In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Confederate Battle Flag - Separate Argument

Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,692 ✭✭✭✭
edited July 2015 in General Discussion
I personally cannot see how a person today can see the Confederate Battle Flag as a symbol of oppression. Those that seek out different ways to be offended have latched onto it now, and it is termed a divisive symbol by folks that never gave it a second thought a couple of years ago.

However, as this discussion rages, we are again faced with the myth that the War of Southern Rebellion was not about slavery.

On the surface, that statement is correct. It was about separating from the Union. The North liked the revenue stream from the South, and when fired upon, returned fire until the rebellion was put down.

Lets disabuse ourselves, however, from the false statements regarding why individual states chose to secede.

Below is the South Carolina Declaration of causes.

There is one issue that seems to be paramount, is there not?


Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. 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. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
Adopted December 24, 1860

This is not presented to diminish what I believe to have been the correctness of the assertion that South Carolina had the right to secede from the Union. It is only presented to show in no uncertain terms the primary motivation to do so in the hopes that as the discussion moves forward we can all operate from the same set of facts.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

Brad Steele

Comments

  • fideaufideau Member Posts: 11,895 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The WBTS was started by Lincoln to force the seceding states to stay in the Union. The reasons for states wanting to leave the Union was not the major reason. Lincoln's stated reason for going to war was to hold the Union together, not free slaves.
    Slavery is and was an abhorrent practice. I hate the thought of it.
    Making it the issue for war only came much later when justification and political hay for wasting hundreds of thousands of lives and millions in property became necessary.

    Discrimination and racism was not purely a Southern problem. It is and was just as prevalent in the North and all over the country. Anybody that denies that is FOS. The WBTS did not end all the grievances, it only finally ended slavery. I'm OK with that.

    So slavery may be a cause enough for a state to secede.
    But war was about not letting that state secede.
    War would have been the result had any other reason been given to secede.

    Revisionist history was and is used to justify using Southern states for political and economical purposes and ignoring the failures of the welfare system created mostly by Northern libs and their rainbow dreams.
  • pwilliepwillie Member Posts: 20,253 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    .......and????[:o)] I am a States Rights person.....I think all states should be able to determine their own destiny....Ma., if they are Liberals,so be it,...Texas should determine the borders,and the Federal Gov. should protect them.Every state should make their own laws,not the Federal Gov.If you don't like a law...move....[:o)]
  • sharpshooter039sharpshooter039 Member Posts: 5,897 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I dont think anybody believes Slavery had nothing to do with it,,it did,,but in truth it had a VERY Small part in the start of the war. this is also in their declaration.
    ;''In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do""
    The war was over States rights of which SLAVERY WAS ONE but not the only one. Commerce, over taxation and the belief the people of America fought the Revolutionary War to be free of such.. Lincoln did not care about the Slaves and that is easy to prove from his inauguration address or the fact that he only freed the Slaves in the States rebelling,
  • sharpshooter039sharpshooter039 Member Posts: 5,897 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.
    "My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.
    "I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, 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," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year.
    There is no proof of Lincoln ever declaring the war was fought to abolish slavery, and without such an official statement, the war-over-slavery teaching remains a complete lie
  • sharpshooter039sharpshooter039 Member Posts: 5,897 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Ill., speech, he explained, "My declarations upon this subject of negro slavery may be misrepresented, but can not be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "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.
  • sharpshooter039sharpshooter039 Member Posts: 5,897 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." But that was Lincoln's 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
    Why didn't Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?
  • sharpshooter039sharpshooter039 Member Posts: 5,897 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Just a few truths to show the civil war,,like most wars was over money and taxation..
  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 3,148 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by fideauSo slavery may be a cause enough for a state to secede.
    But war was about not letting that state secede.
    War would have been the result had any other reason been given to secede. They didn't have "any other reason." They wanted to get away from the political process which was threatening abolition.

    They also may have wanted to get away from the side of the nation without a trade surplus with the rest of the world.
  • pwilliepwillie Member Posts: 20,253 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Seems like we have read this book before...
  • nordnord Member Posts: 6,106
    edited November -1
    If the underlying cause of the war was slavery, then pray tell why slavery was not abolished in the north with the Emancipation Proclimation? I grew up in the little town of Poland, NY. Just west of town was a fair sized island located in the West Canada Creek. Stories had it that slaves were allowed to have their gardens on the island. Being young and having been taught that slavery was a southern thing, I thought nothing of it. Just a story.

    And I continued to think nothing of it until I cracked open a history of Herkimer County, NY and learned that the parents of three of my grade school teachers were slave owners! This in northern NY! Certainly they didn't hold (own) any great number of slaves such as might be found in the south but here were good northern Protestants who owned human beings. Not a pretty thought though I believe it's true that these people were not mistreated to any great degree. But they still were slaves!

    Slavery was certainly an issue between north and south in the decades prior to the war. It was one of the reasons for the war but not THE reason. Lincoln, whatever one might think, used the subject of slavery to his best advantage. To this day I believe it's difficult to pin down Lincoln's true feelings on the subject.

