Erasing the Confederacy -How Far Would you Go?

[RINO Tom]

1 and 5

This, but allow Confederate license plates if the car owner is willing to pay a fee to obtain it from the state. Who are the five voters who want to ban private homeowners from flying a flag? Show yourselves, statists!

One already has:

All of the above.

Yes, and I stand by it. If you're flying it outside of your house, you're exposing it to public view. Nobody should be forced to see such vicious symbol of hatred and oppression.

We have freedom of speech and expression in this country, and I'm frankly thankful we don't abandon that just principle every time it isn't convenient for someone.

[RINO Tom]

I have a Confederate flag sticker on my car right now.  It's all about loving the old ways of doing things

No, it's not.  And care to define "the old ways" of doing things??  I hope you don't mean how the South was regarding civil rights in the past; nobody should "love" that.

[RINO Tom]

Absolutely nothing! History and heritage should be embraced, not erased!

It's not really heritage.

[RINO Tom]

Absolutely nothing! History and heritage should be embraced, not erased!

It's not really heritage.

Imagine if, like, I told one of our Israeli Jewish posters that their Israeli heritage isn’t “real.” You might not like the culture and people of the American south, but it is and will always retain a distinctive culture that is separate from the rest of the country.

I'm happy to concede this, but there's plenty about the American South worth celebrating that doesn't tie back to the Confederacy, at least not directly. My favorite American author (Flannery O'Connor) is POINTEDLY Southern and her stories often deal with race (often in ways that are, as they say, products of her time) but only one deals with the Confederacy at all.

Exactly my point ... the Confederacy should be divorced from the South, and that is a worthwhile goal to undertake.  The South is frickin' awesome; to say I do "not like the culture and people of the American south" is not true.  Food, music, Southern hospitality, some beautiful geography, many wonderful traditions ... all of it is possible - and much better - without celebrating its darkest hour.

[RINO Tom]

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.

Southern heritage is about more than a traitorous and rebellious government that relied on an economic system built on the enslavement of human beings.  You, as a conservative from a non-Southern state, should literally feel zero attachment to the CSA.  Your loyalties should lie with the patriotic Northerners who actually walked the walk on respecting the Constitution and states' rights (Dred Scott, anyone??).

[RINO Tom]

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.

[RINO Tom]

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.

The only people who shlt all over the Tenth Amendment were the completely hypocritical and ideology-less slavery supporters in the South who championed the Dred Scott decision, which was QUITE literally the tyrannical government in Washington ignoring a Northern state's right to treat every man as free on Northern soil.

[RINO Tom]

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

Again, the South cried "states' rights" WHEN it could be used to defend slavery and completely ignored the principle when it couldn't.

This second point is uncomfortable for a depressing number of conservatives and even more liberals, too, but the simple fact is that the CSA was borderline communist.  The confiscation of private property, outlaw of political parties and completely centralized government don't exactly jive with Lost Causers' revisionist telling of the story.

[RINO Tom]

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

Again, the South cried "states' rights" WHEN it could be used to defend slavery and completely ignored the principle when it couldn't.

This second point is uncomfortable for a depressing number of conservatives and even more liberals, too, but the simple fact is that the CSA was borderline communist.  The confiscation of private property, outlaw of political parties and completely centralized government don't exactly jive with Lost Causers' revisionist telling of the story.

How many times do I need to say that I do not support slavery? I don't support "state rights" as in allowing slavery. I support actual state rights and a weaker federal government.

That's good, so do I ... but the Confederates did not.

[RINO Tom]

To say that "the civil war was about slavery" is just reductionist thinking. I am not saying it wasn't an issue, it certainly was an issue but when you consider that;
a) Lincoln himself said said in his inaugural address that he didn't have the lawful right to interfere with slavery.
b) Lincoln's emancipation proclamation was in 1863. The war started in 1861. So slavery isn't made an issue by the North until the second year of the war. Also frees zero slaves.
c)The fugitive slave acts, where escaped slaves would be returned to their owners would no longer be enforceable for slave states that secede.
It becomes clear (at least to me) that things aren't so clear cut with regards to slavery in the war between the states.

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

...the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
  I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration.

...slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free... [States] in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

Doesn't free a single slave he actually has jurisdiction over.

The confederate flag is racist?




symbol of the south and southern pride?



If the flag is racist does this mean that the US flag is racist?

For the record I don't think either flag is inherently racist. What makes the "confederate flag" so much worse?

Is slavery wrong? well duh.

But nobody is saying the Union went to war to stop slavery ... the Union didn't GO to war at all.  The Union responded to an unlawful secession and by extension rebellion against our government, and that secession by the Confederacy was QUITE obviously based on the protection of slavery - an institution they proactively looked to protect against a Republican President - and there is plenty of historical evidence for this, mostly including primary sources by the rebels themselves.