More confederacy debate, and now it's right across the lawn
 

It's a little weird seeing my adjacent neighboring dorm on the front page of cnn. According to the chancellor of the school, he had heard from minority applicants who turned down Vanderbilt specifically because of the presence of the Confederate Hall. It would be a blow to Vanderbilt, if they are forced to change the dorm's name back to Confederate Hall.

I would also be fine with them changing the name to something really unwieldy like: 'dorm donated by the daughters of the confederacy.' At least that might not scare off the much needed diversity from applying to my school.

CNN article:


Education
Court hears 'Confederate' dorm arguments
Group trying to block building name change

Thursday, January 6, 2005 Posted: 11:02 AM EST (1602 GMT)


NASHVILLE, Tennessee (AP) -- A state appeals court heard arguments Wednesday over whether Vanderbilt University can remove the word "Confederate" from a dormitory the United Daughters of the Confederacy helped build in the 1930s.

The Tennessee chapter of the group claims the university's effort to drop the first word from Confederate Memorial Hall violates decades-old contracts, but Vanderbilt claims the contracts are no longer valid.

The judges, who did not say when they will issue a ruling, had strong words for both sides.

"You're arguing social values and making the courts be the tough guy," Judge William Cain said when a Vanderbilt attorney argued the university is completely different than it was in 1934. "The court is faced here with a bilateral contract and not an academic freedom."

Presiding Judge William C. Koch Jr., however, highlighted weaknesses in the heritage group's case, including that parts of the deal were oral and that some of the contract documents entered as evidence were not signed.

"You've put your flags up and marched into battle without ammunition," Koch said.

The United Daughters of the Confederacy, which has 1,300 members in Tennessee and 25,000 nationwide, gave one-third of the cost of the $150,000 building in 1935 as part of a series of contracts with Peabody College. Peabody merged with Vanderbilt in 1979.

In 2002, Vanderbilt Chancellor Gordon Gee cited school diversity efforts when he decided to rename the dorm Memorial Hall.

The word "Confederate" has stirred debate at the private liberal arts university since the residence hall was renovated in 1988. Critics call it offensive in the face of an increasingly diverse student body and faculty, but Confederate heritage groups say the name change is an attempt to rewrite history and reject Southern culture.

"This name was given in good faith," said Daughters of the Confederacy member Jennie Jo Hardison, who attended Wednesday's hearing. "This is not about race at all, and I resent that. It's about a contract."

A lower court ruled in 2003 that the university had a right to remove the name, but "Confederate" remains etched in stone above the building until the case is resolved.

Vanderbilt attorney William Ozier told the three-judge panel that three contracts from 1913 to 1933 are no longer valid.

"There is no contract that requires the maintenance of the name," Ozier said.

Douglas Jones, the heritage group's attorney, said the building was meant to be a memorial to Southern soldiers and that a 1927 contract specifies the name to be Confederate Memorial Hall. Architectural sketches of the building include the name.

"There's no time limits of the contract. It was a memorial," Jones said.

"Is it less of a memorial if it doesn't have the name?" presiding Judge William C. Koch Jr. asked.

"It would not be the memorial it is without the name," Jones replied.

It would be a breach of contract to change the name. No matter if you like the name or not. If they change the name, legally they would be unable to use the building.

When a merger takes place all contracts of the company are held in place, they can be renegotiated, but without approval from both sides the contract can not be voided. The contract stands as long as the building stands.

Seems like an easy solution to me:
If the university no longer wishes to honor the southern soldiers and their agreement, just give The United Daughters of the Confederacy the 2005 value of the 1930 money they donated. Or is it more complicated than that?

I don't think the contract would have stated that the name had to stay on in perpetuity.
They got 70 years, that is enough I believe. It should be their perogative after that. If the DOC gave them the money 20 or 30 years ago I would say they should have to leave the name or pay back. After 70... I think a good basis would be copywright laws to be used as a standard. So it's come due.

Side note. Southerners need to let it go. Why hang on to a losing side that was blatantly wrong for so long?

They don't want us damn Yank's telling them what to do.

seems to me that vanderbilt needs to convince a new donor to give them a heap of cash, in exchange for which they would rename a dormitory, say.

Both sides need to realize that it is just a name on a building! For most people(and all well adjusted people) it's no more than a handle, not a mission statement. By freaking out every time we encounter the word confederacy we are only lending importance to a cause and country which no longer exists, no matter which side your on.

Get over it, let's move on to issues that really are important.

I agree. But I think it's the "pro-Confederate" side that keeps taking court cases... :)

The South will rise again... blah blah


Mr Mephisto

I disagree. It's incidents like these that do turn this into a mission statement.

If there hadn't been a media spill-out, we wouldn't even know about it or be discussing it.
Who do you think tried to break the story?

Regardless, I don't see the need to think of people who disagree with me as not well adjusted. We just have different opinions on the matter.

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.

They'd need to throw in interest, too...

I doubt the contract addressed renaming the hall something else. Most likely, it was a simple contract....something along "we'll pay you money to build the hall if the hall is called this." Changing the name on the dorm would be a violation of such a contract.

