Got a questin for my VRCC southern brother and sisters.

[MAD6Gun]

 I just watched a video on Fox of some antifa/BLM arsholes tearing down a confederate mounument in Durham NC. I have heard in the news for months now of many southern cities taking down confederate monument all over because they might offend someone.

 Now my question. How do feel about your history and legacy being erased one step at a time?
Even as a northern "yankee" I find this appaling.  Weather most want to believe it or not, this is history. Whats next? Going into Arlington and removing confederate tombstones or burning down the house there because Robert E Lee once owned it. I dont look at confederate flags or monuments as rasist. Although I find it disgusting to see the Stars and Bars alongside the Nazi swastika flag. at these protests.  I look at it as being your history and your legacy NOT rasism. I compare this too someone going into downtown Fort Wayne IN and removing the statue of Anthony Wayne for whom Fort Wayne was named after. 

[Kep]

Thomas Jefferson owned slaves...better tear down the Jefferson Memorial , destroy all currency with his likeness..etc....You are only offended if you choose to be offended , it is a sign of character weakness . Personally , I don't let others control my thoughts and feelings , I stand for and support what I believe in. Sure , they can influence them , but ultimately it is our choice to not allow them to control how we react .

[signart]

"I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold public office, nor to intermarry with white people."

The Northerners have their own racist monuments to deal with.

[Robert]

I love my country and am pretty much a northerner but tearing down these statues is beyond grotesque. We cannot erase what came before or where our country came from.  I am proud of the spirit that these men fought with and showed courage and conviction. Win or lose they fought died and we have the country today and need to remember the how, why, who of where we are today. I was never a history buff but after doing research and studying the US and its formation I am in awe of so many things about this country. We are truly blessed. I am upset over the lack of protection for these monuments.

[MP]

Same thing as ISIS tearing down monuments.
Same as Nazi Germany burning books.

And, the police stood by, watching them destroy public property, on public land, and did NOTHING!

You think NOTHING would be done, if a bunch started tearing down a Martin Luther King Jr. Monument?  Yeah, right.

[Ramie]

Not just the south.
http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-park-board-to-vote-tonight-on-lake-calhoun-name-change/421157163/

[..]

  I look at it as being your history and your legacy NOT rasism. 

It is all Americas history, yours included.

[..]

Then there's this slice of madness. 

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-lynch-20170808-story.html

Does this mean that Merrill Lynch has to change the company name?

[..]

If all traces of the Confederacy are removed and projecting forward does the country then need the history of the Civil Rights movement?

There's a petition here in Atlanta to change the name of the "Confederate Parkway". I think TucPacway would be pretty good. 

About time this place had its name changed 

Confederate Corners, CA

The madness could be never ending.

[..]

Then change all of these 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._counties_named_after_prominent_Confederate_historical_figures

[Kep]

Personally...White Castle and Cracker Barrell offend me .....hahahaha..

[scooperhsd]

The Civil War was an important part of our country's history, for better or worse. There were heros and villians on both sides. But the Civil War was not entirely (or even mostly) about slavery.

I'd agree with the person who said if we allow thugs to tear down the Confederate Monuments, then other thugs who want to tear down civil rights monuments also ought to be given free reign.

If one is not acceptable, then neither is the other. They are BOTH part of our history.

For those who feel oppressed about the Civil War stuff - get over it. Read your history first.

Robert's post in the Charlottesville thread stated it so elegantly.

[old2soon]

They taught an idea of the Civil War when I went to school. IT-Civil War-IS in the very Fabric of What is in FACT the U S of A. I have Not seen a current curriculum in any school in awhile and just Might be a tad curious as to the What are they teaching the younglings. I Know they barely touched on WW History and barely acknowledged Vietnam when my now 27 year old Daughter was in high school. Wonder do they Even mention irag and iran these days? Far as removing statues monuments that deal with OUR history-What ZACKLY are the few so effin scared of they need to attempt to erase history? Far too many splinter groups of numerically small numbers changing or getting stuff changed for the vast majority. My best analogy? Don't outlaw M/C clubs still wear 1% patches? RIDE SAFE.

[Serk]

[3fan4life]

That would be the means that they are trying to achieve.

And way too many politically correct snowflakes are willing to help them.


A NATION THAT FORGETS IT'S PAST IS DOOMED TO REPEAT IT!

[Savago]

I got a few observations on the matter as an external observer.

I personally think that the historical sites must be preserved (as the same goes for the cemeteries of those that fallen). The first is the wise thing to do (i.e. let's not repeat the errors of the past by remembering what happened) and the second is a matter of the basic human decency.

Next, the reasons for the war were complex (sectionalism, protectionism, states rights, etc), but there is no denying that slavery was at its core. Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Causes_of_secession

One important thing is to let establish that there is a difference between remembering history and celebrating it.

One good case is Germany, let's just say that their recent history is a 'wee little' bloody. I visited 2 cities in Germany along the years: Nuremberg (2010) and Berlin (2012).

They have sections in museums describing the chronology of the events of WWII, the perspective of the Allies and the perspective of the German people (i.e. Nuremberg was basically leveled at the end of the war). Special attention is given to the crimes committed by the nazis. And in the city you main find a few plaques with inscriptions about places of historical importance.

