Southern pride gone wrong!

[fortwildernessishome]

You have just made my point. Times change, customs change, meanings change. What was socially acceptable 50 years ago may not be so today, and vice versa. These changes may be negative or positive depending on the point of view of the individual, but these changes have occurred, and they are usually permanent.

"gay" no longer means happy
"colored" or the "N" word are no longer acceptable terms
bullying is no longer an accepted part of childhood
children can longer buy cigarettes, or work in mines

What is socially acceptable changes from generation to generation. The confederate flag is no longer felt to be socially acceptable in most situations. Most people know this. Whether it is meant to be, or not, it is offensive to a lot of people, much the same way the swastika is (and I truly cannot believe that when you see a swastika you do not think "nazi")

Again, I can only think of a few reasons, and they are not good ones, that someone would actively choose to alienate and offend the community in which they live.

I agree with this, especially the last sentence!!

 

[princessmom29]

I agree with this, especially the last sentence!!

so should we just accept the social norm, even when we think it is wrong, or try to change it??

 

[Toad_Passenger]

Quick question for the Southern historians in this thread.

If secession was about the Federal Government overstepping their boundaries in regards to the rights of States (including the Plantation-Economy & Slavery). Why, then, does the CSA Constitution claim that the States had to abide by the new Confederate Federal Government's slavery laws?

In other words, they said they seceded because of States' Rights, but then, their own constitution did nothing for the States' Rights.

It doesn't add up.

 

[princessmom29]

Quick question for the Southern historians in this thread.

If secession was about the Federal Government overstepping their boundaries in regards to the rights of States (including the Plantation-Economy & Slavery). Why, then, does the CSA Constitution claim that the States had to abide by the new Confederate Federal Government's slavery laws?

In other words, they said they seceded because of States' Rights, but then, their own constitution did nothing for the States' Rights.

It doesn't add up.

The constitution says no state shall prohibit slavery. Basically it was about not denying rights already established. Like the bill of rights. States were prohibited from violating it becuase they were basic rights already established at the formation of the government. From thier point of view I can see not wanting thier rights setpped on yet agian. By the end of the war they had gotten a little bit more perspective and the veiw of slavery as a right was all but gone.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

The constitution says no state shall prohibit slavery. Basically it was about not denying rights already established. Like the bill of rights. States were prohibited from violating it becuase they were basic rights already established at the formation of the government. From thier point of view I can see not wanting thier rights setpped on yet agian. By the end of the war they had gotten a little bit more perspective and the veiw of slavery as a right was all but gone.

But, in essence, putting this line in the Constitution proves, to a point, that a MAJOR part of secession was to set a Federal Standard for slavery that would be irrevocable. Kind of different from some secret 30-year plan, no?

 

[kiddo76]

So then the Confederacy thought that owning people was such a basic right that it shouldn't be left up to individual states to decide for themselves.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Quick question for the Southern historians in this thread.

If secession was about the Federal Government overstepping their boundaries in regards to the rights of States (including the Plantation-Economy & Slavery). Why, then, does the CSA Constitution claim that the States had to abide by the new Confederate Federal Government's slavery laws?

In other words, they said they seceded because of States' Rights, but then, their own constitution did nothing for the States' Rights.

It doesn't add up.

Not sure where you got that. Here is the section on powers prohibited of the states:

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

1. No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility.

2. No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports, or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the Confederate States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of Congress.

3. No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, except on seagoing vessels, for the improvement of its rivers and harbors navigated by the said vessels; but such duties shall not conflict with any treaties of the Confederate States with foreign nations; and any surplus revenue thus derived shall, after making such improvement, be paid into the common treasury. Nor shall any State keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. But when any river divides or flows through two or more States they may enter into compacts with each other to improve the navigation thereof.

The states had very broad powers and could decide not to allow for slavery - they just couldn't interfere with slavery ownership in other states.

 

[LIDisneyFan]

 

[brunette8706]

Yes, certainly .... so let's all ignore....

....the friendly "artwork" left on the Robert E. Lee monument in Richmond, VA last April. This act of vandalism was completely ignored by the national media. One can only imagine what the press would have done is this had happened to the Lincoln Memorial. It would have been immediately labeled a vicious hate crime and strident demands would have been made for the FBI to track down those responsible...

...and the now extinct "Colonel Reb" mascot of the University of Mississippi. He was dumped in 2003 due to pressure from PC elements. But the old south element at Old Miss football games was still too tangible for the history scrubbers, so they went on to get the school's fight song "From Dixie with Love" banned in 2009. However, to the chagrin of the PC censors, fans do still get out a "south will rise again" cheer from time to time...

...and this ceremony prior to the Auburn University Kappa Alpha Fraternity annual "Old South" parade. The event -- which was started to honor the 1865 founders of the fraternity -- ended in 1993 because police could not guarantee protection to the participants from "protestors"....

...and this picture from March 20, 1948, when Actor James Baskett received a special Academy Award for his heart-warming characterization of Uncle Remus, friend and story teller to the children of the world in Walt Disney's 'Song of the South'"...

...an unforgettable characterization, which was thrown to the trash heap in a seminal moment in March 2010, when "demonize the Old South" politics won a critical victory at the Disney annual meeting. In response to a question from a shareholder about why "Song of the South" has not been released on home video in the U.S., Disney CEO Robert Iger states there are no plans to ever re-release the 1946 movie -- which Walt Disney considered to be his live action masterpiece -- in any format and refers to the film as "antiquated" and "fairly offensive".