This is all Im going to say on this because some of these comments are really upsetting.....Im a long standing member of the UDC, I say the people that say "we" need to get over it dont really understand a thing.

Im not going into a long drawn out thing....it wouldnt change anyones mind anyway, but just keep this in mind....the majority of the people that fought in that war for the south, the people that the UDC honor, were just about as poor as you could get, they did not own slaves..they were too expensive. The fought out of a sense of honor that all southern men were instilled with, they fought because their government told them to. Some people these days dont really understand that kind of "honor"

140 years from now will some college somewhere want to rename something named to do with either Iraqi war because its not "pc" to the middle east races attending that school? Will your great great great great great grandchildren be telling someone else to "get over it"

We haven't been holding Iraqis in slaverly or subjecting them to over 100 years of dis-accumulation, shanifaye.

no disrespect intended, but you are partially right about my views on whether it's honorable to fight for an unworthy cause because one's government tells one to do so.

It's not that I don't understand it, I don't agree with it.

ok...so I'll say one more thing...

When are ya'll gonna understand that the war between the states was about STATES RIGHTS, the problems that led to this war were caused by instrusive government. The south wanted to to break away and form their own nation to get away from having the "governement too much in their lives"

Lincoln himself said in a letter to NY Daily Tribune editor "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery"

In 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, commonly called the"Tariffs of Abominations" a compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain's Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests.

After Lincoln's election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs. That's when the South seceded, setting up a new government. The constitution they adopted was nearly identical to the US. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.

And if you read your history the north was no better with their child labor for factories and such than the south was with slaves. In some cases it was MUCH worse.

Im not at all defending slavery, the best thing to come out of that war was the abolishment of that cruelty....but read your history people, some of you keep telling us to get over it, when you dont really understand why the war was even started to begin with.

How much history does one need to know to believe that a group of criminals banding together and fighting against my government is dishonorable?

Are you seriously arguing that secessionists are honorable soldiers?

On what grounds?
On moral grounds?
Does your belief in this regard hold true for soldiers who now choose not to fight for their government?
Or is it only honorable when one overtly fights against the government?


I would find your post more enlightening if you explained your position in this regard to me rather than writing my objections off as a lack of understanding.

There are alternate versions of what "started" the war depending on which side one is standing on. Ripping one comment (out of context, since none is given) out of the historical record is not convincing to me.

For example, we could agree that Lincoln didn't think the war was about slavery.

Or, we could believe that Lincoln said that to keep politially and economically important allies within the Union.


Why should I believe the former over the latter based on that one statement?

any research will show you that he made that and similar statements MANY times, like I said in my post...its not my job to change your mind....its up to you if you want to learn about issues to do with that war that werent about slavery, it wont cost me any sleep if you dont, all Im doing is pointing out a few things people may not know and hopefully give them cause to research it on their own, if they are really that interested in talking intelligently and informed on the subject.

All Im saying is that the actual people that the majority that fought and died in that war were not slave owners, actually some of them did it for the money, such as it was, to send home to their families. I have a particular ancestor that died in that war, his family received 6 months worth of pay for fighting was and it was less than 60 bucks. The whole point of my ORIGINAL post was to say that those men died for a cause, and it wasnt so much slavery. And you need to remember, the north fired on the south first, if we'd been allowed to seceed in peace there would be a lot of empty pages in the history books.

I have letters that were written by men that didnt really want to be fighting, pages of comments about the hellish war being over..but that they would honor the commitment to their country and die if need be rather than face dishonor. My point....in that era honor had a deeper meaning than it does now.

You want to call them criminals? fine.....like I said....nothing Im going to say is going to change your mind...ALL wars have two sides.....people who really want to understand the dynamics research both sides and find the truth somewhere in the middle.

I think ShaniFaye said about all there is to say just about as eloquently as it can be said.

Then by your logic, if they believe enough time has passed, Latinos should be able to change the name of MLK day to "Pancho Villa Day."


Because the "victims" keep asking for reparations, among other things.

How? Please explain how his logic is consistent with your assertion.

Reparations are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Don't muddy the waters.

This quote will be archived for future Iraq War/ insurgent discussions.

This quote will be archived for future discussions on the use of out of context information to bolster one's arguments. Other possible uses... Discussions on archival quotables and their effect on intellectual power games...

Thank you for some very eloquent posts. However, you will never change the mind of a person who, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, makes posts like the following:

For those with more open minds, the following, although lengthy, might be of interest (although I think yours was better):

Flags

(Remainder of editorial truncated due to length of post).

H
DGé, it was a war of states rights. As I said the overbearing states right that was being fought for was slavery.
There isn't much middle. Most southerners didn't own slaves but they supported the institution. Most northerners actually didn't care that much about slavery as protecting the union that was created by our Constitution and shat upon by the Confederate states.

I'll call the Confederacy traitors, not just criminals like Smooth. They betrayed their country in as clear a way as possible.
That crime of treason was largely forgiven in an attempt to quicky reintegrate the south into the USA.

Is it treason to secede from this union?

No, I don't believe it is. If any state chooses to, through democratic and fair means to separate from the union, then it is incumbent upon a just union to allow that separation, so long as it is done in a measured and moderate manner to ensure that rights of citizens are not disrespected, and that stability and peace is maintained.