That being said, it is a deep message that is part of the German people mind that what they did was wrong. And that they should never do that again.

Back to the main issue: the Southern states. I only visited Miami (FL), which I feel is not representative of the 'Southern states' (people don't even speak English in the downtown!), so I may be simply ignorant on my assessment.

But from the pictures I see of the statues of Robert E. Lee, I have the impression that they pass a celebrative image than anything else. One good example:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-rally-protest-statue.html

Because of the fact that the loosing side (i.e. the South) doesn't got to tell the story, it became associated to the idea of continuity of slavery. But much beyond that, I feel that USA hasn't yet solved the issue of slavery as part of the history of the country. Unlike Germany where the horrors of nazism are taught on the schools, the horrors of slavery are never discussed at school.

I can understand why some people take offense. Let's do an exercise: imagine that you were jew and while visiting Berlin there was a statue of Paul Hausser (one of the Hittler's generals) in a mighty horse in the middle of a public square. It wouldn't feel nice, right?

Let's do another exercise: imagine that there were statues of General Grant in his horse with General Robert Lee on his feet in a defeat position. It wouldn't feel nice too, right?

Yep. That is my point: unless you have walked a mile on someone else's shoes, you can't really understand how they feel.

Finally, it definitely doesn't help Southerners the fact that 9 out of 10 nazis in America seem to like the confederate flag. Maybe you guys should start hunting nazis for 'cultural misappropriation'?
:-P

Bonus: if you are in a celebrative mood and you can no longer use the confederate flag in USA, there is a place in Brazil were you are welcomed! Check:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33245800
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/rio-2016/2016/04/22/confederate-history-embraced-brazilian-city/83334784/

[signart]

I got a few observations on the matter as an external observer.

I personally think that the historical sites must be preserved (as the same goes for the cemeteries of those that fallen). The first is the wise thing to do (i.e. let's not repeat the errors of the past by remembering what happened) and the second is a matter of the basic human decency.

Next, the reasons for the war were complex (sectionalism, protectionism, states rights, etc), but there is no denying that slavery was at its core. Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Causes_of_secession

One important thing is to let establish that there is a difference between remembering history and celebrating it.

One good case is Germany, let's just say that their recent history is a 'wee little' bloody. I visited 2 cities in Germany along the years: Nuremberg (2010) and Berlin (2012).

They have sections in museums describing the chronology of the events of WWII, the perspective of the Allies and the perspective of the German people (i.e. Nuremberg was basically leveled at the end of the war). Special attention is given to the crimes committed by the nazis. And in the city you main find a few plaques with inscriptions about places of historical importance.

That being said, it is a deep message that is part of the German people mind that what they did was wrong. And that they should never do that again.

Back to the main issue: the Southern states. I only visited Miami (FL), which I feel is not representative of the 'Southern states' (people don't even speak English in the downtown!), so I may be simply ignorant on my assessment.

But from the pictures I see of the statues of Robert E. Lee, I have the impression that they pass a celebrative image than anything else. One good example:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-rally-protest-statue.html

Because of the fact that the loosing side (i.e. the South) doesn't got to tell the story, it became associated to the idea of continuity of slavery. But much beyond that, I feel that USA hasn't yet solved the issue of slavery as part of the history of the country. Unlike Germany where the horrors of nazism are taught on the schools, the horrors of slavery are never discussed at school.

I can understand why some people take offense. Let's do an exercise: imagine that you were jew and while visiting Berlin there was a statue of Paul Hausser (one of the Hittler's generals) in a mighty horse in the middle of a public square. It wouldn't feel nice, right?

Let's do another exercise: imagine that there were statues of General Grant in his horse with General Robert Lee on his feet in a defeat position. It wouldn't feel nice too, right?

Yep. That is my point: unless you have walked a mile on someone else's shoes, you can't really understand how they feel.

Finally, it definitely doesn't help Southerners the fact that 9 out of 10 nazis in America seem to like the confederate flag. Maybe you guys should start hunting nazis for 'cultural misappropriation'?
:-P

Bonus: if you are in a celebrative mood and you can no longer use the confederate flag in USA, there is a place in Brazil were you are welcomed! Check:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33245800
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/rio-2016/2016/04/22/confederate-history-embraced-brazilian-city/83334784/

 First of all you probably wouldn't know a Confederate flag if you saw one. Secondly, you are totally confused about the difference between reasons for succession ( by the wealthy & politicians) and reasons for the war of northern aggression by federal terrorists that was fought by citizens, boys, farmers, old men of the South.
You simply need a history lesson as does the country. Slavery was bad, but the north did not invade the south to free the slaves. They didn't free slaves in the north either. The Negroes were used later to try and gain an advantage when getting close to losing a war despite overwhelming odds in their favor. They are still being used today. Some are even owned by white team owners and traded like slaves.
Lesson 1. Articles of succession and declaration of war are two different things, start with that. The citizens in the trenches didn't read any articles of succession, they were fighting against northern aggression.
Lesson 2.  The South had every right to succeed peacefully in accordance to the 9th and 10th amendments.
Lesson 3. The north wasn't crazy about native Americans either. Your hero Grant took a little time off from Lincoln's War to murder a few of those in northern territories to satisfy his blood thirsty progressive racist president.
Lesson 4. The Cherokee council met and agreed to fight, and did bravely, on the side of the Confederacy to repel the northern invaders only to be chased and slaughtered and lied to repeatedly by the federal government for years following the war.

