The Confederate Constitution & Slavery:

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

I have no idea what you mean by me loosing when you bring Christ into the discussion.

Don't worry about it. You are not under law, but under grace.

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

JoeBandy,

I honestly see a parallel to the argument you are making in another related area of Americana.


There are black people today, many black people today, who taken the word nigger, modified to the word nigga, and now nigga is used in a variety of situations, but most often as a term of endearment.

There are but two differences, but they are minor differences.

1) Nigga is a modified version of the original where the rebel flag is the original.

2) I don't know very many black, Holy Ghost filled Christians who use any form of the original word. I wonder why don't they though? I mean, it is their right as Americans AND it is a show of strength (right?) to take a word with such a sordid meaning and turn into something that means what they want it to mean.


So, my main point in all this is that you are not alone.

JD I spent a good part of my 20s and 30s as an Insurance Agent for a home service company. 95% of my book of business was in Fayette,MS. Look it up its almost all African- Americans. I loved my people and they loved me. So believe me I heard the word Nigga all the time but not very often with the ER on the end. SO I say yea that is a good parallel. Take the time and look up why the confederate flag was red white and blue with crossbars with stars. SO the original meaning has been very altered.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It does matter. You theorize that the slave trade would have ended and so it isn't important that the Confederacy established a slave holder's republic.

We're saying that the Confederates deliberately established a slave holder's republic in their own Constitution and by their own words. Actual factual documentation. Their own constitution.

The slave holding States were already "slave holding republics" before they seceded and formed the Confederacy. All 13 of the original States of the USA were slave holding republics. Thus the USA at one time was entirely a republic of such republics. So those SEVEN States that established the CSA were basically maintaining status quo. So save your self-righteous outrage.

That brings me to another point. The CSA only had seven constituent members for the first few months of its existence. When the Ft. Sumter incident happened, there were still more slave states in the Union than in the CSA. The States of the upper-south would not have seceded had Sumter not been illegally occupied to start a war. Virginia assured Lincoln three days before the fort was fired on that if he took no action, Virginia would stay in the Union. Lincoln's reply was, "You're too late". Lincoln had already taken action in the form of an invasion fleet to occupy both the harbor and the city of Charleston so duties and tariffs could continue to be collected. The Maryland secession convention opted not to secede, but did pass a proclamation urging Lincoln to recognize the CSA. For that, Maryland was militarily occupied and her elected civilian government overthrown.

As I stated previously, the CSA commenced with just seven members. Nobody in the north shared your phony outrage concerning what the fate of the slaves would be. Which brings me to my next point...There were many other parties in the south who had a stake in the game other than slaves and their owners. You fail to consider the 85% white southerners who did not own slaves. The Hamiltonian policies of the north hurt them worse than anyone. They deserved to alter their form of government if they chose to, They withdrew their consent to be governed by the U.S.A. any longer. They were resisting the same kind of imperial mercantilist economic policies that their colonial forefathers had. Every Hamiltonian/Federalist/Whig/Republican economic policy destroyed their ability to get ahead. They were Jeffersonian republicans who wanted to be free. The dream of living in a country not enslaved by unfair tariff policies was within their reach.

The absence of just seven cotton states from the Union sent the northern economy into a tailspin. Northern shipping countries began relocating to the low tariff CSA. Global commerce began bypassing high tariff northern ports in favor of the CSA's low tariff ports. Tax revenue for northern "internal improvements" dried up. The big-business banks and capitalists that you despise so much demanded war to remedy their situation, and they got what they demanded from Lincoln.

So no, we will not move our monuments to museums. Those who fought to insure my state's independence should and must be honored on the public square, until the people of my state say otherwise. We will honor those who fought to maintain the form of government given to us in the 1800 Jeffersonian Revolution.

You present theories, guesses, and comparisons-for-effect, but you are ignoring what we have by what we see in crystal clear black and white.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It does matter. You theorize that the slave trade would have ended and so it isn't important that the Confederacy established a slave holder's republic.

We're saying that the Confederates deliberately established a slave holder's republic in their own Constitution and by their own words. Actual factual documentation. Their own constitution.

You present theories, guesses, and comparisons-for-effect, but you are ignoring what we have by what we see in crystal clear black and white.