The Confederates did not withdraw in such a manner. They did not exhaust all legal means of peacable separation. For example, Texas had it in black and white that if she just said the word, she could regain her independence from the Union. Instead they chose violence and illegal means to further their objective. Texas, by joining the conspiracy lost her special circumstance.

Why did so many dirt-poor farmers who couldn't dream of owning a slave fight so hard for their states. Obviously there are many reasons. One is pure nationalism (Statism?), and as Shani points out, sense of honor compelled many to fight for their leaders, right or wrong. Many did what men of honor and good concience have done in war for a long time, and that is they suited up, marched, and then in the face of the enemy, did not run, but did not fire. This was true on both sides, and became an issue amongst men deployed in skirmish or loose formations (close order formations provided tighter control by NCOs and officers and drilled movements versus personal initiative). It is also worthy to note that a great number of the troops on both sides were not volunteers, but were conscripted.

However, the single most important factor in the willingness of men to join up was the romanticism of warfare that was prevalent during the period, a romanticism that would also have dire consequences for the Europeans in WWI. That war pretty well killed the sense of romance in war for most citizens, although, it is worth noting that America has seen an unprecendented surge in romanticism regarding war unprecedented since WWI.

One might feel that Southerners are silly for 'clinging' to their glory days when they raised their banner, damned the guns, and died for their homes like never before or since. But does one condecend American blacks for reviving African heritages, particularly tribal heritages from before the white man came...do you tell a Black? Do we disparage Original Americans for maintaining the tribal ties and communities...do you tell a Cherokee to just get over it?

I don't begrudge the South their heritage. They were wrong to start a war over the issue, but then they suffered a lot for that mistake, didn't they? On the other hand, the symbolism is a trickier matter. The Confederates were an illegal organization, and they were a government that condoned slavery to their dying day. Granted, they may well have freed slaves for economic reasons not long after the war had they won, but it doesn't change the facts of what their position was. They started a war which like it or not revolved on the issue of slavery. Superbelt is right, that 'States Rights' is how Confederates put it, but you don't fight a war over 'States Rights' without there being specific rights that are concerned, and in the Civil War's case it was slavery above all, or at least the states' right to have or have not slavery as it so chose.

The Confederacy wholeheartedly supported slavery throughout its existance, and thus like the Nazi's Swastika, Italian Fasces, or Soviet Hammer and Sickle, its symbols have come to be symbols of that position, just as the American flag is a symbol of the ideals we stand for, promote, and exemplify. To display those symbols in honorary positions is to give those positions honor, no matter how one puts it.

I don't understand how you can come to this conclusion if you research what was happening at the time.

They did not wage a war on their own country, the southern states seceded and formed their own country. Entrance into the union required the approval of a states legislature, so it would make sense that the same legislature reserved the right to leave.

There is nothing written in the Constitution denying the states the right to secede, legally, the states could secede. The Constitution also granted no power to the federal government to make a state remain in the Union against its wishes.

These boys, mostly poor and right off the farm, were drafted into the army to defend their homes from an invasion from the north.

Side note:
IMHO this country just like every other country that has existed on this earth will eventually break up. I don't think we are so superior to those who have come before to prevent it. I hope we can prevent it but history tells us otherwise.

The Civil War delayed the inevitable for a time and most of us consider this a good thing. Hopefully it will happen more peacefully the next time and hopefully not for years to come. Probably another great depression or world wide economic collapse will test our resolve greatly.

flstf,

While you are correct that it would have been legal for them to secede, they did not seek that act in a legal manner. It may be legal for me to withdraw money from my account, but not to break into the vault of the bank and take it by force just because they won't process the withdrawl on a Sunday.

The breakup won't happen soon, or at least while the important interests of the states are best served by remaining in the Union, which is certainly the case today.

jb2000

That is a very well thought out interesting post.

Do you really believe that Lincoln, Grant, and most yankees were in the war to promote the rights of black people? Lincoln said that if he could preserve the Union without freeing any slaves, he would do it. His opinion was the solution was to export them all somewhere else. Grant owned slaves till well after the war ended.

IMHO it was all about preserving the Union, slavery was just a side issue used by the north to gain favor in the world because slavery's days were over almost everywhere else. From what I have read most northerners could not care one way or another. The whole country was racist for years to come. Slavery's days were numbered war or no war.

I despise the hate groups like the KKK using the CSA battle flag for a symbol of hate. I am saddened that civil rights groups let them dictate how the symbol is perceived.

I think most black people actually don't care. I'm asian I don't care. I really think the only people who make a fuss of this are ones craving attention.

I'm not letting the past go because it doesn't offend me. If the school wants to change the building name, they can if they want, but I think it's a rather silly move.

Superbelt you seem a very decent fellow, but after your "Indian" comment and how you expressed how black people would feel offended by the word confederate here, I have to ask you. Why do you care if others are offended? Let them choose to be. Be civil no doubt, but no need to say "Oh be careful you may offend people unless you choose this moralistically better way of addressing them". Ironically though I've come to realize you only really offend people if you try assume what offends them...which seeminly I'm doing with you. So I'm sorry in advance, and once again I think idealistically you have a good heart.

there's always going to be some one who gets offended by certain things we say. even if we think they're neutral and wont offend anyone. people have their own opinions and beliefs. Heck, some people probably get offended when they see the color yellow. there's nothing we can do about it. it's inevitable. i'm probably offending someone right now. it doesn't really matter to me

I'll trade my states flag for forty acres and a mule anyday.