Just to get you started, but you probably don't want to learn the truth, it wouldn't fit your agenda.

[art]

Not just the south.
http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-park-board-to-vote-tonight-on-lake-calhoun-name-change/421157163/

Drain the lake.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I got a few observations on the matter as an external observer.

I personally think that the historical sites must be preserved (as the same goes for the cemeteries of those that fallen). The first is the wise thing to do (i.e. let's not repeat the errors of the past by remembering what happened) and the second is a matter of the basic human decency.

Next, the reasons for the war were complex (sectionalism, protectionism, states rights, etc), but there is no denying that slavery was at its core. Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Causes_of_secession

One important thing is to let establish that there is a difference between remembering history and celebrating it.

One good case is Germany, let's just say that their recent history is a 'wee little' bloody. I visited 2 cities in Germany along the years: Nuremberg (2010) and Berlin (2012).

They have sections in museums describing the chronology of the events of WWII, the perspective of the Allies and the perspective of the German people (i.e. Nuremberg was basically leveled at the end of the war). Special attention is given to the crimes committed by the nazis. And in the city you main find a few plaques with inscriptions about places of historical importance.

That being said, it is a deep message that is part of the German people mind that what they did was wrong. And that they should never do that again.

Back to the main issue: the Southern states. I only visited Miami (FL), which I feel is not representative of the 'Southern states' (people don't even speak English in the downtown!), so I may be simply ignorant on my assessment.

But from the pictures I see of the statues of Robert E. Lee, I have the impression that they pass a celebrative image than anything else. One good example:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-rally-protest-statue.html

Because of the fact that the loosing side (i.e. the South) doesn't got to tell the story, it became associated to the idea of continuity of slavery. But much beyond that, I feel that USA hasn't yet solved the issue of slavery as part of the history of the country. Unlike Germany where the horrors of nazism are taught on the schools, the horrors of slavery are never discussed at school.

I can understand why some people take offense. Let's do an exercise: imagine that you were jew and while visiting Berlin there was a statue of Paul Hausser (one of the Hittler's generals) in a mighty horse in the middle of a public square. It wouldn't feel nice, right?

Let's do another exercise: imagine that there were statues of General Grant in his horse with General Robert Lee on his feet in a defeat position. It wouldn't feel nice too, right?

Yep. That is my point: unless you have walked a mile on someone else's shoes, you can't really understand how they feel.

Finally, it definitely doesn't help Southerners the fact that 9 out of 10 nazis in America seem to like the confederate flag. Maybe you guys should start hunting nazis for 'cultural misappropriation'?
:-P

Bonus: if you are in a celebrative mood and you can no longer use the confederate flag in USA, there is a place in Brazil were you are welcomed! Check:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33245800
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/rio-2016/2016/04/22/confederate-history-embraced-brazilian-city/83334784/

 First of all you probably wouldn't know a Confederate flag if you saw one. Secondly, you are totally confused about the difference between reasons for succession ( by the wealthy & politicians) and reasons for the war of northern aggression by federal terrorists that was fought by citizens, boys, farmers, old men of the South.
You simply need a history lesson as does the country. Slavery was bad, but the north did not invade the south to free the slaves. They didn't free slaves in the north either. The Negroes were used later to try and gain an advantage when getting close to losing a war despite overwhelming odds in their favor. They are still being used today. Some are even owned by white team owners and traded like slaves.
Lesson 1. Articles of succession and declaration of war are two different things, start with that. The citizens in the trenches didn't read any articles of succession, they were fighting against northern aggression.
Lesson 2.  The South had every right to succeed peacefully in accordance to the 9th and 10th amendments.
Lesson 3. The north wasn't crazy about native Americans either. Your hero Grant took a little time off from Lincoln's War to murder a few of those in northern territories to satisfy his blood thirsty progressive racist president.
Lesson 4. The Cherokee council met and agreed to fight, and did bravely, on the side of the Confederacy to repel the northern invaders only to be chased and slaughtered and lied to repeatedly by the federal government for years following the war.

Just to get you started, but you probably don't want to learn the truth, it wouldn't fit your agenda.

Kind of ironic that you berate Savago and say he is ignorant to the facts. When you don't seem to understand the difference between succeed, secede, secession , succession. 

[Pete]

I got a few observations on the matter as an external observer.

I personally think that the historical sites must be preserved (as the same goes for the cemeteries of those that fallen). The first is the wise thing to do (i.e. let's not repeat the errors of the past by remembering what happened) and the second is a matter of the basic human decency.

Next, the reasons for the war were complex (sectionalism, protectionism, states rights, etc), but there is no denying that slavery was at its core. Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Causes_of_secession

One important thing is to let establish that there is a difference between remembering history and celebrating it.

One good case is Germany, let's just say that their recent history is a 'wee little' bloody. I visited 2 cities in Germany along the years: Nuremberg (2010) and Berlin (2012).

