right to be offended by the grossly inaccurate name-calling above.

I won't deny your right to being offended by the word 'fuckwad'. It's inappropriate and demeaning. But it hasnothing to do with the debate at hand, and means nothing in the context of the issues we are talking about.

Josh

flstf · 01-09-2005, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jb2000

Well, indeed, to get back to the original issue, which is not all of the Civil War history and states rights issues, but what does an organization do when the donation becomes less of a boon and more of a burden?

Perhaps this is more complicated then I thought. Like I said in an earlier post, If the university no longer wants to honor the soldiers of the Confederacy, why don't they just give the 2005 value of the 1930 money back to the Daughters of the Confederacy? Won't they accept this? I don't know, maybe the principal of the thing is more important to the DOC than the money or maybe the university doesn't feel that strongly enough about it to fork over the cash.

jb2000 · 01-09-2005, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Perhaps this is more complicated then I thought. Like I said in an earlier post, If the university no longer wants to honor the soldiers of the Confederacy, why don't they just give the 2005 value of the 1930 money back to the Daughters of the Confederacy? Won't they accept this? I don't know, maybe the principal of the thing is more important to the DOC than the money or maybe the university doesn't feel that strongly enough about it to fork over the cash.

That was my initial thought, that you just return the money and be done with it. However, it is bound to be a VERY sizeable amount and possibly in excess of the current value of the building. At that point they may as well demolish the dorm and build a new one that they can name whatever they want. Also, the argument could be made that if it is the name that the Daughters find so valuable, not the contribution to the institution and the betterment of the school, then they have gotten 75 years of value out of it already. That's a pretty good lifespan, so it could be said that some pro-rating of the amount would have to account for this.

Josh

scout · 01-09-2005, 04:12 AM

This thread is full of revisionist history. I forgive all you Yankees for calling my ancestors traitors and such because I realize that's what is taught in your schools. Besides, if the war wasn't fought over slavery then your ancestors couldn't be the heroes you all grew up believing they was.

jb2000 · 01-09-2005, 04:50 AM

Scout, that doesn't add anything to the discussion. It makes you sound like an angry southerner who just got worked up because of the word traitor--like you are seeing red--and are not able to deal rationally with the situation. This probably isn't the truth, but its what your post sounds like.

scout · 01-09-2005, 07:17 AM

Actually quite the opposite. While admittedly I was offended by the fuckwad and traitor bit I was chuckling to myself while I hit the "submit reply" button. I think it's fairly easy to set back in our easy chairs and call someone a traitor and fuckwad when we have no idea what was in the mind or the mindset of the folks some 144 years ago. And I do forgive the Yankees that tend to believe they know it all

. To take a very dark time in the history of the United States and in a time when most white people, Yankees included, despised and thought black people was a bit less than human and "boil it down" to a war 99% about slavery is a bit shallow wouldn't you agree? Especially since, as someone stated earlier, slavery was on it's way out anyway. Surely a war in such a time as this, one that pitted brother against brother, would be about about something a little more important to the people of that time. As it stated earlier, most Confederate soldiers of that time did not own slaves. In fact very very few Southerners of that time owned slaves. Only the wealthiest could afford them. In fact, most Southerners at that time were either small landowners that farmed the land themselves or were sharecroppers. Sharecroppers, in case you aren't familiar with the term, is but a tiny step above being a slave. Only a few minor but important differences separated the lives of the sharecroppers and that of the slaves. So to suggest that a few hundred thousand of what was considered white trash by the slave owners went out and died to preserve the lifestyle of a few thousand rich white slave owners is pretty preposterous wouldn't you agree?

sob · 01-09-2005, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jb2000

Well, I suppose that doesn't change the fact that the word is not a constructive addition to the discussion. That Superbelt (Edited to fix a misaken identity in my first post) used it doesn't change that assessment, that it had nothing to add. By the way, I was asking more in response to Tarl's post not yours (sorry for the confusion...pay it no mind).

Constructive, no. However, it's quite revealing of the mindset and lack of accurate historical knowledge of those denigrating the Confederacy in this thread.

Quote:

I refer you, however, to my response to you in which I asked what all the quotes were about the right to sovereignty, when it appears that most folks here don't disagree with the concept of the right to secession.

It would have been more accurate to have added the word "anymore" after the word "disagree."