I think SOB has a point though. Both sides of the affair can't get past something so long ago in our past.

yeah that was a good point.

No, I don't believe that Lincoln et al were in it to save blacks from slavery any more than I believe the Iraq invasion was a humanitarian crusade to free the Iraqis from their master. It's not really a question of that.

Slavery did become the overriding issue of that conflict, and ultimately, once it became a real war, it was postered as their 'good-guy' cause, again, much as the liberation was highlighted in Iraq once it became clear the WMDs and terrorism ties were a lot muddier than portrayed.

It is certainly true that there was no lack of racism in either north or south. One can easily see lynchings and think of Mississippi or Alabama, but more often than not when you check the location you get Indiana, Michingan, Pennsylvania, etc. And again, there is validity to the argument that economics would have ended slavery shortly after the war regardless.

Ultimately, I do condone and respect the right of self-determination that gives people the right to seek independence from governance that does not serve their needs or which violates their rights. However, I do not condone doing so through violent means before fully exhausting all legal and non-violent means to achieve that end, and ensuring that the rights of involved citizens are respected at all steps along the way. Impatience or the desire of leaders to 'sieze the moment' and exploit temporary sways of popular desire are not good enough excuses to violate the above path.

I am saddened by the fact that the ancient, widely used and respected symbol of the swastika was so tainted by the Nazis, but that doesn't mean I just ignore it and plaster it on World War II memorials to fallen German soldiers.

The destruction, coopting, and subverting of symbology is one of the negative effects of such groups and activities. I do have sympathy for wanting to not surrender things to these groups, but certain symbols, like it or not, have been so tainted. As such, if we continue to allow those symbols to have places of honor, then while we may have articulated rationales for saying why it is okay to use the symbol, for many it serves as a way to retain a sense of relevance for their ideology while being able to duck investigation by hiding behind our rationales when convenient. I.E., a person puts the Conf. Flag on their car as a strong symbol to people on both sides of the issue of his feelings, but is able to cop that they are just honoring the fallen soldiers when in an uncomfortable position (i.e. around people that he doesn't want thinking he's a racist). I am not at all saying we should limit what people can say on their cars, but as long as we enshrine these symbols in our public places and in places of honor within the community, we continue to provide the cover for those types to continue their broadcasts.

yeah, to do something like that is just uncalled for

But if those whose family members fought and died for the south and in whom the CSA battle flag is a rememberence of their bravery refuse to display it, won't the hate groups have won? Not that it matters so much but the CSA battle flag wasn't even the official flag of the CSA, it was the flag used by the boys on the battle field.

I understand what you say about the swastika and it's negative meaning after the Nazi's used it even though it's original use was much different. But the southern pride tradition is much closer to home with thousands of Americans (with millions of ancestors) who were fighting for what they believed was their legal homeland.

Alas, I'm afraid if those of us who regard this symbol as a non-racist tribute to bravery of the southern fighters cannot overcome the hate groups and those who choose to be offended, the CSA flag will go the way of the swastika. In this day and age of instant soundbites, I fear most folks will not take the time to read or try to understand the history.

wow, I mean wow, this is turning into a really cool discussion I don't know if I've ever seen the likes of. hopefully this kind of presentation of ideas will continue.


konichi,

at least part of the problem is the notion that all groups speak for the invidviduals contained within them. In superbelt's experience, he has found Native American prefer that term.

I spoke up and said I was one who does prefer that term for political reasons.
Not as thought "Indian" offends me.

Now, sob points out that there are Indian gaming organizations. Well, I happen to live in the same place he does. The fact that the gaming organization refers to itself as an Indian org doesn't mean I prefer to be called an Indian.

For that matter, perhaps they would prefer not to be called that, but do what? engage in multimillion dollar campaigns to educate the public to stop? probably not.


as to your larger point, I agree. Most black people I know don't even really think about this kind of thing. they have enough to worry about! (as do we all these days).
But context is important. I've never been to the south and I don't expect very many urban blacks to have very strong opinions about the civil war.

Here we are again: are black people some monolithic/homogenous group? no.
blacks in the south have a very different historical relationship to the symbolism of the confederacy. for example, many people alive today have been abused under color of that flag. not a few have been killed, and not too long ago either. it isn't ancient history although we'd like to be, in my opinion.


but the simple fact remains that blacks weren't complaining (that we know of, other than deciding not to attend the university or live in the hall). the people with a particular agenda are the ones who brought the case to bear and I presume (without knowing) that they or some similar party brought it to the attention of the media.

they may have multiple reasons for doing so, but one plausible reason to me is for some people to conduct themselves like jb2000 is suggesting. under color of authenticity, for example. and then people like shanifaye may feel prosecuted for what she views is a heartfealt attachment to that symbolism.