They have sections in museums describing the chronology of the events of WWII, the perspective of the Allies and the perspective of the German people (i.e. Nuremberg was basically leveled at the end of the war). Special attention is given to the crimes committed by the nazis. And in the city you main find a few plaques with inscriptions about places of historical importance.

That being said, it is a deep message that is part of the German people mind that what they did was wrong. And that they should never do that again.

Back to the main issue: the Southern states. I only visited Miami (FL), which I feel is not representative of the 'Southern states' (people don't even speak English in the downtown!), so I may be simply ignorant on my assessment.

But from the pictures I see of the statues of Robert E. Lee, I have the impression that they pass a celebrative image than anything else. One good example:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-rally-protest-statue.html

Because of the fact that the loosing side (i.e. the South) doesn't got to tell the story, it became associated to the idea of continuity of slavery. But much beyond that, I feel that USA hasn't yet solved the issue of slavery as part of the history of the country. Unlike Germany where the horrors of nazism are taught on the schools, the horrors of slavery are never discussed at school.

I can understand why some people take offense. Let's do an exercise: imagine that you were jew and while visiting Berlin there was a statue of Paul Hausser (one of the Hittler's generals) in a mighty horse in the middle of a public square. It wouldn't feel nice, right?

Let's do another exercise: imagine that there were statues of General Grant in his horse with General Robert Lee on his feet in a defeat position. It wouldn't feel nice too, right?

Yep. That is my point: unless you have walked a mile on someone else's shoes, you can't really understand how they feel.

Finally, it definitely doesn't help Southerners the fact that 9 out of 10 nazis in America seem to like the confederate flag. Maybe you guys should start hunting nazis for 'cultural misappropriation'?
:-P

Bonus: if you are in a celebrative mood and you can no longer use the confederate flag in USA, there is a place in Brazil were you are welcomed! Check:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33245800
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/rio-2016/2016/04/22/confederate-history-embraced-brazilian-city/83334784/

 First of all you probably wouldn't know a Confederate flag if you saw one. Secondly, you are totally confused about the difference between reasons for succession ( by the wealthy & politicians) and reasons for the war of northern aggression by federal terrorists that was fought by citizens, boys, farmers, old men of the South.
You simply need a history lesson as does the country. Slavery was bad, but the north did not invade the south to free the slaves. They didn't free slaves in the north either. The Negroes were used later to try and gain an advantage when getting close to losing a war despite overwhelming odds in their favor. They are still being used today. Some are even owned by white team owners and traded like slaves.
Lesson 1. Articles of succession and declaration of war are two different things, start with that. The citizens in the trenches didn't read any articles of succession, they were fighting against northern aggression.
Lesson 2.  The South had every right to succeed peacefully in accordance to the 9th and 10th amendments.
Lesson 3. The north wasn't crazy about native Americans either. Your hero Grant took a little time off from Lincoln's War to murder a few of those in northern territories to satisfy his blood thirsty progressive racist president.
Lesson 4. The Cherokee council met and agreed to fight, and did bravely, on the side of the Confederacy to repel the northern invaders only to be chased and slaughtered and lied to repeatedly by the federal government for years following the war.

Just to get you started, but you probably don't want to learn the truth, it wouldn't fit your agenda.

Kind of ironic that you berate Savago and say he is ignorant to the facts. When you don't seem to understand the difference between succeed, secede, secession , succession. 

That's what you got out of that? Kinda missed the points of both messages. Hummmmmmmmm

[The emperor has no clothes]

I got it.

[Willow]

In fairness, members of the five civilized tribes (residents of modern day Oklahoma) had fighting units on both sides of the War Between the States and among themselves.

[Savago]

@Signart: interesting feedback.

I'm all about truth and learning, so a quick search to the states seceding declarations reveals:
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

From Georgia: "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."

From South Carolina as an example: "For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."

From Mississipi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

And it goes on.

I'm no scholar on the subject but I *guess* slavery was something important in the whole Civil War. Saying otherwise is trying to re-write the history.

ps1: Grant is not my hero. I got no horse in this race (no pun intended).
ps2: Admitting the horrors of slavery doesn't invalidate the onslaught of the native Americans, the later is another bloody stain in the history of the country.

[Valker]

Most of the people who are writing these and similar posts all seem to be trying to judge historical decisions based upon present moral standards. Historical deeds must be judged based on the standards of the time being discussed, NOT on current ideals. The great majority of historical deeds throughout the world can be judged by current people as being "wrong" or "evil".

[The emperor has no clothes]

Most of the people who are writing these and similar posts all seem to be trying to judge historical decisions based upon present moral standards. Historical deeds must be judged based on the standards of the time being discussed, NOT on current ideals. The great majority of historical deeds throughout the world can be judged by current people as being "wrong" or "evil".

Agreed. There is not much sense debating the Civil War. All we can do is what is right in the here and now.

[ridingron]

  Agreed. There is not much sense debating the Civil War. All we can do is what is right in the here and now. 

Who gets to define "right"? Obviously there are difference of opinion on that definition.

[Oss]

Well we do know that the party of South Carolina at the time of the Civil War was the Democratic Party  One could easily, and correctly argue that by entitlements the party is still enslaving millions. By teaching children that they are entitled to something without working for it we demean all people of this country.  Likewise, allowing corporate greed to dominate both parties only serves to put us all in further debt and peril.  I dont have the answers, but I do have questions.


