- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Confederate Flag vs. US Flag
Posted on 5/20/16 at 9:14 am to Napoleon
Posted on 5/20/16 at 9:14 am to Napoleon
quote:
Let's face it, had the north had no intention of ever abolishing slavery and there were no limits on new slaves states the south would have never left.
Right. Had the federal government never threatened to overstep it's bounds and trample the states the war wouldn't have happened.
After the war, slavery still existed but states rights were buttfricked.
100 years later people still weren't equal but you're damn sure the federal government consolidated it's power, grew to an enormous grotesque level, and trampled the states.
0
Posted on 5/20/16 at 9:16 am to Napoleon
Nothing about what you wrote is false. The reason why people say it is state's rights is because the fight was over whether the Constitution gave the federal government the power to regulate slavery in the several states. The battle is framed in this way because though slavery was the hottest issue, the state's realized that if the federal government was allowed to increase the scope if its power to those things not so enumerated in the Constitution, there would be virtually nothing it couldn't touch. That would mean, of course, that the states who enjoyed plenary power on issues of health, safety, welfare, and morality, would be left with only illusory power over those things because of the supremacy clause.
It didn't help that the federal government took the position that states could not secede from the union (the perpetual union doctrine). That idea is now the law of the land on the basis of Texas v. White and North v. South.
All of that being said, we talk about states rights in terms of the Civil War because that fight gave birth to the administrative state we now have with agencies, a nearly limitless federal government power, an expansive commerce clause, an expansive 14th amendment, incorporation of the bill of rights to the states, the 17th amendment and so on and so forth.
It didn't help that the federal government took the position that states could not secede from the union (the perpetual union doctrine). That idea is now the law of the land on the basis of Texas v. White and North v. South.
All of that being said, we talk about states rights in terms of the Civil War because that fight gave birth to the administrative state we now have with agencies, a nearly limitless federal government power, an expansive commerce clause, an expansive 14th amendment, incorporation of the bill of rights to the states, the 17th amendment and so on and so forth.
This post was edited on 5/20/16 at 9:24 am
Posted on 5/20/16 at 9:20 am to therick711
Abraham Lincoln:
He knew he needed a cause to rally people around the idea of a massive consolidated federal government.
Also, he denied constantly that he was an abolishonist:
I wish that quote was on a plaque the size of the Lincoln Memorial right next to the memorial itself.
quote:
Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. Consequently he who molds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed
He knew he needed a cause to rally people around the idea of a massive consolidated federal government.
Also, he denied constantly that he was an abolishonist:
quote:
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, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
I wish that quote was on a plaque the size of the Lincoln Memorial right next to the memorial itself.
This post was edited on 5/20/16 at 9:24 am
Posted on 5/20/16 at 9:22 am to therick711
quote:
the state's realized that if the federal government was allowed to increase the scope if its power to those things not so enumerated in the constitution, there would be virtually nothing it could touch. That would mean, of course, that the states who enjoyed plenary power on issues of health, safety, welfare, and morality, would be left with only illusory power over those things because of the supremacy clause.
It didn't help that the federal government took the position that states could not secede from the union (the perpetual union doctrine). That idea is now the law of the land on the basis of Texas v. White and North v. South.
All of that being said, we talk about states rights in terms of the civil war because that fight gave birth to the administrative state we now have with agencies, a nearly limitless federal government power, an expansive commerce clause, an expansive 14th amendment, incorporation of the bill of rights to the states, the 17th amendment and so on and so forth.
This. All of it.
Posted on 5/20/16 at 9:22 am to heypaul
quote:
I wish people would learn the difference between the Confederate Flag and the Confederate Battle Flag
I have this flag.
Posted on 5/20/16 at 9:38 am to RandySavage
Two main goals of the modern activist:
1) Be offended by whatever you need to be offended by to in order to make you feel better about yourself.
2) Only propose solutions that don't require you to do any work, spend any of your money, or make any tangible sacrifice.
Being offended by symbols easily fills both roles. There's a reason the confederate flag issue is somehow a [current year] issue. People collectively feel guilty about the persistent racial gaps in American culture. Being "offended" by stuff offers them a simple way to feel better about out themselves without lifting a finger to help.
1) Be offended by whatever you need to be offended by to in order to make you feel better about yourself.
2) Only propose solutions that don't require you to do any work, spend any of your money, or make any tangible sacrifice.
Being offended by symbols easily fills both roles. There's a reason the confederate flag issue is somehow a [current year] issue. People collectively feel guilty about the persistent racial gaps in American culture. Being "offended" by stuff offers them a simple way to feel better about out themselves without lifting a finger to help.
Posted on 5/20/16 at 9:38 am to therick711
quote:
The reason why people say it is state's rights is because the fight was over whether the Constitution gave the federal government the power to regulate slavery in the several states. The battle is framed in this way because though slavery was the hottest issue, the state's realized that if the federal government was allowed to increase the scope if its power to those things not so enumerated in the Constitution, there would be virtually nothing it couldn't touch.
See I have trouble accepting this as the primary concern because if that was the case, you would have seen widespread dissent instead of the very regional dissent that took place.
You can frame it many ways, but slavery was the primary concern of the South.
Look, I was born and raised in the South and still live here. I've got no problems with the Confederate states and motives at the time, and I'm not disillusioned to the point of believing the North came in to save the day nor were they heroes, but the leaps made to avoid discussing slavery in the South is ridiculous.
Posted on 5/20/16 at 9:42 am to slackster
I don't disagree. Narrowing the focus misses the point, though. The war's consequences were so much larger than slavery, limiting the discussion to that would be akin to discussing Lincoln's assassination in only terms of one man losing his life--technically true, but too narrowly focused for a full understanding.