I wasn't trying to deny that of her. and hopefully she didn't take my responses to critically. more of an exploration of how one's ideas might not be compatible with one's assumptions in general because of a particular emotional attachment to something.


so for example, it's not honor for fighting against our government, per se. but perhaps she believes that standing up for one's rights is always honorable. I agree with jb2000's analysis of the situation. I've always been careful to discuss my notions of treason (superbelt, I did use that term in an earlier thread, I just didn't want to come across as inciteful when it wasn't necessary since treason seemed to be more loaded than criminal) in regards to the way in which breaking away from the Union was carried out.

That is, I fully support and wish California would break from the union right now. Do I think we should do it with arms? well, if we did, I would certainly be a traitor to the US. 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.



But the point I was trying to draw out was: if you think it's honorable to fight that way, maybe the assumption is skewed. perhaps someone doesn't really think it's ok to fight against the nation for a belief (that wouldn't mesh very well with numerous other threads about internal combatants right now and what kinds of rights they should be afforded if caught), but perhaps it's honorable to stand up for one's individualism.

Individualism is certainly very valued in our culture. But then I might wonder why some of the people espousing that view would criticise my statements against stop and frisks at the airport. After all, that was based on the honor of individualism. See, so shanifaye and I agree I would think that there is honor in individualism, but we have to filter it through all of our other attachments to socially important notions and symbolism.

for her, the symbolism of the confederacy (which I think she says she even engages in reenactment, and I think lebell does to--and I don't think either of them are supporters of slavery or racists)

and me in the airport when I think my individual liberty and individualism is being infringed for some faux-promises of safety by random frisks.


oh you know, this is just getting too long and convoluted. It's late, I'll look back at this in the morning. night all.

scout and sob, thank you very much for your comments.

smooth, first off...I didnt take offense to you, I admit I got aggravated..but not offended, which is why I tried to expand what I was saying. (and no Im not for slavery and Im not a racist)

SO many people have never taken the time to learn the out lying causes of the war, and dont realize that some of the issues had been going on for 40+ years before we seceeded and then were fired upon at fort sumter by the north, but yet want to make blanket statements about things that I get hot headed.

I used to do re-enacting, I havent in many years, and its Bill O'Rights, not lebell (just so we have the fact straight) that is also into it.

I wouldnt say that my attachement is ALL "emotional", I am from South Carolina, was raised in the south by southern women and shown by example the "honor" of being in the south, so its more a way of life and upbringing, than emotional.

Growing up we children were taken to cemetaries to clean the graves and mourn the loss of the confederate dead, we were told stories passed down of the "bravery" and "honor" of those men, when we got old enuff the girls joined the UDC to perpetuate the living memorial of the confederate dead and did things to raise money for things like new gravestones, keeping graveyards clean etc.

The "confederates" that the UDC memorializes were not necessarily thought of as the ones doing something "illegal". Do you really think that dirt poor farmers, most of whom couldnt read or write and any idea of the legalities of the war? It is THOSE people that confederate memorials are aimed at (well...I should say the majority of the memorials..of course there were pompous ass slave owning cover their asses politicians that are lumped in that group as well).

the mid 1800's were a totally different time from now, just as it was during the 1700's. The revolutionary soldiers were not that much different from the confederates. The were protesting rule by an over bearing government. A lot of people were tried for treason against King George because they fought on the American side to break away from the tyrannical leadership of the British, they wanted to form their own governement as well, yet they are almost always considered heros in history, not criminals. If this were a battle between the university and the DAR (Daughters of the Revolution) (which I am also a member of) over some dorm that had the name Sons Of Liberty and they wanted to change it so as not to "offend" students from the UK that they might want to attract.....would people be telling the DAR to get over it? Not like they do when it comes to something "confederate", even though when it comes down to it in a lot of ways some of the reasons for the war were the same.

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, but the Confederate states did so in a manner that WAS treason.

We know that Lincoln, Grant and many other Yankees didn't care about slavery as much as preserving America. But there were plenty in the North who disagreed with slavery and were working to end it. Without the Civil War, slavery would have been outlawed within 20 years. That is why the south secceeded. The tide was moving against them.

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"

______
Onto the swastika/Confederate Battle Flag comparison. There is one key difference, the swastika started off as a good symbol. It represented life, sun, power, strength, and good luck for various cultures. It was later commandeered by the Nazi's and ruined.

The CBA started out as the banner for traitors to the USA. It stood for a states right to own humans. It was not so much co-opted as just continued in use by later racists. It has been used in modern times for non racist means. But it's entire history has been surrounded by bad.

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.

/not to change this to a discussion of the American Revolution...but..you mentioned due process....

the proceedings of the body that became known as the (First) Continental Congress, Virginian Peyton Randolph was unanimously elected president of the Assembly. Considering the fact that the Assembly has no basis in law and could be considered as an illegal assembly by the Crown, The Continental Congress is by its very existence, an act of revolution.

The reigning government at the time, King George, considered what we did illegal...its not that much different from what the south did.

Well, first we were a colony of England who did not have full rights in English governance. England also provided no provisions for seccession. That plus the two land masses being a months sailing trip away make the situation very different.