Superbelt, in post #24, made the claim that the South betrayed their country. When his statement was proven false, he quickly changed his story to the position that they didn't secede in the way "Our Constitution does provide for the separation of the union." I pointed out that this is inaccurate as well, and it is pretty [edit: "much"] my basis for the following statement: How can a person be labeled a "traitor" or a "criminal" or "dishonorable" for exercising their legal rights?

Quote:

Why is that, because you say so? I think we've been having an interesting debate over just that, but noone from any perspective has brought up anything that does what you claim. Are you one of those who says 'my side has some evidence so we must be 100% right without question!' ? I would hope not.

My response is based on this interpretation of the above: you're unsure that Lincoln was a traitor to the Constitution.

Lincoln ignored the right of the states to secede (a condition some states stipulated before they would sign on), suspended Habeas Corpus, made a shambles of the 9th and 10th amendments, proclaimed that Southern states couldn't have slaves (but Northern ones could), made plans to ship slaves out of the US, and made war against women, children, and the elderly by destroying their food so they would starve. Don't forget, according to Lincoln, those were citizens of HIS country. How much more do you need?

I hope you're not one of those who clings to their opinion in spite of a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

I think Shani has brought up some wonderful items, which shed some real light on the matter and I think all can learn something from. Now if your eager to find a clincher, I'm sure you could take them as such, but in light of the evidence and thoughts brought up around the table it clearly isn't.

"Why is that, because you say so? I think we've been having an interesting debate over just that, but noone from any perspective has brought up anything that does what you claim. Are you one of those who says 'my side has some evidence so we must be 100% right without question!' ? I would hope not."

Quote:

I won't deny your right to being offended by the word 'fuckwad'. It's inappropriate and demeaning. But it hasnothing to do with the debate at hand, and means nothing in the context of the issues we are talking about.

I'm very unsure why this was brought up again, but in an effort to get back to the topic of the thread, my "clincher" would be the following.

When I lived in another town, a movement was underway to change the name of a street to "Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd."

Some people and businesses on this street opposed the move. They did not like the thought of having the name of a documented philanderer and plagiarist in their address.

Would those who support the eradication of references to the Confederacy side with the residents and businesses? Or is it only minorities that are allowed to be offended?

01-07-2005, 05:47 AM	#41 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	georgraphy really doesnt matter I dont think...they were ruled by laws they didnt wish to be ruled by and thus commited acts considered illegal to the ruling body. Why does it matter if they are attached by a land mass or not? the basic principle is the same....broken down for example the colonists didnt want the tarriff's.....the confederacy didnt want tarriffs...both commited the "illegal" act of forming their own government and revolting Im still confused, and maybe Im missing something Since the states joined the Union voluntarily, they therefore had the right to leave it, President Buchanan did nothing to prevent the rebel states from breaking away. He said neither he nor Congress had the power to prevent a state from leaving the Union. However, as soon as Lincoln was sworn in as President he declared that no state had the legal right to withdraw from the Union. so how did we do it the wrong way? __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!* Last edited by ShaniFaye; 01-07-2005 at 05:49 AM..

01-07-2005, 06:09 AM	#43 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	Well there are obvious opinion differences here...considering the president of the US at the time said he had no power to stop them....if they couldnt do it the way they did, dont you think he would have said something THEN? As you will notice....South Carolina and several other states were already seceded by the time Lincoln was elected, so they'd already given "notice" same as the colonists...King George declared it illegal....Lincoln declared it illegal after his election __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

01-07-2005, 06:19 AM	#44 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	just as a matter of interest, in case anyone is interested in knowing how they did it....here is South Carolina's Ordinace of Secession AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America." We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved. Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty. Source: Official Records, Ser. IV, vol. 1, p. 1. the other states ordinances of secession can be found here (it will list them all after SC) http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/or...uth%20Carolina __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

01-07-2005, 07:33 AM	#47 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	Ok, I give up, some people will see the the comparison between the revolutionary war and the civil war...some wont....I guess it has no bearing at all that they'd tried to do it 30+ years earlier when Lincoln wasnt a factor whatsoever. I never said slavery wasnt an issue, I said it wasnt THE issue. Revolting against tarriff's has been going on long before the slavery issue came into it. Yes the south got mad because the north didnt want them IMPORTING anymore slaves, like I said it was ONE of the issues but it was at the end of the ongoing tarriff battle....the north didnt start out to abolish it, Lincoln had no intention of outlawing it in the states it was already in __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