I've recommended this book before
It is NOT fast reading nor is it exciting.
It will give perspective




The Presidents' War: Six American Presidents and the Civil War That Divided Them Paperback

The journey to the Civil war was hardly a short one.  So I have to disagree with my good friend Valker, as the generations between Independence and Reconstruction were many and the 10 commandments were in effect thru all of them.  Killing people for greed, for their land, for whatever is wrong.  Did the USA do it  Yes
of course and it is nothing to be proud of.  So how do we move together as a country?  Lets start with respect.
oss
And IMHO the south had a right to leave the union but think
the Confederacy, due to the industrial revolution, would have collapsed before WWI (If the Germans won WWI would Hitler ever have gained power or would he have been killed by Germans in 1930) and the union would again be whole in time to avoid our losing WWII.  BUT it might not have. So speaking as one who has a whole lot of missing relatives from that war, I am glad the north won and we beat the fascist Nazi machine the 3rd Reich.

I am also glad that Truman de segregated the armed forces which was the catalyst for the RESPECT that I spoke about just now

[The emperor has no clothes]

Well we do know that the party of South Carolina at the time of the Civil War was the Democratic Party  One could easily, and correctly argue that by entitlements the party is still enslaving millions. By teaching children that they are entitled to something without working for it we demean all people of this country.  Likewise, allowing corporate greed to dominate both parties only serves to put us all in further debt and peril.  I dont have the answers, but I do have questions.


I've recommended this book before
It is NOT fast reading nor is it exciting.
It will give perspective




The Presidents' War: Six American Presidents and the Civil War That Divided Them Paperback

The journey to the Civil war was hardly a short one.  So I have to disagree with my good friend Valker, as the generations between Independence and Reconstruction were many and the 10 commandments were in effect thru all of them.  Killing people for greed, for their land, for whatever is wrong.  Did the USA do it  Yes
of course and it is nothing to be proud of.  So how do we move together as a country?  Lets start with respect.
oss
And IMHO the south had a right to leave the union but think
the Confederacy, due to the industrial revolution, would have collapsed before WWI (If the Germans won WWI would Hitler ever have gained power or would he have been killed by Germans in 1930) and the union would again be whole in time to avoid our losing WWII.  BUT it might not have. So speaking as one who has a whole lot of missing relatives from that war, I am glad the north won and we beat the fascist Nazi machine the 3rd Reich.

I am also glad that Truman de segregated the armed forces which was the catalyst for the RESPECT that I spoke about just now

Evan, as a lawyer hailing from the state of New York how would you square the ratifying of the Constitution with your opinion that the South had a right to leave the Union ? This is Madison's and Jeffersons take on it.


 Concerned that the new compact might not sufficiently safeguard states' rights, the anti-federalists sought to insert into the New York ratification message language to the effect that "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."[27] The Madison federalists opposed this, with Hamilton, a delegate at the Convention, reading aloud in response a letter from James Madison stating: "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever" [emphasis added]. Hamilton and John Jay then told the Convention that in their view, reserving "a right to withdraw [was] inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."[27] The New York convention ultimately ratified the Constitution without including the "right to withdraw" language proposed by the anti-federalists.

[3fan4life]

Well we do know that the party of South Carolina at the time of the Civil War was the Democratic Party  One could easily, and correctly argue that by entitlements the party is still enslaving millions. By teaching children that they are entitled to something without working for it we demean all people of this country.  Likewise, allowing corporate greed to dominate both parties only serves to put us all in further debt and peril.  I dont have the answers, but I do have questions.


I've recommended this book before
It is NOT fast reading nor is it exciting.
It will give perspective




The Presidents' War: Six American Presidents and the Civil War That Divided Them Paperback

The journey to the Civil war was hardly a short one.  So I have to disagree with my good friend Valker, as the generations between Independence and Reconstruction were many and the 10 commandments were in effect thru all of them.  Killing people for greed, for their land, for whatever is wrong.  Did the USA do it  Yes
of course and it is nothing to be proud of.  So how do we move together as a country?  Lets start with respect.
oss
And IMHO the south had a right to leave the union but think
the Confederacy, due to the industrial revolution, would have collapsed before WWI (If the Germans won WWI would Hitler ever have gained power or would he have been killed by Germans in 1930) and the union would again be whole in time to avoid our losing WWII.  BUT it might not have. So speaking as one who has a whole lot of missing relatives from that war, I am glad the north won and we beat the fascist Nazi machine the 3rd Reich.

I am also glad that Truman de segregated the armed forces which was the catalyst for the RESPECT that I spoke about just now

Things always have a way of "Working Out".

With hindsight being 20/20 I do believe that the South had to lose the war in order to preserve the union that is The United States of America.

I believe that the majority of the soldiers fighting for the Confederacy were fighting for States Rights and NOT the preservation of Slavery (The majority of them were not slave owners).

I know that the Confederate Army was from the beginning outnumbered and outgunned. It was therefore inevitable from the start that the South would lose.

Us Southerners tend to root for the "underdawg" maybe that's because the Confederacy was the "underdawg" in the Civil War.