The South had a full voice in American Government. Even were able to inflate their influence through the 3/5ths rule. There was means for seccession and they ignored them and they are geographically attached to the nation that they were trying to devolve from.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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... :icare:

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

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.

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).

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.

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

Im glad we can finally agree on something :icare:

(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

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.

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

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

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

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.

i agree immensely.

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.

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.


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

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

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

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

Link

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?"

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

(half in jest)

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:

A little more:

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

"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'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?

Or to suggest that Northern soldiers were fighting over slavery, when they went home and made laws specifying that former slaves couldn't settle permanently in their states.

I'd also like to see an explanation for the 65,000-90,000 slaves who fought for the Confederacy.

Yeah I'm sure some adjustmants could be made. I know that nowadays some companies give money to sports franchises and cities in order to get stadiums named after themselves. When I was in Seattle Safeco bought the rights to name the Mariners stadium Safeco Field. They didn't build the structure like the DOC just gave them $10M or so as I recall. I wonder how much they would give Safeco back if they wanted to rename it?

Well, Houston terminated the name rights of Enron and didn't give any money back I think.

I'm sure some accountant could figure out the pro-rat for 'services rendered'. Maybe after 7 years, they'll get nothing. I think the Daughters of the Confederacy got a bargain anyway.

Or maybe they could turn it into a sorority house. Preferably one that honors the mission statement or is closer to the Daughters of the Confederacy, like the Southern Belles (I'm not sure if this is a real org or sorority but hopefully you get the idea). That way, they could preserve the name, it would still be choice (choose to live there) and they could swap with a existing sorority house or build a new dorm.

I think that would be a good compromise, everyone saves face and no one's rights gets trampled on..

On a side note: Would anyone be offended if someone endowed a dorm and named it "Yankee Pride"? We need to be a bit careful when it comes to policing this type of thing. (at least I think so).

I assume you are equating the display of the CSA battle flag as something offensive to some people like giving someone the finger would be. I hope you also understand that tearing it down offends those of us who wish to honor our ancestors bravery as well.

It is truly a shame that the memory of these brave men should be tainted because some radical minority hate group like the KKK have displayed it. It is disappointing that some people have let the actions of a few hate groups determine the meaning of the symbol.

Once people decide the symbol is negative they begin to re-invent history. As an example of this just read some of the misinformed posts in this forum.

Perhaps, but it bears noting that this isn't a case of anyone filing suit against Vanderbilt to get the name change or a law or court saying they had to change it. This is simply a case of the University deciding that it was no longer in their best interest to retain the name, and whether or not they had the right to make the change or what could be done about it.

The Stadium deals are a little different. For one, they are not considered gifts, donations, or otherwise in the least. They are paid advertising, and the deals are written with all of the appropriate legalese to cover these kinds of situations, something obviously lacking in the contract this article covers. In the case of Houston, reclaiming the naming rights was a mutually agreed path, and while I'm sure the team and stadium were no longer eager to be associated with Enron, the biggest reason is that Enron obviously was no longer able to maintain the payments on the rights. All of it was covered in the contracts, and so there wasn't really any issue to it, they just went ahead and did it.

Josh

I'm not sure that I do understand the offense at 'tearing it down'. I mean, sure, if they were litterally tearingit down and treating it disrespectfully, sure, but that's not the case here. Let me be clear, as I understand it, the symbology we are discussing (primarily the name 'Confederate Memorial Hall' to be clear) is specifically related to the CSA or Confederacy, which is a very time-specific entity. It did not exist outside of the years 1861-1865. The Confederate flag and Confederate symbology does not reflect southern history prior to this period, although it would of course be silly to ignore the importance of those years on the history of the south. It is fair to say that no time before or since better represented what the 'south' means to a lot of people.

The defense that we need to maintain these symbols to honor the dead doesn't really hold water. Symbols aren't needed to maintain honor. Germany honors her war dead without needing to display Third Reich symbology or give Nazi effects any kind of place of honor to maintain the honor of those soldiers who fell for their country.

I make the comparison to Nazi Germany not to try and say that the CSA rivalled Hitler's evil or even was that kind of country at all. It is because, like the CSA, the Third Reich was a very time-specific entity. The flag of Nazi Germany, like the flag of the CSA, was not a historical symbol, but instead one crafted during the period and which only flew over a very brief and delineated period of history.

With these kind of symbols, it is hard to tell somebody to ignore the bast body of what they stood for and allow them to be displayed as some kind of memorial. The simple fact is that a lot of people do not want those types of things memorialized. They don't want to honor what they consider a criminal and treasonous confederacy which rose up in arms against their nation, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American citizens. They don't want to honor the fact that this was done primarily over whether or not states should have the right to maintain slavery or whether the federal government had the authority to interfere in states affairs on that matter, even if it was a matter or precident and/or principle.

In the end, most people understand that symbols aren't really used to maintain the honor of the deceased, but instead to keep alive the ideals that they stood for. Given that these ideals are in a great number of ways counter to what many Americans hold, and to those upheld in our Constitution, when it comes to public places of honor, it is not necessarily appropriate to put Confederate symbology up.

In the case of this school, they are a private institution and have the right to fly Confederate flags if they desire. They also have the right to do the opposite.