01-07-2005, 07:40 AM	#48 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Funny that you mentioned James Buchannan earlier. One of the things I remember about him is that and James Madison have said that since the United States has purchased territory from various Indian tribes, Mexico, Spain, France, and Russia that it had the powers of a national government. also. Secession cannot be justified by the revolution. They did not have a precedent from what we did in 1776. In 1776, the rebel states fought for their inalienable human rights. It is self contradictory that anyone would use it to try and justify the Confederates who would invoke their inalienable human rights to own slaves. The American Revolution was no moral or legal precedent for secession. Owning slaves was the issue. Last edited by Superbelt; 01-07-2005 at 07:43 AM..

01-07-2005, 05:56 AM	#42 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	What I believe you are missing in comparing the two is American Revolution: no legal means, gave plenty of notice then declared independence American Civil War: a process agreed upon in the constitution for seccession, the confederacy ignores it and just declares independence. They had the right to leave, but you can't just say "Bye" There are procedures.

01-07-2005, 07:46 AM	#49 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	I mentioned him because he was the president of the united states at the time of the secession and the one that said congress couldnt stop the secession as it was our right. I never said anything about justification...I was pointing out that in two different time periods people got sick of intrusive government and high taxes and decided they could do better for themselves and broke off to prove it. I dont understand why you wont address any issue other than slavery. edit* in response to your edit.....I guess someone needs to rewrite the history books and take out all the references to tarriff issues from 1828 to 1860 __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!* Last edited by ShaniFaye; 01-07-2005 at 07:49 AM..

01-07-2005, 08:02 AM	#50 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Well reading what The Confederate Secretary of State says in the above quote box helps to solidify my mind that there was no issue that even came close to touching slavery. 99% slavery, 1% everything else.

01-07-2005, 08:21 AM	#51 (permalink)
jb2000 Crazy Location: Allen, TX	I must take a second to share in the appreciation of this quality discussion. Thanks to Shani, Super, and everyone else for so many thoughtful and substantive posts! Shani, thank you very much for bringing up the Ordinances of Secession. As could be expected, there is difference of opinion between folks on whether or not the secession was legally pursued. This is one reason I don't hold the view that the troops of the southern states should be considered traitors. A traitor knows that he is violating his allegiance. I hold this perspective for two of the reasons you mention. One is that the poor farmer boys could not reasonably be expected to believe their actions to be treasonable--quite the opposite. Two is that even amongst the educated in the South, the principles of how to dissolve the Union were not clear, and many felt justified that their proceedings were sufficient for legitimacy. I don't agree that they were. The Ordinances of Secession were a product of early 1861. Federal property was seized pursuant to them during February, 1861. Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861, and consistent with his duties as President did not yield Federal territory and property. On April 12, 1861, South Carolinians siezed Fort Sumpter by force, thus ending the period of process and beginning the war. Just a quick perusal of the amount of time given between secession and the start of hostilities leads one to think that there was not enough time to work out a peaceful dissolution of the Union. Of course the north was resistant to the idea, but that doesn't mean that if the South was not resolute that by the mid 1860s, they wouldn't have been successful in forging their secession without war. Maybe it would have failed and they would have had to resort to war at that point, but by then, the justification for war would be solid. As I said before, I don't support violent secession, unless that is all legal and non-violent means are exhausted. Three months is hardly time enough to exhaust all of those (or frankly any of those) avenues. But all of these matters are above that of the soldier. Wars often are started over misunderstandings and due to mistakes by leaders on one (or usually both) sides of an issue. Soldiers fight for the side they happen to be standing on. That's just the way it works, and its not really reasonable to expect an 18 year old kid to behave differently. His state, country, town, whatever is in a war, and he's going to do his part. There is nothing dishonorable in that--it's the way we've raised our boys from Antiquity (and girls now too). Is every Wehrmacht soldier a war criminal because he fought to sustain Hitler's empire? Should we punish the conscripts of the Soviet forces in Afghanistan or American forces in Vietnam for the failings of their governments' policies? I would hope that we learned the fault in doing that during Vietnam (at least for America). Thanks again, Shani, for the added information. __________________ "Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy. Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. 'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see." - DTH