Given the numbers the North should have won the war speedily.

Right or wrong the fact the South nearly won the war in the early fighting and was able to fight a superior force for five years, is a source of pride amongst us Southerner's.


And for the record, I am also glad that the United States of America did survive and was around to defeat the forces of evil in both WWI and WWII.      

[signart]

@Signart: interesting feedback.

I'm all about truth and learning, so a quick search to the states seceding declarations reveals:
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

From Georgia: "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."

From South Carolina as an example: "For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."

From Mississipi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

And it goes on.

I'm no scholar on the subject but I *guess* slavery was something important in the whole Civil War. Saying otherwise is trying to re-write the history.

ps1: Grant is not my hero. I got no horse in this race (no pun intended).
ps2: Admitting the horrors of slavery doesn't invalidate the onslaught of the native Americans, the later is another bloody stain in the history of the country.

No denying the articles written by the wealthy and the politicians refer to slavery as component of sucession. Nothing to do with the war.
Southern citizens did not go to battle to fight, kill or die for slavery. The union did not go to war to fight, kill and die to free the slaves. Slavery was used later, as a military tactic in the war as an issue for continuing the fight after support for a peaceful resolution was gaining support from much of the north. The war was fought by the north for money. Money to run a progressive government, unable to sustain itself without the revenue from the south. When the war started, slavery was legal in the United States. How could the war be about slavery?
The southern citizen soldiers fought to defend themselves from the terroristic invaders from the north.
Lincoln's inaugural: "I have no purpose directly or in-directly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exist.. I have no inclination to do so."
Lincoln offered the south 3 months to return to the union and pay a 40% sales tax and keep their slaves. None did.
The war was not even partly to do with slavery. It was all to do about money.    

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Why are they not destroying the pyramids which were actually built using slave labor?

And why am I, who is supposed to have a small amount of American Indian blood running through my veins not offended by nearly everything in modern society?

Oh yeah, it's because I value rationality, history and knowledge.

[The emperor has no clothes]

@Signart: interesting feedback.

I'm all about truth and learning, so a quick search to the states seceding declarations reveals:
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

From Georgia: "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."

From South Carolina as an example: "For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."

From Mississipi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

And it goes on.

I'm no scholar on the subject but I *guess* slavery was something important in the whole Civil War. Saying otherwise is trying to re-write the history.

ps1: Grant is not my hero. I got no horse in this race (no pun intended).
ps2: Admitting the horrors of slavery doesn't invalidate the onslaught of the native Americans, the later is another bloody stain in the history of the country.

No denying the articles written by the wealthy and the politicians refer to slavery as component of sucession. Nothing to do with the war.
Southern citizens did not go to battle to fight, kill or die for slavery. The union did not go to war to fight, kill and die to free the slaves. Slavery was used later, as a military tactic in the war as an issue for continuing the fight after support for a peaceful resolution was gaining support from much of the north. The war was fought by the north for money. Money to run a progressive government, unable to sustain itself without the revenue from the south. When the war started, slavery was legal in the United States. How could the war be about slavery?
The southern citizen soldiers fought to defend themselves from the terroristic invaders from the north.
Lincoln's inaugural: "I have no purpose directly or in-directly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exist.. I have no inclination to do so."
Lincoln offered the south 3 months to return to the union and pay a 40% sales tax and keep their slaves. None did.
The war was not even partly to do with slavery. It was all to do about money.    

Wrong.
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession

[3fan4life]

@Signart: interesting feedback.

I'm all about truth and learning, so a quick search to the states seceding declarations reveals:
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

From Georgia: "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."

From South Carolina as an example: "For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."

From Mississipi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

And it goes on.

I'm no scholar on the subject but I *guess* slavery was something important in the whole Civil War. Saying otherwise is trying to re-write the history.

ps1: Grant is not my hero. I got no horse in this race (no pun intended).
ps2: Admitting the horrors of slavery doesn't invalidate the onslaught of the native Americans, the later is another bloody stain in the history of the country.

No denying the articles written by the wealthy and the politicians refer to slavery as component of sucession. Nothing to do with the war.
Southern citizens did not go to battle to fight, kill or die for slavery. The union did not go to war to fight, kill and die to free the slaves. Slavery was used later, as a military tactic in the war as an issue for continuing the fight after support for a peaceful resolution was gaining support from much of the north. The war was fought by the north for money. Money to run a progressive government, unable to sustain itself without the revenue from the south. When the war started, slavery was legal in the United States. How could the war be about slavery?
The southern citizen soldiers fought to defend themselves from the terroristic invaders from the north.
Lincoln's inaugural: "I have no purpose directly or in-directly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exist.. I have no inclination to do so."
Lincoln offered the south 3 months to return to the union and pay a 40% sales tax and keep their slaves. None did.
The war was not even partly to do with slavery. It was all to do about money.    

Wrong.
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession

The link that you used summarizes many possible causes.

It does not reach a conclusion regarding any one specific cause.

What it does is reinforce the concept that there were many contributing causes to the war.

[The emperor has no clothes]

@Signart: interesting feedback.

I'm all about truth and learning, so a quick search to the states seceding declarations reveals:
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

From Georgia: "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."