    Back to the Stars and Bars... It was the battle flag of the south. If you believe the war was about slavery, then I suppose you could somehow tie it to racial hatred. On the other hand, if you look at the whole picture, it's fair enough to state that slavery was one of the issues between north and south but not cause for war. The thing is that slavery was one of many issues between north and south and the period prior to the war was in no way comparable to anything we who are alive today can comprehend.

    That anyone would be offended by this flag is beyond me, other than that it has been used (abused) by those who hate. If we in this crazy nation allow haters to own what was never theirs, then they win. Worse yet, those who clamor for the removal of this honorable symbol succeed, they'll consider it a victory and never realize it was just the opposite.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,692 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by sharpshooter039
    Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.
    "My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.
    "I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, 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," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year.
    There is no proof of Lincoln ever declaring the war was fought to abolish slavery, and without such an official statement, the war-over-slavery teaching remains a complete lie


    Why do Lincoln's attitudes matter? We know he fought the war to preserve the union. We know that he stated repeatedly that he would be fine with the preservation of the Union with our without slavery.

    For his motivations to matter, one would have to believe he started the war. Remind me now who fired the first shots.

    Secession was primarily over the preservation of slavery. This is not speculation and this is not opinion. It is what was stated as the primary reason in the Declarations of Causes, it is included in one of the two significant changes in the Constitution of the Confederacy, and it is featured prominently in speeches by both Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens.

    To deny these simple facts is disingenuous. It does not change the fact, IMO, that the Confederacy had every right to exist; that secession for whatever cause should have been respected by the states that remained in the Union.

    If we are not honest about our history, we are no better than any others that wish to deny or hide it.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • medic07medic07 Member Posts: 5,222 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Slavery was a central point in the reasons for the war, but not in the way that many people believe it to be. It is taught that the war started to free the slaves. That is incorrect.

    One of the principle reasons for secession was that many of the Northern states refused to abide by the law requiring them to return escaped slaves. While today we cannot imagine slavery as an accepted practice, it was at that time. The states felt that they were having their rights ignored as outlined under the Constitutional agreement.

    Once the states declared secession, then the Federal Govt was put in the untenable position of having to bring them back into the Union. As stated, most of the agricultural and shipping was done out of the Southern US and they raised levy through tariffs. To allow the Southern states to leave would have impacted the funding for the Federal level.

    Slavery was a keystone of the reasons to secede but not the sole reason.

    As to the Battle Flag I see where many see it as a symbol of hatred. Not because of the slavery issue or even the CW. It is because it was taken up as a standard by racists groups to terrorize the black people who were now free. This became more prevalent in the 1920s and on when you saw the KKK carrying the Stars and Bars and then when the Skinhead groups later in the 20th century started to use it as well.

    The flag became adultered because of these groups.

    I do not wish to see it banned or have it removed from sites. However I do think that it needs not be on the grounds of any capitol unless it is part of a memorial.

    If a person wishes to fly the flag, they have that right under the 1st Amendment. Just as anyone has the right to fly any flag they wish. I see Mexican flags in Texas all the time. As long as it is not replacing the American flag I have no problem. People should be proud of their heritage. The Battle flag happens to be part of the American heritage and history.

    Now to really confuse people, under what flag were more slaves held? The American flag is the answer. Slavery existed as an institution in the USA for much longer than under the CSA.
  • WarbirdsWarbirds Member Posts: 16,936 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I am a little lost myself.

    Where is the absolute outrage at ALL of the rap songs that use the N-word?
  • mogley98mogley98 Member Posts: 18,291 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Looks like the violation of the Constitution by the Federal government was the cause of the war and that violation included the States rights to property and slavery. But it was the violation of the Constitution clearly more importantly not Slavery. Good Job pointing that out Don.
    Why don't we go to school and work on the weekends and take the week off!
  • JnRockwallJnRockwall Member Posts: 16,350 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    read the Corwin Amendment?
  • JamesRKJamesRK Member Posts: 25,670 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by pwillie
    .......and????[:o)] I am a States Rights person.....I think all states should be able to determine their own destiny....Ma., if they are Liberals,so be it,...Texas should determine the borders,and the Federal Gov. should protect them.Every state should make their own laws,not the Federal Gov.If you don't like a law...move....[:o)]

    That's basically what the war was about. From 1776 until 1865 we had THESE United States of America. In 1865 it became THE United States of America.
    The road to hell is paved with COMPROMISE.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,692 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by pwillie
    .......and????[:o)] I am a States Rights person.....I think all states should be able to determine their own destiny....Ma., if they are Liberals,so be it,...Texas should determine the borders,and the Federal Gov. should protect them.Every state should make their own laws,not the Federal Gov.If you don't like a law...move....[:o)]


    I believe I have stated many times that I am in agreement with this.

    The purpose of this thread was/is educational as it brings to the forefront the actual verbiage that was used in the various declarations of independence (as it were) of the soon to be Confederate States.

    The motivation for this educational thread has been the unending proclamations both on GB and in the media quoting people that the War of Southern Rebellion had noting to do with what the individual states all said their leaving the Union was about.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
Sign In or Register to comment.