01-07-2005, 10:56 AM	#52 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	well, I'm willing to reserve my comments on traitors in reference to the soldiers given the information that is coming up. That is, regardless of what I may think about it personally, I see some valid points from you all that make me at least not want to persue that line of discussion for fear of not really getting anywhere. Shanifaye, I do get the comparison between the civil war and the revolutionary. Even if I do privately consider the civil war participants as treasonists or criminals or whatever, my moral and political objection to them is based on the fact that they (and the descendents of that movement who continue to speak of the greatness of it) opposed my government. The revolutionary war participants were on my side. I don't feel or have any allegiance to the British government. I don't particularly care whether our actions were treasonous or criminal--that's not the distinction I'm drawing (that one was and one movement was not, that is). So that may be seen as hypocritical. But what I'm saying is not that I see one in a certain way and another in a different way. I'm saying that I agree with one and not the other. I support one and not the other. But I do so because I have an affinity to my government. And I think the ideals and actions of the confederacy was opposed to many of our nation's ideals on a few levels (not all). This is a bit convoluted but I'll try to sum it up like this: You don't need to try and convince me that our revolutionary actions were illegal or even treasonous. I actually agree. Which is why I wouldn't go to England and fly my US flag. And if I did, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Britons took offense to it. I do enough violence to the language thank you for the cool disussion... __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

01-07-2005, 11:13 AM	#54 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	And I can accept that. The people who fought deserve respect because of the context. But in a historical perspective, the institution they fought for, and all the symbolization around it deserve none. In fact it deserves villification as much as the Nazi regime gets today. You won't see anyone starting a Daughters of the Third Reich and naming buildings after it.

01-07-2005, 11:37 AM	#56 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	And they are not the exact same thing. Like I said earlier: In 1776, the rebel states fought for their inalienable human rights. The Confederates fought for a belief in the inalienable human rights to own slaves. The two cannot be compared equally.

01-07-2005, 12:01 PM	#58 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Hitler didn't just exterminate an entire race. He enslaved them and had them work till they died in his factories. Hmm, seems similar. So do you think there should be a daughters of the Third Reich and would you go to a school that had Nazi Hall and live there? UDC stands for the same thing. We can respect the German soldier and we can respect the Confederate soldier in the same way. That doesn't include glorifying their actions or their organization. That means no monuments to what they did, no buildings named after them, no continuance of the flags and insignias.

01-07-2005, 12:14 PM	#59 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	well I guess we are back to not agreeing..... I cant go on with this...I've said all I can say __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

01-07-2005, 12:32 PM	#60 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	No, I really want you to answer this Do you think it would be ok for there to be a daughters of the Third Reich and do you think anyone who didn't hate jewish people would want to live in a dormitory named Nazi Hall. I really want you to answer that because it is the same thing to Jews

01-07-2005, 03:07 PM	#64 (permalink)
jb2000 Crazy Location: Allen, TX	Sob, I might be wrong, but I didn't notice anyone making an argument that states did not have the right to secede then or now. So what is it exactly you are trying to contribute to this discussion? Josh __________________ "Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy. Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. 'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see." - DTH

01-07-2005, 03:11 PM	#65 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	they should remember that the state of America was based on slavery, in the north and in the south,,, they should stop getting upset by symbols and seek a true understanding of history. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

01-07-2005, 06:30 PM	#70 (permalink)
RangerDick Loser Location: manhattan	Spaeaking as a New Yorker, I wouldn't admire him, I'd slap him upside the head. (half in jest)