From South Carolina as an example: "For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."

From Mississipi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

And it goes on.

I'm no scholar on the subject but I *guess* slavery was something important in the whole Civil War. Saying otherwise is trying to re-write the history.

ps1: Grant is not my hero. I got no horse in this race (no pun intended).
ps2: Admitting the horrors of slavery doesn't invalidate the onslaught of the native Americans, the later is another bloody stain in the history of the country.

No denying the articles written by the wealthy and the politicians refer to slavery as component of sucession. Nothing to do with the war.
Southern citizens did not go to battle to fight, kill or die for slavery. The union did not go to war to fight, kill and die to free the slaves. Slavery was used later, as a military tactic in the war as an issue for continuing the fight after support for a peaceful resolution was gaining support from much of the north. The war was fought by the north for money. Money to run a progressive government, unable to sustain itself without the revenue from the south. When the war started, slavery was legal in the United States. How could the war be about slavery?
The southern citizen soldiers fought to defend themselves from the terroristic invaders from the north.
Lincoln's inaugural: "I have no purpose directly or in-directly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exist.. I have no inclination to do so."
Lincoln offered the south 3 months to return to the union and pay a 40% sales tax and keep their slaves. None did.
The war was not even partly to do with slavery. It was all to do about money.    

Wrong.
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession

The link that you used summarizes many possible causes.

It does not reach a conclusion regarding any one specific cause.

What it does do is reinforce the concept that there were many contributing causes to the war.

Agreed. Signart stated it had nothing to do with slavery. It clearly had a LOT to do with slavery. Otherwise the states would not have sited it so much in their reasoning to secede.

[3fan4life]

@Signart: interesting feedback.

I'm all about truth and learning, so a quick search to the states seceding declarations reveals:
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

From Georgia: "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."

From South Carolina as an example: "For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."

From Mississipi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

And it goes on.

I'm no scholar on the subject but I *guess* slavery was something important in the whole Civil War. Saying otherwise is trying to re-write the history.

ps1: Grant is not my hero. I got no horse in this race (no pun intended).
ps2: Admitting the horrors of slavery doesn't invalidate the onslaught of the native Americans, the later is another bloody stain in the history of the country.

No denying the articles written by the wealthy and the politicians refer to slavery as component of sucession. Nothing to do with the war.
Southern citizens did not go to battle to fight, kill or die for slavery. The union did not go to war to fight, kill and die to free the slaves. Slavery was used later, as a military tactic in the war as an issue for continuing the fight after support for a peaceful resolution was gaining support from much of the north. The war was fought by the north for money. Money to run a progressive government, unable to sustain itself without the revenue from the south. When the war started, slavery was legal in the United States. How could the war be about slavery?
The southern citizen soldiers fought to defend themselves from the terroristic invaders from the north.
Lincoln's inaugural: "I have no purpose directly or in-directly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exist.. I have no inclination to do so."
Lincoln offered the south 3 months to return to the union and pay a 40% sales tax and keep their slaves. None did.
The war was not even partly to do with slavery. It was all to do about money.    

Wrong.
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession

The link that you used summarizes many possible causes.

It does not reach a conclusion regarding any one specific cause.

What it does do is reinforce the concept that there were many contributing causes to the war.

Agreed. Signart stated it had nothing to do with slavery. It clearly had a LOT to do with slavery. Otherwise the states would not have sited it so much in their reasoning to secede.

Dammit it really goes against the grain of nature for me to be in agreement with you about something. 

Oh well at least tomorrow is a brand new day. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

It really goes against my grain to have you on my side.  (not really)

[Willow]

Evan, as a lawyer hailing from the state of New York how would you square the ratifying of the Constitution with your opinion that the South had a right to leave the Union ? This is Madison's and Jeffersons take on it.


 Concerned that the new compact might not sufficiently safeguard states' rights, the anti-federalists sought to insert into the New York ratification message language to the effect that "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."[27] The Madison federalists opposed this, with Hamilton, a delegate at the Convention, reading aloud in response a letter from James Madison stating: "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever" [emphasis added]. Hamilton and John Jay then told the Convention that in their view, reserving "a right to withdraw [was] inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."[27] The New York convention ultimately ratified the Constitution without including the "right to withdraw" language proposed by the anti-federalists.

You've touched upon the reason that the United States of America less than ninety years after its birth was plunged into civil war.  The word, State, does not mean province.  It means nation.  The concept of some, the non-federalists, was that the U.S.A. would be a collection of largely independent states.  They believed that the government of the U.S.A. should not and could not involve itself in dictating the policies of the individual states.  The other group, primarily from northern states, viewed the individual states as participating in and contributing to the stronger government of the U.S.A.  These were the federalists.  Over time the national government under the influence of the more populous northern states was evolving into a more federalist model although even into the beginning of the War the strong independence of each state still persisted in some ways.  In the raising of armies, each state, even in the north, built and contributed its own.  These were not National Guard units, they were the armies of the nation.