*
Can someone please explain to me why the Song of the South is offensive? Thanks! Brunette

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

AH yes, the fictional Clampetts. Notice they hoist the Confederate Flag, yet weren't racist in the least.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

...Can someone please explain to me why the Song of the South is offensive? Thanks! Brunette

Google "tar baby"...

 

[Toad_Passenger]

Not sure where you got that. Here is the section on powers prohibited of the states:

The states had very broad powers and could decide not to allow for slavery - they just couldn't interfere with slavery ownership in other states.

However that right did not exist to new states entering the Confederacy as stated in Article 4, Section 3.3

In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

This, to me, is establishing a Federal mandate for slavery to exist within the CSA.

 

[LIDisneyFan]

AH yes, the fictional Clampetts. Notice they hoist the Confederate Flag, yet weren't racist in the least.

And one even had a 6th grade education.

 

[luvsJack]

And one even had a 6th grade education.

What exactly are iyou nsinuating?

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

Was this put in when the Confederate States chose to become part of the Union? If it was, I'm sure it was put in BEFORE they chose to abolish slavery on the 30 year timeline. Whatever it was meant to do, it shows the Union solidly told the Confederate States they would allow them to continue to use slaves and then decided to change that. I would believe that to be highly illegal and suspect.

Is it any wonder the Confederate States Congress hightailed it and took up their arms to protect themselves and their way of life?

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

However that right did not exist to new states entering the Confederacy as stated in Article 4, Section 3.3



This, to me, is establishing a Federal mandate for slavery to exist within the CSA.

That is a misinterpretation - it is saying that any new states are forced to recognize slavery laws in the confederacy - which are set on a state by state basis. It does not say that new states have to allow for legal slavery within the new state itself. In other words, if a new state wants to make slave ownership illegal, it can. However, if a person from another confederate state were to come into that state, with a slave in tow, they would not be allowed to "free" that slave by virtue of that state's slavery laws. The slavery laws of the state in which the person and slave reside determine the rights of each.

 

[princessmom29]

But, in essence, putting this line in the Constitution proves, to a point, that a MAJOR part of secession was to set a Federal Standard for slavery that would be irrevocable. Kind of different from some secret 30-year plan, no?

Wether you beleiev it or not, such a plan existed, as many others here have stated. It came to be AFTER this constitution which, admittedly, was reactionary. The CSA was tired of the rules of the game changing constantly on a whim with the Union.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

Wether you beleiev it or not, such a plan existed, as many others here have stated. It came to be AFTER this constitution which, admittedly, was reactionary. The CSA was tired of the rules of the game changing constantly on a whim with the Union.

Regardless of what existed, and when, the acts by the leaders of the CSA prove that slavery, and not States' rights were the real reason behind their secession.

Truth be told, however, it wasn't the actual owning of slaves they were fighting for, but for the Plantation-style economy, based around free labor. With the Northern states moving towards a different style of economy, the idea of free labor, which was basically the machine behind the Southern States' economies was wholly at risk.

I honestly believe, at that point, Plantation owners would have taken anybody (African, Native, German, Dutch, Irish) as a slave in order to keep the free labor economy alive.

In the end, so many Southerners hold the Union responsible for the loss of lives, but, honestly, it was the wealthy plantation owners (only about 5% of the population) who forced the secession because they did not want to concede their positions of wealth and power.

On the flip side, it should be noted that the Northern factory owners did not want to concede their positions either, it's just the North had grown so large in population, they held all the cards in Congress.

 

[princessmom29]

Regardless of what existed, and when, the acts by the leaders of the CSA prove that slavery, and not States' rights were the real reason behind their secession.

Truth be told, however, it wasn't the actual owning of slaves they were fighting for, but for the Plantation-style economy, based around free labor. With the Northern states moving towards a different style of economy, the idea of free labor, which was basically the machine behind the Southern States' economies was wholly at risk.

I honestly believe, at that point, Plantation owners would have taken anybody (African, Native, German, Dutch, Irish) as a slave in order to keep the free labor economy alive.

In the end, so many Southerners hold the Union responsible for the loss of lives, but, honestly, it was the wealthy plantation owners (only about 5% of the population) who forced the secession because they did not want to concede their positions of wealth and power.

On the flip side, it should be noted that the Northern factory owners did not want to concede their positions either, it's just the North had grown so large in population, they held all the cards in Congress.

whatever makes you sleep better at night. 90% of southerns at the time didn't own slaves, so I really don't see how the war could have been all about thier right to own slaves. You do relaize the "paid" fatory workers in the north weren't any better off, right?? They were worked long hours for low pay and most were indebted to thier bosses to the point that they were , defacto, slaves to them. The whole "sold my soul to the company store" idea.

 

[punkin]

Regardless of what existed, and when, the acts by the leaders of the CSA prove that slavery, and not States' rights were the real reason behind their secession.

Truth be told, however, it wasn't the actual owning of slaves they were fighting for, but for the Plantation-style economy, based around free labor. With the Northern states moving towards a different style of economy, the idea of free labor, which was basically the machine behind the Southern States' economies was wholly at risk.

I honestly believe, at that point, Plantation owners would have taken anybody (African, Native, German, Dutch, Irish) as a slave in order to keep the free labor economy alive.

In the end, so many Southerners hold the Union responsible for the loss of lives, but, honestly, it was the wealthy plantation owners (only about 5% of the population) who forced the secession because they did not want to concede their positions of wealth and power.

On the flip side, it should be noted that the Northern factory owners did not want to concede their positions either, it's just the North had grown so large in population, they held all the cards in Congress.

Yes.