Erasing the Confederacy -How Far Would you Go?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Neither of the option presented counts as "erasing". Erasing the confederacy would mean suppressing the knowledge and memory of its existence. What we're discussing is repudiating it, just like (Godwin alert) removing all Nazi symbolic after the WWII was to repudiate that system, not to pretend it never existed.

And yes, it should go all the way down to prohibiting confederage rag being flown on private properties. A guy flowing a Nazi flag on his own backyard in German would have a prosecutor on his ass and rightly so.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Let's stop pretending the Confederacy is all there is about the Southern "heritage", or even it's larger part.

And while we can't forget history, but we shouldn't idoize certain events from the past, period.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Kalwejt is talking good sense in this thread, although I'm skittish about 3 and 6. If Lost Causeism still persists in the American consciousness afterwards then it might be time for history textbooks to start referring to the Civil War as the Slavers' Revolt or something along those lines.

Lost Causeism essentially belongs to the category of historical revisionist myths as "stab in the back", "honorable Wehrmacht" and "Hirohito, the innocent bystander". All poison.

All of these proposals are hateful and sickening.

Not nearly as sickening as what the Confederacy fought to defend. If this is the part of your southern heritage you want to be proud of, then I only wish you'll be able to look back and say to yourself "man, that's embarassing".

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Let's stop pretending the Confederacy is all there is about the Southern "heritage", or even it's larger part.

And while we can't forget history, but we shouldn't idoize certain events from the past, period.

We're not pretending anything. Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean that it isn't true. Southern heritage and culture will always be in the southern states.

I don't think you've understood my post.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Public service announcement: if your post was deleted by a moderator, you don't write the same thing again.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Public service announcement: if your post was deleted by a moderator, you don't write the same thing again.

The moderators need to stop letting the personal beliefs interfere with the moderation.

Other people voiced beliefs that I disagree with in this very thread and nothing was touched, just as the vast majority of your posts here. Unfortunately I'm not allowed to remove posts based on its stupidity only.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

4,5, and 6, but definitely would consider implementing the other ones

#6 would be a violation of the 1st amendment. Is the 1st amendment an "antiquated piece of trash" just like you think the 2nd amendment is?

Deleted post

You know who REALLY thought the Constitution was trash?

... the Confederates.

Why did the care so much about the Tenth Amendment then? The Confederates were trying to break away from the tyrannical government in Washington because Washington didn't care about the Constitution including their Tenth Amendment rights.

LOL. Literally nobody argued secession was legal because of the Tenth Amendment in 1861. Most Confederate politicians agreed secession was illegal, they just didn't care, because their right to continue buying and selling human beings was more important to them. You should read the actual secession ordinances published by the Confederate states instead of parroting ahistorical talking points invented decades after the war to justify a failed rebellion.

(Also, LOL at implying Tom is part of the "radical left.")

It is a common misconception that the Confederacy is about slavery. That is simply not the case. It's about state rights and reducing the power of the federal government. I do not support slavery, but I don't support massive bureaucratic federal governments either. A confederate system is far more efficient and allows states to be more tailored to the desires of the people of those states.

So you dont support the constitution either , because it replaced the prior articles of confederation

Heh, the U.S. would most likely not have survived if the Articles of Confederation remained intact. It was "efficient" all right, if you wanted to have a bunch of separate countries emerging eventually.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

4,5, and 6, but definitely would consider implementing the other ones

#6 would be a violation of the 1st amendment. Is the 1st amendment an "antiquated piece of trash" just like you think the 2nd amendment is?

Deleted post

You know who REALLY thought the Constitution was trash?

... the Confederates.

Why did the care so much about the Tenth Amendment then? The Confederates were trying to break away from the tyrannical government in Washington because Washington didn't care about the Constitution including their Tenth Amendment rights.

LOL. Literally nobody argued secession was legal because of the Tenth Amendment in 1861. Most Confederate politicians agreed secession was illegal, they just didn't care, because their right to continue buying and selling human beings was more important to them. You should read the actual secession ordinances published by the Confederate states instead of parroting ahistorical talking points invented decades after the war to justify a failed rebellion.

(Also, LOL at implying Tom is part of the "radical left.")

It is a common misconception that the Confederacy is about slavery. That is simply not the case. It's about state rights and reducing the power of the federal government. I do not support slavery, but I don't support massive bureaucratic federal governments either. A confederate system is far more efficient and allows states to be more tailored to the desires of the people of those states.

So you dont support the constitution either , because it replaced the prior articles of confederation

Heh, the U.S. would most likely not have survived if the Articles of Confederation remained intact. It was "efficient" all right, if you wanted to have a bunch of separate countries emerging eventually.

So what do you think about the EU? Many of those smaller countries are like states. The EU is like the federal government.

That's rather simplified view. EU authorities, no matter what conspiracy theories junkies or various demagogues like to claim, hardly have the same powers as the U.S. federal government. Certainly much stronger than a barely existent central "government" under the Articles of Confederation, but still. The U.S. is one country, while the EU is still an organization made up of sovereign states, which, as Brexit shows, can elect to leave.

And to answer your question, I'm what they call a "European federalist", who would like to see the EU actually becoming more like the U.S. (the "United States of Europe" is a frequently used term), moving from an organization to a federation with fully democratically elected central government.