Oh, so the demand for southern cotton would never have diminished? Abolitionist European trading partners would not have brought economic pressure to bear upon the CSA? Automation would not have made slavery obsolete? And btw, had the south stayed in the union, the original 13th amendment forever protecting slavery would have become law. Had the original CSA with just seven members been allowed to exist in peace, the upper south would not have joined them and most-likely would have liberated their slaves much sooner than the CSA. But again, it is foolish to judge a past people by our standards. Outrage over modern injustice does not mean one understands complex issues of the 19th century.

[Esaias]

Why try to debate with communists and other people bent on destroying your heritage by any means necessary? Makes no sense.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Why try to debate with communists and other people bent on destroying your heritage by any means necessary? Makes no sense.

Indeed. A fence post is easier to reason with.

[Amanah]

forget the world, get your eyes on Jesus and the church and making an impact in our world

Attachment 5965

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

See this is what you don't understand. Far MOST (there is always exceptions) of us southerners our rebel pride is not what you assume rebel pride is. NO one I know would own another human. MOST everyone I know would help ANYONE in need. You see folks like me through the lens of stereotypical B. S. Rebel pride is about more of an ol country lifestyle. Its about dirt roads mud riding fourwheeling vs. concrete and steel of big city and suburbia!

I don't see anything wrong with the elements of "Southern pride" as you describe them. But those things are not unique to the South.

Here in Ohio we have a Midwestern "country" feel woven throughout the tapestry our state. We have dirt roads, plenty of pickups, plenty of four-wheeling, in addition to some larger cities (most of which are dwarfed in comparison by cities in the South). The backbone of our state is found in small town America where family businesses are a way of life, unions are strong, and flags line the streets throughout the Summer. We revel in our share of apple festivals, strawberry festivals, ale festivals, and harvest festivals. In towns like Van Wert, you can almost smell the apple pie on a clear sunny day, and you see laundry hanging in the breeze on posts in the backyards of old American homes. Almost every house in town has an American flag flying out front. Here in these small towns, they love people. The love everybody. They don't care if you're red, yellow, black, white, male, female, young, old, religious, non-religious, it doesn't matter because you're an American. They invite you to church nearly every Sunday if you aren't attending anywhere. And churches get along and compete in local softball leagues. The barber shop is like the local men's social club. Boys listen intently during a haircut as men talk about news, sports, politics, and women. Many still believe in Social Security and the promises of the New Deal. They believe everybody deserves a fair shake. They have a deep and almost patriotic dislike for corporations like Walmart, because every time one opens, local mom and pop stores suffer. Families suffer. And wages drop. They want to protect Medicare and Medicaid. Most remember the glory of strong factories and a strong middle class, blue-collar, America. We're almost split right down the middle as it relates to being Democrat or Republican. The Democrats here can be rather conservative and the Republicans tend to be rather moderate. The people of Ohio tend to like small towns, family farms, mills, covered bridges, and corn mazes. And there is an “American Pride” that cannot be denied.

We are a part of what is known as the Midwest. We're Americans. And we're loyal to the ideals that made America great down to our core. The "rebels" rebelled against the Union that proved to be the seed bed of what we know today as American ideals. They became enemies of the United States. They became a threat to our Constitution and everything our Founders held dear. As a result, we ain't impressed by the "rebel" flag or all the Dixie talk. We don't need it. We're perfectly content with being, American.

I think it is important to draw a distinction between "Rebel Pride" and "American Pride".

Let's not confuse the two.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Oh, so the demand for southern cotton would never have diminished? Abolitionist European trading partners would not have brought economic pressure to bear upon the CSA? Automation would not have made slavery obsolete? And btw, had the south stayed in the union, the original 13th amendment forever protecting slavery would have become law. Had the original CSA with just seven members been allowed to exist in peace, the upper south would not have joined them and most-likely would have liberated their slaves much sooner than the CSA. But again, it is foolish to judge a past people by our standards. Outrage over modern injustice does not mean one understands complex issues of the 19th century.

Bro, read the Confederate Constitution and Compare it to the U.S. Constitution. Anyone with half a brain can clearly see that the Confederacy sought to establish slavery in perpetuity.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Bro, read the Confederate Constitution and Compare it to the U.S. Constitution. Anyone with half a brain can clearly see that the Confederacy sought to establish slavery in perpetuity.

No, it sought to establish parameters. Had it been designed to establish slavery in perpetuity, there would have been no provisions inserted to allow for its abolishment.

Furthermore, you ignored the actual points I made in the post you purport to answer here. Admit it, your real problem with southerners is that we are the biggest bastion and obstacle from socialism taking over the entire nation. You don't care about slavery or blacks one way or another.