Josh

Josh, you have very leveled opinions.

I can't remember specifics on where we disagree or not, but I would enjoy reading your thoughts regardless of whether your points differed substantially from mine.

Thanks for your thoughtfulness in the politics board.

I guess this is where we disagree. You refer to the Confederacy as rising up in arms against their nation. Their nation was the Confederacy since they seceded from the Union. They wanted self rule something that up until that time was considered their right as long as their state legislatures voted to. It was the North who took up arms to prevent them.

It required the state legislatures to vote them into the Union and it was understood that those same legislatures could vote them out of it. If the North would not have taken up arms to prevent it there wouldn't have been the death of thousands. In my opinion and many others the North was wrong to do so. All they had to do is let them go.

I'll admit the South wanted to rule themselves including the right to have slaves but that was not what the war was about. We have already discussed what the leaders of the Union thought about slavery including the right to own them in the North even after the Emancipation Proclimation banned it in the South. Do you really think the Union cared one way or another except for political leverage? Don't you think Lincoln would have asked/made Grant free his slaves instead of keeping them till long after the war ended?

So that is why we don't see what is wrong with honoring these brave young men and boys for fighting for their homeland. They were not treasonous and criminal. Many people then and now think they were in the right, just outnumbered and ill equipped.

If intelligent folks like yourself do not see the honor in what these soldiers did and why we might want to remember them, then I am going to resist posting much more on the matter. Like ShaniFaye I've said about all I can.

To clear some things up: Sorry to have applied "fuckwad" to the entire south. I will limit it to those only wo fought for the continuance of slavery, not the average soldier who was just doing his duty for his state. I won't apologize beyond that though.

I would like some sources stating that slavery was well and alive in the north after the war.
Everything I have learned has taught me that it was outlawed in the north long before the war even started. This was the main reason for the Dred Scott case. Please give me a citing of this.
Also cite for me Grant owning slaves after the war ended.

to the end of what you said flstf: We can honor the soldier, but that is done at their gravesite. Explain why these soldiers deserve buildings named after the political substance (a the current flying of their war banner) that they once fought for while the many German soldiers who died for the Nazi regime do not.

To anything anyone has tried to ask me since friday afternoon, please if you want me to answer, ask it again. I don't get on much at all on weekends. If you don't think it's been significantly explained yet, please question me.

I found something interesting in my research also that I would like to share. It is the "Paradox of Democratic Secession" Seems logical to me.

There lies another difference between the American Revolution and the American Civil War.
The revolution was an act of creating a democracy as the colonies had no power of democracy to begin with.
The Confederate States were performing an action that was antithetical to democracy.

Then there is this one:
In essence it is: "We let you be part of this democracy, therefore we are permitted to keep you in it.


The situation the southern states were in was like in a court case were someone writes up a personal contract with someone that if he fails in the goal he has to forefeit his firstborn to the other half of the contract.
The Judge will say, though the contract states it, you have no legal right to do this.

The same goes to secession from a democracy. You can state it in a contract that you hold the right to seceede, but the definition of democracy prohibits it.

We will disagree till the cows come home as to why I feel they should be remembered with memorials, etc.. and you may not. My main feelings on the subject are in some of the previous posts. While I respect much of what you write in these forums I see no reason to fully address your Nazi comparison. One was a regime planning for world conquest and the other just wanted self rule.

Perhaps it was missed, but I took great pains to explain in detail that I do not disagree that the South had the right to secede. You claim that it was the North, but do not address the fact that the war began with the siezure by force of arms of Federal (Union) property by Southern troops. If that doesn't constitute rising up in arms, I don't know what does!

I agree that if the North had accepted the siezures and relinquished the rights to its property without due process, that there would not have been a war. But can you realistically expect any nation on earth to allow its territory to be violated without response? Do you not feel that the President has the responsibility to act in defense of US territority when it is siezed?

And I have agreed that the slave issue was merely the spark, and during the war was used by the north as a moral banner, not necessarily representative of what the real aims of the war were, much like the moral banner of liberation we wave in Iraq today. This does not change the fact that the issue was a critical part of the war, the victory by the Union led the the end of slavery much quicker than had the South seceded peacefully or won the war.

I thought I was very clear in separating the honor of the soldiers themselves from the symbology of the nation they fought for. I don't believe there was any lack of honor in fighting for their states. They did their best to sacrifice in the best interest of their homes, families, and communities. There is no dishonor in that.

The fact that the CSA may have acted wrongly in perpetrating the war should not be heaped upon the shoulders of the men who fought in its army. Soldiers fight for their homes. It is on the shoulders of their leaders to use them wisely.

If you can not understand this distinction, I apologize for not making it clear enough. Perhaps it is true that for some the honor of the individual soldier and the symbology and motives of his nation are inseperable. However, if you at all feel I am attempting to dishonor the southern or soldier or say that it is inappropriate to honor them, then you are truly wrong.

Josh

Thank you Josh for your well thought out post. I still think the North was just as responsible if not more than the South for this war however your ideas are reasonable and I think I understand where you are coming from.