This post was edited on 5/20/16 at 9:43 am
Posted on 5/20/16 at 9:43 am to Breesus
I mean even if you want to make it purely a states' rights issue, slavery was the right that the South felt so strongly about that they left the fricking country.
Posted on 5/20/16 at 9:44 am to slackster
You could easily frame it as the federal government claiming power not enumerated in the Constitution that just happened to be the power to regulate slavery with the purpose of targeting southern political power and capital.
This post was edited on 5/20/16 at 9:46 am
Posted on 5/20/16 at 9:46 am to slackster
Yes but the main cause and main outcomes of the war weren't slavery.
They were the federal government cementing and consolidating absolute power.
They were the federal government cementing and consolidating absolute power.
Posted on 5/20/16 at 9:46 am to BobBarker
quote:
Because the Army of Northern Virginia was a bunch of frickboys who got their ignorant asses handed to them by the much superior Army of the Potomac. Personally I think if you want to look like an ignorant dumbass and fly the Stars and Bars you can go right along with it. Why do you want to fly the colors of a bunch of losers anyway? You're basically flying the official flag of suckage anyway. Sherman and Grant handed your ancestors their own asses on their home turf. God the Confederacy sucked.
USA-1
CSA-0
This. Sherman was the GOAT General. (and the first president of LSU)
Posted on 5/20/16 at 9:52 am to therick711
Well sure the consequences have been far-reaching, and I'm a states' rights advocate, but I'm not going to give the Southern leaders credit for having the forethought to see all the issues that would eventually appear. We can point back to the Civil War as a huge loss for states' rights and a precedent that changed the course of the country, but if you could talk to the average Joe in the 1860s, they just wanted to keep their slaves.
That's just the way it was. No point in glossing over it because it makes it seem like it's something were still trying to hide. That's the way people thought across the entire country for the most part. It's something we should learn from and move on.
That's just the way it was. No point in glossing over it because it makes it seem like it's something were still trying to hide. That's the way people thought across the entire country for the most part. It's something we should learn from and move on.
Posted on 5/20/16 at 9:54 am to slackster
quote:
the average Joe in the 1860s, they just wanted to keep their slaves.
The average joe in the 1860s didn't have slaves. The slave trade had been ended for almost half a century. The Bourgeois were the ones that had slaves. Average Joe had just about nothing.
The South was concerned about the Republican platform to add more territories without slaves. It was about power. The North refused to recognize the secession because it properly understood that allowing states to secede would turn the U.S. into squabbling fiefdoms and destroy the policy of manifest destiny.
This post was edited on 5/20/16 at 10:09 am
Posted on 5/20/16 at 9:55 am to BobBarker
quote:
Because the Army of Northern Virginia was a bunch of frickboys who got their ignorant asses handed to them by the much superior Army of the Potomac.
What is wrong with people that make these statements? The Civil War is over, dipshit. You aren't hurting anyone's feelings by saying this. And, speaking as a whole, considering the supplies, troop strength, etc... of the Union Army, there wasn't a lot of "arse whoopin" going on. Lee many times took his much smaller army, divided it, and won many battles this way. His great failure was consolidated his forces and fighting power vs. power against an army larger in size, armament, and supplies than itself at gettysburg.
There were brilliant generals on both sides. The South had some of the most brilliant tacticians. If the Union had the Souths generals, the South would have been defeated much sooner, IMO.
The union, had some great generals as well. Sherman, despite all the hate, was a very smart tactician. The North suffered from many generals, however, that were too hesitant to commit to battle, and waited too long for reinforcements before engaging in battle.
quote:
You're basically flying the official flag of suckage anyway
quote:
Sherman and Grant handed your ancestors their own asses on their home turf. God the Confederacy sucked.
Weird. I'm from Louisiana, and my ancestors didn't arrive in Louisiana until 1880's. Who are you referring to specifically, you ignorant arse?
Posted on 5/20/16 at 9:57 am to Breesus
It's pretty cut and dry Breesus - if the South could have kept their slaves and slavery-based economy, there would have been no war. That was the sacred state right that couldn't be touched, and when it became clear it was going away, we bailed the Union.
Posted on 5/20/16 at 9:59 am to slackster
quote:
t's pretty cut and dry Breesus - if the South could have kept their slaves and slavery-based economy, there would have been no war. That was the sacred state right that couldn't be touched, and when it became clear it was going away, we bailed the Union.
That isn't a correct summation. When it became clear that the Republicans were going to admit territories they forbid to have slaves into the union to impose the federal government's will over that of the people of given states, the Southern states seceded. The North then waged a war to keep the union intact.
This post was edited on 5/20/16 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 5/20/16 at 9:59 am to gamatt53
quote:
uneducated
quote:
identy
Classic
Posted on 5/20/16 at 10:03 am to BobBarker
quote:
Personally I think if you want to look like an ignorant dumbass and fly the Stars and Bars you can go right along with it.
Calling people ignorant and not knowing what the Stars and Bars is in the same sentence.
Posted on 5/20/16 at 10:03 am to therick711
Average Joe was a bad way to put it, you're right. I should have stuck with the people in power.
Your second paragraph illustrates my point though - every issue centered around slavery. They were trying to add free states and diminish the power of slave states. They wanted to maintain their way of life that centered around slavery..
Your second paragraph illustrates my point though - every issue centered around slavery. They were trying to add free states and diminish the power of slave states. They wanted to maintain their way of life that centered around slavery..
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News