01-08-2005, 08:21 PM	#72 (permalink)
MoonDog Psycho Location: Buffalo, New York	All discussions about secession rights, slavery, and the Confederacy aside, I have to wonder about being able to set aside the wishes of a donor. I worked for 6 years as the PR person for a $40 million foundation. One of the things I learned early in that job was that donor intent was tantamount in any donation to a charitable institution. Educational institutions, while not strictly a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit, are widely considered as such. Also to be remembered is that a gift is made in perpetuity, unless otherwise spelled out in the donor agreement. So, when a conflict arises concerning a donor's contribution to the organization, one must consult the gift language and attempt to adhere as closely as possible to it. Obviously, if it involved breaking a law, or was something that the organization couldn't do, then there was another path to take. That was variance power. Our foundation board reserved the right to redirect the use of a donation, if at some time in the future, the donor's intent proved unattainable or was no longer able to be maintained. As you can see from this example, using the variance power is dicey, because you can often anger the donor, or their family/organization. The extreme route here in New York state, if variance power isn't the right way to go, is to petition the Surrogate's Court for the permission to alter the donor's agreement concerning their contribution. But, even in that case, the NYS Attorney General will attempt to adhere as closely to the original gift language as possible. So, if the procedures surrounding giving to a foundation can be applied to this situation, the courts would have to decide the following: 1) Does the gift language spell out how the gift is to be used? Does it clearly show the donor's intent? 2) Will the adherence to the donor's original intent result in a violation of the law? 3) If the court's agree that the donor's intent must be changed, what is the minimu that will satisfy? I know nothing about the law...does naming a building Confederate Memorial Hall violate a civil rights law? If not, I'm not sure they should be able to change it. After reading the article, it sounds to me like the Daughters of the Confederacy made their intent quite clear regarding the building's name. That being said, Vanderbuilt ought to be able to change the name to something that stands a lesser chance of insulting a segment of their student population while still honoring those soldiers. Southern Soldiers Memorial Hall? Soldiers Memorial Hall? CSA Memorial Hall? CSA Veterans Memorial Hall? Hell, all of those probably still piss someone off. I'm glad I'm not the judge in this one!

01-09-2005, 12:21 AM	#73 (permalink)
jb2000 Crazy Location: Allen, TX	Well, indeed, to get back to the original issue, which is not all of the Civil War history and states rights issues, but what does an organization do when the donation becomes less of a boon and more of a burden? One should assume that the Daughters had the best interests of the school in mind in addition to their desire to honor memory. If not, then it would amount to paid advertising. But we should assume it as a gift. So what does one do when what was a gift becomes a bit more of an albatros? If we assume that the Daughters would not want the school to suffer harm, and that the school would like to continue to respect the Daughters, wouldn't it be reasonable to find a balance between these two? If the Daughters are unwilling to waver, then it puts their good will in question, and the naming rights of the dorm become no different than a stadium or such: they are services rendered. On the basis of the contract, if the school refuses to retain the desired name, they may owe the Daughters some return on their donation, but that would be the end of it. However, it is an interesting situation. __________________ "Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy. Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. 'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see." - DTH

01-09-2005, 04:12 AM	#77 (permalink)
scout Psycho	This thread is full of revisionist history. I forgive all you Yankees for calling my ancestors traitors and such because I realize that's what is taught in your schools. Besides, if the war wasn't fought over slavery then your ancestors couldn't be the heroes you all grew up believing they was.

01-09-2005, 04:50 AM	#78 (permalink)
jb2000 Crazy Location: Allen, TX	Scout, that doesn't add anything to the discussion. It makes you sound like an angry southerner who just got worked up because of the word traitor--like you are seeing red--and are not able to deal rationally with the situation. This probably isn't the truth, but its what your post sounds like. __________________ "Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy. Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. 'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see." - DTH

01-09-2005, 07:17 AM	#79 (permalink)
scout Psycho	Actually quite the opposite. While admittedly I was offended by the fuckwad and traitor bit I was chuckling to myself while I hit the "submit reply" button. I think it's fairly easy to set back in our easy chairs and call someone a traitor and fuckwad when we have no idea what was in the mind or the mindset of the folks some 144 years ago. And I do forgive the Yankees that tend to believe they know it all . To take a very dark time in the history of the United States and in a time when most white people, Yankees included, despised and thought black people was a bit less than human and "boil it down" to a war 99% about slavery is a bit shallow wouldn't you agree? Especially since, as someone stated earlier, slavery was on it's way out anyway. Surely a war in such a time as this, one that pitted brother against brother, would be about about something a little more important to the people of that time. As it stated earlier, most Confederate soldiers of that time did not own slaves. In fact very very few Southerners of that time owned slaves. Only the wealthiest could afford them. In fact, most Southerners at that time were either small landowners that farmed the land themselves or were sharecroppers. Sharecroppers, in case you aren't familiar with the term, is but a tiny step above being a slave. Only a few minor but important differences separated the lives of the sharecroppers and that of the slaves. So to suggest that a few hundred thousand of what was considered white trash by the slave owners went out and died to preserve the lifestyle of a few thousand rich white slave owners is pretty preposterous wouldn't you agree?