Those of us with close ties to the South sometimes get upset with all the negativity associated with what we consider an honorable heritage. If I were the descendant of slaves I most probably would feel very differently. But then I think I would be just as offended by the way the whole country treated my ancestors as well.

Hehe, my post got squashed by a Mack truck!
I defer to the Southern secession/Civil War discussion...

The South is fully to blame for starting the Civil War, period.

The island upon which Ft. Sumter rests was never, ever part of the state of South Carolina. It is a man-made island which was created by the authority of Congress in the 1820's for the expressed purpose of building the fort. It was ALWAYS federal government property from the beginning and South Carolina never had any credible claim to it.

The South legitimately seceded from the Union and formed their own nation. President Jefferson Davis then ordered General P.G.T. Beauregard to demand the surrender of Ft. Sumter and to seize it by force if that demand was refused. This constitutes an act of war under any definition of the term. As a legitimate nation which had seceded from the Union, the South had NO RIGHT to demand Northern territory nor to seize it. Furthermore, the North could not possibly ignore a hostile nation on its border which had deliberately attacked it, seized a federal base, and was then proceeding to begin a massive military buildup. To do nothing in the face of a direct attack from a hostile and growing power would've been stupidity in the extreme.

The Confederacy would've had legitimate grounds to demand recognition and respect from the North had it simply chosen not to attack Ft. Sumter. As said before, that attack constituted an act of war under any definition of the term ever invented. In so doing, they lost any hope of saying that they had peaceful intentions. The Confederacy brought the Civil War upon itself. No nation with an ounce of sanity would allow one of its military installations to be seized by a neighbor without responding with its own military. To do otherwise would have been practically asking the Confederacy to attack again. The Confederates should've kept their fingers off the trigger and they would've had a leg to stand on. When they fired the first shot they brought the war down upon their own heads.

As usual there's two sides to this.

1) How is your source able to make the decision that the ships were war ships and not supply ships?

2) The land is an island and was never a part of Carolina property to begin with

3) Do you see the similarity to Guantanamo Bay?

flstf,

Thank you for the further information. The question of whether Ft. Sumter was ever S. Carolina land (as posted by others) is not meaningful. Noone denied that it was a Federal fort, and by the same token, I don't think anyone can argue that it would have made sense, had the South been recognized as independent, for the fort to remain in Federal hands. The fact that it was created by Federal mandate or whatever doesn't change the fact that being in a S. Carolina harbor, for it to not become S. Carolina territory would be untenable.

If it is true that warships were sent to Fort Sumpter, and that this provoked a response by President Davis, then I don't see how this changes the idea that the South, by taking military action to seize the fort, initiated hostilities. The fort was already a military facility, heavily armed and garrisoned. The arrival of warships did not transform it, even if they added to its military strength. Such an addition would seem warranted given the threat that was percieved from Southern forces (and bourne out to well-founded, given events that unfolded).

That negotiations were ongoing, including Federal promises to hand over the fort, only adds to the South's culpability in this matter. As I have cited before, the secession was only declared in January of 1861. Fort Sumpter was seized in IIRC April of 1861. That amount of time is hardly enough to determine that non-violent and/or legal methods had been exhausted to achieve both independence and the hand-over of facilities.

It may well be true that the Federal Government would have not recognized Southern independence, and that any plans for peaceful handover of Fort Sumpter were destined for failure. However, given the time-scale, we will never know, as the South never gave either of those possibilities enough time to come to fruition. In their haste, for whatever reason, they jumped the gun and started a shooting war. For this, they do deserve to be considered the instigators of the shooting war that became the Civil War.

Let me clarify: this does NOT mean that I hold the South solely or fully responsible for the war. The bon-fire had been building for a long time, and a lot of people figured it was an inevitability. On both sides, but especially in the South, there was almost relief upon the start of hostilities, as it was figured they could get started and get it over with. Naturally, both sides saw it as a short war that was coming and that it would be over quickly in their favor. In the above study, I am merely recognizing that it was the South that actually took the action of lighting the match, if you will.

Josh

This is an interesting discussion. I've been an (armchair) Civil War buff for years, and I've never had any doubt that

a) The war was, on a fundamental level, about slavery
b) That Lincoln did carry out some illegal actions, but justified them in his desire to save the Union. As most Northerners agreed, there was not much opposition to this.
c) That the legality of secession is a murky area, but arguing over it is meaningless. The South always knew the North would fight to preserve the Union

It's interesting to see that this topic still engenders such feelings and mixture of interpretations today.


Mr Mephisto

I think jb2000 answered sufficiently in the quote that follows from a previous message .
The question of whether Ft. Sumter was ever S. Carolina land (as posted by others) is not meaningful. Noone denied that it was a Federal fort, and by the same token, I don't think anyone can argue that it would have made sense, had the South been recognized as independent, for the fort to remain in Federal hands. The fact that it was created by Federal mandate or whatever doesn't change the fact that being in a S. Carolina harbor, for it to not become S. Carolina territory would be untenable.
Yes I do. I don't know much about the history of Guantanimo Bay but it would seem that the analogy doesn't help my assertion that South Carolina was justified. A short search for info on Guantanimo turned up the fact that we still believe we are leasing it. I assume Castro would have resisted if he had the means to do so.