Of course slavery played a large part.  It was an issue on which the north and south sharply disagreed and on which the southern states saw that the increasingly federal national government was likely to impose its will on the fiercely independent southern states.  There were other differences, the interests of industry versus agriculture and others, but the War between the States was largely over whether the states would together participate loosely as independent nations in a government, ideally a confederation, or whether the states would behave as the provinces of a strong federal government, a government that was more important and stronger than the individual participants.

Even after the War the U.S.A. retained its name although it should have been changes to U.P.A.  The government did continue to evolve into a stronger and stronger federal government with less and less importance given to individual states.  Today the armies and navy of the U.S.A. are completely devoid of any tie to the individual states from which the members are constricted.

Slavery.  It would indeed have gone away on its own but not as quickly.  The northern industrial states practiced there own form of slavery.  They called them indentured servants.  The War was part of the growth pains of what has become the United States of America.  It is a little difficult for us today in today's culture and political environment to understand the issues and intents that resulted in the War Between the States.            

[The emperor has no clothes]

Evan, as a lawyer hailing from the state of New York how would you square the ratifying of the Constitution with your opinion that the South had a right to leave the Union ? This is Madison's and Jeffersons take on it.


 Concerned that the new compact might not sufficiently safeguard states' rights, the anti-federalists sought to insert into the New York ratification message language to the effect that "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."[27] The Madison federalists opposed this, with Hamilton, a delegate at the Convention, reading aloud in response a letter from James Madison stating: "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever" [emphasis added]. Hamilton and John Jay then told the Convention that in their view, reserving "a right to withdraw [was] inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."[27] The New York convention ultimately ratified the Constitution without including the "right to withdraw" language proposed by the anti-federalists.

You've touched upon the reason that the United States of America less than ninety years after its birth was plunged into civil war.  The word, State, does not mean province.  It means nation.  The concept of some, the non-federalists, was that the U.S.A. would be a collection of largely independent states.  They believed that the government of the U.S.A. should not and could not involve itself in dictating the policies of the individual states.  The other group, primarily from northern states, viewed the individual states as participating in and contributing to the stronger government of the U.S.A.  These were the federalists.  Over time the national government under the influence of the more populous northern states was evolving into a more federalist model although even into the beginning of the War the strong independence of each state still persisted in some ways.  In the raising of armies, each state, even in the north, built and contributed its own.  These were not National Guard units, they were the armies of the nation.

Of course slavery played a large part.  It was an issue on which the north and south sharply disagreed and on which the southern states saw that the increasingly federal national government was likely to impose its will on the fiercely independent southern states.  There were other differences, the interests of industry versus agriculture and others, but the War between the States was largely over whether the states would together participate loosely as independent nations in a government, ideally a confederation, or whether the states would behave as the provinces of a strong federal government, a government that was more important and stronger than the individual participants.

Even after the War the U.S.A. retained its name although it should have been changes to U.P.A.  The government did continue to evolve into a stronger and stronger federal government with less and less importance given to individual states.  Today the armies and navy of the U.S.A. are completely devoid of any tie to the individual states from which the members are constricted.

Slavery.  It would indeed have gone away on its own but not as quickly.  The northern industrial states practiced there own form of slavery.  They called them indentured servants.  The War was part of the growth pains of what has become the United States of America.  It is a little difficult for us today in today's culture and political environment to understand the issues and intents that resulted in the War Between the States.            

well said 

[Oss]

There are several mechanisms which could result in states being able to leave but IMHO it would take a collapse similar to the one that doomed the 1st continental congress

There was no agreement back in the 1770's that no state would be foreclosed from ever deciding to go its own way. My memory of the history is that only with the 2nd continental congress did those arguing for a strong federal government start to gain favor as Willow alluded to.

A constititional amendment could allow states to leave.  What kind of crisis would bring that on?  I hope none.

I think Article IV says NO state can be changed under the constitution without "the consent of congress" and the state itself, this is how west virginia was created from Virginia.  So its possible that congress could assist that process, again I hope not.

I dont think today any state could leave by itself, the federal government aided by the supreme court over the years is just too strong.

I believe I may have had relatives (Rogers is a pretty common name in this country) on both sides of the civil war as many here probably did. Honoring those who served and died is respect for our history.  As I said I am big on respect.

Meathead, I know you took that bit about how a good group of NYers tried to get a specific right to withdraw, right off of Wikipedia, that was good research !

Appreciate the civil discourse on this thread

[bagelboy]

I am 25% Crow Indian, my father 50%. I don't get offended by the Redskins, Indians, or. Black Hawks. I don't get offended by Mount Rushmore, with Jefferson (a slave owner) one of the four. If a monument to Custer were put up, it would not offend me. Do you know why, tolerance, plain and simple! I may not approve of a monument of Custer, but it is part of my history as an American, plain and simple! You can not erase history. Today I am asked to be tolerant of gays, lesbians, trans genders, BLM, and all sorts of movements. I certainly try to be. If we due away with Confederate flags, and statues, it will not end. We will soon be told to do away with the Washington Monument, The Jefferson Memorial, and many other parts of our history. Many great leaders and forefathers owned slaves. Will we rewrite, or do away with most of the great figures of this country? I certainly hope not, because there may not be a country left if we do. Once you start to topple monuments, flags, and history books, I fear we will fall into a place much worse than we now live in! How about some tolerance, it's something I have had to learn in my life.